Thank you and I do. Already this line: " P and not P; that is,
   being and not being. not (P or not P); that is, neither being
   nor not being. It is interesting to note that under
   propositional logic, De Morgan's laws imply that the fourth case
   (neither P nor not P) is equivalent to the third case (P and not
   P), and is therefore superfluous." De Morgan's laws'
   implications of "neither nor not" is equivalent to "not" -
   REALLY, to me, puts a missing spot in propositional logic.
   There's several fallacies that really aren't fallacies at all,
   but they're based upon a limitation of the system being worked
   within.