[Hajman]

I looked through my last copy of "Science News", and I find not a single syllogism. If you can point one out to me in any natural science journal, please feel free to do so, since you appear to have declined my suggestion that you supply one from the arguments here.

It's logical if it flows in a reasonable manner (breaking no logical rules). It doesn't need formal syntax in order to be logical. As long as it doesn't break any logical rules, it's logically valid.

What most people mean is "sensible" when they say logical, as in this case.

I don't. I'm using actual logic. People who only try to be sensible may or may not have good arguments (for example, emotional arguments may seem sensible to some, but they arn't necessarily good arguments: such as "It's for the children"). Don't confuse the sensible with a good solid argument. Are you telling me that you're arguments only have to be "sensible", but not solid?

-The Hajman-

[tallhappy]

I have realized something about donh. He/she is a nutcase.

And an ignorant one.

He/she is obviously not interested in discourse grounded in knowledge or consistent argument.