agit-prop, opinion manipulation and well-poisoning games Epistemology (the study of knowledge and its conditions) Ethics Logic and First Principles of right reason Philosophy

L&FP, 58a: Dallas Willard, on knowledge and its significance: “knowledge authorizes one to act, to direct action, to develop and supervise policy, and to teach”

Spread the love

In his posthumous book (completed by colleagues), Willard makes a key observation on knowledge, one that challenges a power-obsessed, agenda driven era that is dismissive of objectivity rooted in good warrant:

To have knowledge . . . is to be able to represent something as it is on an adequate basis of thought or experience, not to exclude communications from qualified sources (“authority”) . . . . knowledge authorizes one to act, to direct action, to develop and supervise policy, and to teach. It does so because, as everyone assumes, it enables us to deal more successfully with reality: with what we can count on, have to deal with, or are apt to have bruising encounters with. Knowledge involves assured truth . . . [pp. 19, 20 and 4, Dallas Willard & Literary Heirs, The Disappearance of Moral Knowledge, Routledge|Taylor& Francis Group, 2018. ]

Obviously, to have the aura of knowledge confers power, legitimate power. So, in an age where the inferior substitute, skepticism has been put in the place of prudence (a cardinal virtue pivoting on balanced, well grounded soundly informed moderation), it is easy for knowledge to become captive to institutional power agendas, celebrity and cynical selective hyperskepticism.

When one hears, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” for example, one should note that that is little more than a cynical policy of suspicion of the despised other. Clearly, all that is reasonably required is adequate and responsible evidence . . . including, the frank acknowledgement of limitations of knowledge. To know where one does not know can be most important, albeit negative, knowledge. (Beyond the known unknowns of course, as we are now well aware — thanks to Donald Rumsfeld — lurk the unknown unknowns.)

Now, Willard’s statement is closely related to the weak form definition rooted in common usage, knowledge is warranted, credibly true (so, reliable) belief. The adequate base of thought and experience is of course, adequate warrant and good reliability. The significance of authority, starting with the dictionary and one’s teachers, is that as C S Lewis rightly observed, 99% of practical argument relies on authority. This includes Science, few of us have reproduced for ourselves the bodies of experimental, observational and analytical chains in the the fields of science we learn and practice. We must therefore recognise the pessimistic induction, thus that scientific theories do not attain to moral certainty of truth; though, their empirical reliability in a given range may well be morally certain. The sting in the tail, here, being that many known false models have similar reliability. (If you want a key case in point, ponder Newtonian Dynamics in a quantum and relativistic world.)

There is a further claim by Willard that I would adjust or at least moderate: “[k]nowledge involves assured truth.”

Once we see that the common use of knowledge — with science as key case — involves both confidence in reliability and possibility of correction, that may go or at least suggest a step too far. If what is implied is that an established body of truth on the whole is credibly more true than in need of onward correction, perhaps. But, it must be open to such correction otherwise we can fall into closed minded adherence to error.

Perhaps, we can soften to, knowledge involves well founded credibility and confident belief in that credibility. Hence, credibly true (and so reliable) belief. Obviously, for cause, that credibility can be withdrawn, but stands as the case today.

This brings us back to the point in L&FP, 58; announced in its headline: “[k]nowledge (including scientific knowledge) is not a simple concept.” END

52 Replies to “L&FP, 58a: Dallas Willard, on knowledge and its significance: “knowledge authorizes one to act, to direct action, to develop and supervise policy, and to teach”

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    L&FP, 58a: Dallas Willard, on knowledge and its significance: “knowledge authorizes one to act, to direct action, to develop and supervise policy, and to teach”

  2. 2
    chuckdarwin says:

    Donald Rumsfeld as epistemologist. That is a scary thought…..

  3. 3
    jerry says:

    it enables us to deal more successfully with reality

    Probably less than 10% of what is true affects our life from day to day.

    Certainly the truth about Evolution. OOL, the universe or a creator has near zero effect. That’s why William Briggs can write a book titled “ Everything You Believe Is Wrong” and be truthful about people. Most of what is true has no day to day relevance.

    People here at UD argue over minutiae continually that affects their current life not one iota. I have been in groups discussions on the meaning of life etc. theoretically, the biggest question of all. Because there little appreciation of the actual truth, they tend to go nowhere.

