Hi, Todd. You wrote: 1. "What you've studied, I've studied, or anyone else has in this context just doesn't matter. Your arguments still don't hold water." What a person has studied matters in a context if, in that context, he offers a critique about a topic specific to a field of study.  In this case, the field of study is logic.  In post "Re:Re:Re:Categorical Logic & Either/Or. Topic: Epistemology." dated 07/11/2003 05:11:33, you wrote: 2. "Specifically, they [complementary predicates] do not exhuastively and exclusively partition the set to which they apply". When I read the post dated 07/11/2003 05:11:33, I glanced at your statement quoted in (2).  I have requested that you present a specific kind of logical analysis of my discussion, because you earlier stated that my some of my premises were poor, but you didn't go into sufficient detail. You declined my request, but are continuing to post to me in this thread.  So, here is my response to your statement quoted in (2).  May it be of interest to you. I interpret your statement in quote (2) to imply that: 3. a set and its partition set do not exhaustively partition the universe of objects. Statement (3) is false.  Given the example of the sets of caucasians and non-caucasians, even if someone were (don't know if its possible) both caucasian and non-caucasian, that person is still part of the universe of objects partitioned by the sets termed "caucasian" and "non-caucasian".  It seems likely that a person would call herself caucasian in a fraction, according to the ethnicity of her ancestry.  So, for example, someone might be 1/2 caucasian and 1/2 hispanic.  But, then, that person is, out of all the fractional caucasian sets, a member of the 1/2 caucasian set, which is a partition of the non-(full_)caucasian set. I interpret your statement in quote (2) to also imply that: 4. a set and its partition do not exclusively partition the universe of objects. Usually, it's when thinking sloppily, or talking casually, that a person makes a proposition like (5) below.  Factually, people in the United States make statements like: 5. I'm both caucasian and not caucasian when it's convenient, in conversation, to do so. But proposition (5) might never be true, by some conventional definition of caucasian.  Not that it matters - a more important example might be appropriate.  How about proposition (6) below. 6. I'm both a NLPer and a non-NLPer. I claim that proposition (6) can't be true, for any person, given a useful definition of "NLPer".  If you (or anyone) want to disagree with my claims about proposition (6), then I welcome your reply to this post. But my discussion mainly concerns either/or distinctions for which some partitions of a complement set are excluded from consideration.  I, personally, find proposition (7), below, to be true. 7. Contrary predicates pairs (happy/unhappy, black/white, ...) are usually what people select from when they make an either/or distinction mistake.  My discussion in this thread is mainly intended to make an argument for claim (8). 8. Categorical logic does not force or motivate an error in reasoning, an error in which a person selects from a contrary predicate pair, while ignoring other, equally valid, partitions of a complement set, in favor of one of the complement_set partitions named by a predicate from the contrary predicate pair.  So thank you for your ongoing critique of my discussion.  Your feedback has been helpful.  After reading this last reply from you, I've decided that, in an article version of my discussion, I will explicitly limit my discussion to the problem of reasoning mentioned in proposition (7). If there is another problem of reasoning, related to either/or distinctions, that you think is important, present it, provided that you think proposition (9), below, is true for that problem of reasoning.   9.  The problem of reasoning is forced by object categorizing, object categorizing that is a result of correctly formalizing a natural-language argument into categorical logic form. In your posts to this thread, I have not found any example of a problem of reasoning that meets the description (9). -nj