Your syllogism, HoT, is (almost) impeccable. It rests however on the sadly erroneous assumption that I have hair. To speak of. Had Rusty hair, doubtless blue 'twould be. As it is, it's Rusty who's hairlessly blue.

While we're twisting threads, and speaking of lawyers in Alice Springs, I'll take this opportunity to pass on a linguistic inquiry by one of our judges earlier in the week. In the course of sentencing a local miscreant for a car sale fraud, in which vehicles were stolen in, say, Brisbane, and spirited to the outback with false plates and badges etc to be sold - a scam known as 'rebirthing' - His Honour said:

Nevertheless, in the scheme of things, his relative role in the conspiracy was comparatively minor. He did not engineer the scheme, finance it, cause the vehicles to be stolen, or the vehicles to be rebirthed - or is it reborn?

Well?