Let Heaven and Webmaster forgive me, but I cannot resist:
The accusation that I have called anyone fool here is another logical fallacy
Language has two forms of logic: the objective, and the implied.
How presumptuous of me to imply that you have thought I was a fool - not outright "illogical", but certainly presumptuous.
I wrote:
By this stage in the proceedings, we are both calling each other 'fool'
See past my "illogical" presumption - how kind, I am not a fool in your eyes - and the reader is left with a statement of the "logical" deduction that has been drawn by the speaker as to the other party.
Oh, how the British relish implied logic.
The point of all this: does it ever occur to you that language is more than cold words on a page; that it has a subjective vibrancy of context and subtext and innuendo that transcends pure philosophical logic? How can you, if you purport to be such a defender of objective logic, be satisfied with any...any...blurring of meaning in the use of words that then calls for fuzzy 'subjective' interpretation??