Reply #116: Hmmm. You claim to believe in using logic as a tool but apparently

[struggle4progress]

take a dislike to it when it is employed against your views on logic. Your objection seems to include a distaste for "ultra-precise word definitions and word usage" which, of course, are supposedly characteristic of logic. You further seem displeased with any argumentation that proceeds too slowly.

I suspect that you would find (if you cared to inquire into the matter) that many people, whom you regard as unwashed illogical ignorami, object to logic on precisely the same grounds: first, they will not regard any disagreement as logical or cogent in response to their views; second, that they (like you) dislike "ultra-precise word definitions and word usage"; and finally, they (like you) become impatient with argumentation that proceeds too slowly for their tastes.

I am sorry you believe I am missing your point, because it seems to me that I have been responding directly and carefully to the real issues underlying your post.

But it seems clear at this point that I cannot expect much more from your responses than strange claims, such as your claim to have seen "sufficient examples outside of anything you've written in this thread to use as sources for the 'astral projection' ~snip~ ... yes, that part was aimed squarely at you" (despite the fact that I've never posted anything anywhere about astral projection), which you try to cover over by simultaneously disavowing any intent to attribute beliefs to me.