Well PH, I suppose Aristotelian logic is not to everybody's taste. Especially these days. But the fact that your thought process broke down somewhere between points 4 and 5 is a bit surprising to me, I must say. I had thought you were rather a fan of Aristotle.
Now, now, BB [image of PH wagging finger]. Let's not do that again, or I'll have to send you to your room.
I didn't like the guy's argument. Not because of his conclusions, but because his work is laden with fallacies. I found that buried deep in his complex verbiage were errors that snuck in all kinds of conclusions that he later pulled out of his hat. Each time he announced one of his interim "conclusions," I found myself asking: "Where that that come from?" As I read through his prose, I found several such issues. But it's a great deal of work, and it takes time, to dig into a swamp like that and to describe his problems with clarity. I don't have the time.
I'm not asking you to accept my word for anything. And it's really not fair for me to wave his stuff aside and ask you to trust me. So I won't do that. But please, let's have no more of this "I suppose logic isn't to your liking" stuff. You're much better than that.
If Overman actually had a logical proof of something, if he had anything more than a sack of multisyllabic smoke, I would be the first to recognize it and to tell you so.