Probably, but the closure would make the whole argument worthwhile--and tell me that you are someone who can be argued with, rather than a moving target who slyly slips from position to position to avoid clarity.
I never could. Just when I thought I'd wrangled things around to some area of agreement I'd find myself faced with jumping through those two slits again, as if the previous conversation never took place. It appeared to be more argument for the sake of argument than actually trying to communicate something worthwhile. When I asked point blank if fallacies were valid and the answer came back 'no' I realized the impossibility of the situation and did something I rarely do, gave it up as futile. First I watched PH go through the same wrangling, (but I know he had followed what I had gone through so he knew what he was getting into and must have some purpose in mind) and then noticed you entrapped. You have some very interesting answers to this nonsense, so it has been fruitful for me to see yet another angle of refutation, but don't beat your head against the wall, man.
And I think I've answered your question. A discussion between the two of us would probably be rather boring since I think we are both on the same side of the fence.
Fascinating words coming from someone whose made a lifetime thesis out of the supposedly exclusive exacting definition of a word, to the exclusion of an actual sensible response to the meat of the question.