Not in my experience.... ;-)
As for your posts, LW, I confess that I see a lot of my old self in them. There is a certain pleasure in raising your own personal mind above everything else in the universe, and calling it "logic." As I said, I recognize myself in this ... and it's somewhat embarrassing to watch. The problem is, you don't know everything -- none of us does -- and so even your "logical" worldview is based primarily on faith that others are correct, even for most of the stuff you'd say "we" know. You're excoriating A-G and betty for their "assertions," but somehow you are unable to see that you're guilty of the same thing.
The fact of the matter is, there are things even in our own experience that are not fully accessible through logic. Indeed, your discussion with Alamo-Girl should stand as proof of that -- she is saying things that you reject as "not logically provable." Of course, you also cannot logically prove they are wrong, and have said as much. As such, regardless of which one of you is ultimately correct (if either of you is), there are certain things that are simply inaccessible to your logic. That's a serious problem for your position -- indeed, fatal, as it contradicts your claim.
Logic also has a very difficult time dealing with things like poetry, music, or painting. There are certain mechanical and/or logical processes associated with these arts, but their real power lies in their evocation of something deep within us -- and the responses they evoke are not fixed even for the individuals who see or hear them. Probably the worst "art criticism" I ever read was some objectivist attempting to deal with a piece of abstract art. I don't recall the piece now, but it was actually quite good -- just not accessible to the objectivist who was lamely attempting to savage it on the grounds of its "irrationality," which I took as a confession that this particular critic simply didn't like abstract art, and was trying to dress up a visceral response in an intellectual tuxedo.