Another truism and another type of non-sequitur

When things are in a list, attributes of one are assumed for all:

Bob has red hair and john has red hair but terry has brown hair.

Also, the list related non-sequitur:

Bob has red hair and terry is from Maryland.

To be in a list, with only two items is a bit ambiguous. So

Bob has red hair and terry has brown hair

Is almost OK. It could also be

Bob has red hair but terry has brown hair

Maybe I should acknowledge a weak form of "but",

Update: Possibly at the expense of subtlety, lets try to make this clearer: a "list" pattern is established when a shared property is found in the first two, or more, elements of a list. They are connected by the word 'and'. The first time the pattern is violated, requires a 'but'. It is noted that some patterns allow for a constant portion and a variable portion. So hair color is constant but the actual color is not, in the last example. I would focus on the first example as the only one that is a real truism.

For the record, here is the current list of truisms.

(X->Y)_/[place, time, manner]   (Events are local)

X->person::person_/feeling      (Affects cause feelings)

person_/feeling::person->Y      (Passion evokes action)

(person->Y)_/[GOOD]             (Actions are efficient)

(X->Y)_/GOOD::Y_/GOOD          (Efficient actions produce good)

X_/A::X_/[A]                    (Attributes are constant)

N(X), N(Y), [N(Z)]              (List patterns are constant)

X_/A_/GOOD::X_/B_/GOOD          (Value transfers between attributes)

X_/(+/-) :: Y_/(+/-)            (Polarity transfers between things)

X* :: X                        (Conflict is resolved)

N([Z]),Z (The implicit can become explicit)

N([Z]*)::Z                      (The blocked implicit must become explicit)