This chapter focuses on the logical revisionism initiated by Putnam’s rejection of CL in QM. One argument, due to Rumfitt, denies the very possibility of this revisionism, on rational grounds. Another, due to Williamson, claims that revisionism is either inconsistent or explanatorily too costly. Both of these recent arguments are shown to be unsound, although neither QL, nor revisionism is thereby supported. An older argument, due to Hellman, opposes revisionism on semantic grounds, related to the non-truth-functionality of QL connectives. But only a significantly improved version of this argument is shown to provide a sufficient reason to refute Putnam’s revisionism.