I'm just quoting you guys here; I certainly never did!
Who are you quoting?
Psssh, flimsy at best.
Well I'm convinced.
This doesn't address the issue.
There isn't anything to address. You don't even define what "magic" is.
It is a superior theory because it doesn't strain to make up cogent explanations for what we observe.
Maybe you should read the wiki a bit more then. I point you to the explanation of sunsets and the EA as examples of completely straining credulity.
At least UA is consistent with what we observe, whether it is the correct theory or not.
UA does not explain the heterogeneity of gravitational measurements on Earth. It's actually a non-starter because it does not match any observation. The observations that falsify it have been around for centuries, and specifically the last century has shown it to be utterly impossible without some serious modification, which is non-existent, unless Tausami decides to show up.
Gravity is simply not consistent with what we observe!
It is completely consistent and extremely accurate at a wide variety of scales and has been perfectly successful at modelling and predicting a great number of phenomena. You really should have said, "Gravity is simply not consistent with everything we observe!" That would actually be a statement that could be taken seriously. It isn't consistent at extremely large and extremely small scales, as has been already mentioned, for reasons that no one can state with confidence. Obviously this is where the most important science will happen, and it will be found that indeed there is some aspect of the fundamental interaction called gravity that needs to be thrown out or modified, I hope it will happen.