    If someone offered individuals a million dollars and they saw it happening if they believed something, everyone would fall in line. But no one see much greater rewards actually happening. Our senses only see this world not some promised future one. So that’s all we act on.

    Since everything else is carefully designed, that is most likely by design too. But why is it that is never discussed? Instead we get answers to absurd questions and zingers.

    However,

    https://www.cartoonstock.com/cartoon?searchID=CC35522

    And one believes.

  4. 4
    kairosfocus says:

    CD, he actually simply stated in public a truism of strategic management. We get maximum uncertainty [beyond risk where we can estimate probabilities] with what we don’t even know that we don’t know. But, following Talib’s Black Swan theory, there might be things we should have picked up on but didn’t. KF

    PS, Wikipedia has been shown the thumbscrews again:

    Rumsfeld’s statement brought much fame and public attention to the concepts of known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns, but national security and intelligence professionals have long used an analysis technique referred to as the Johari window. The idea of unknown unknowns was created in 1955 by two American psychologists, Joseph Luft (1916–2014) and Harrington Ingham (1916–1995) in their development of the Johari window. They used it as a technique to help people better understand their relationship with themselves as well as others.

    The term was also commonly used inside NASA.[5] Rumsfeld cited NASA administrator William Graham in his memoir; he wrote that he had first heard “a variant of the phrase” from Graham when they served together on the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States during the late 1990s.[6] Kirk Borne, an astrophysicist who was employed as a data scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center at the time, noted in an April 2013 TED talk that he had used the phrase “unknown unknowns” in a talk to personnel at the Homeland Security Transition Planning Office a few days prior to Rumsfeld’s remarks, and speculated that the term may have percolated up to Rumsfeld and other high-ranking officials in the defense department.[7]

    The terms “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns” are often used in project management and strategic planning[8] circles.

    Known unknowns refers to “risks you are aware of, such as canceled flights …”[9]

    Unknown unknowns are risks that come from situations that are so unexpected that they would not be considered.

    PS, every probability save 0/1 is an estimate pivoting on a degree of admitted ignorance. This is in part how, via surprise we get to the negative log probability metric of information. A rather central issue to design inference.

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Let me extend the clip:

    To have knowledge in the dispositional sense—where you know things you are not necessarily thinking about at the time—is to be able to represent something as it is on an adequate basis of thought or experience, not to exclude communications from qualified sources (“authority”). This is the “knowledge” of ordinary life, and it is what you expect of your electrician, auto mechanic, math teacher, and physician. Knowledge is not rare, and it is not esoteric . . . no satisfactory general description of “an adequate basis of thought or experience” has ever been achieved. We are nevertheless able to determine in many specific types of cases that such a basis is or is not present [p.19] . . . .

    Knowledge, but not mere belief or feeling, generally confers the right to act and to direct action, or even to form and supervise policy. [p. 20]

    In any area of human activity, knowledge brings certain advantages. Special considerations aside, knowledge authorizes one to act, to direct action, to develop and supervise policy, and to teach. It does so because, as everyone assumes, it enables us to deal more successfully with reality: with what we can count on, have to deal with, or are apt to have bruising encounters with. Knowledge involves assured truth, and truth in our representations and beliefs is very like accuracy in the sighting mechanism on a gun. If the mechanism is accurately aligned—is “true,” it enables those who use it with care to hit an intended target. [p. 4, Dallas Willard & Literary Heirs, The Disappearance of Moral Knowledge, Routledge|Taylor& Francis Group, 2018. ]

    KF

    PS, the issues surrounding the ID debates include nature strengths and limits of science, impact of ideologies, origins of our race and of the world of life as well as the cosmos, so too ultimates.

  6. 6
    chuckdarwin says:

    KF
    I’m not naive. As a litigator, risk management was an integral part of my career for over three decades. Unknown unknowns are lovingly referred to as “land mines.” However, citing Rumsfeld as a source for knowledge management principles, is beyond the pale. With the possible exception of Robert McNamara, Rumsfeld, IMO, was the single most inept and incompetent defense secretary in US history……

  7. 7
    kairosfocus says:

    CD, I did NOT cite DR as an original source, only as a populariser. Which, he most certainly was, he made the phrase into a household word. Observe:

    Beyond the known unknowns of course, as we are now well aware — thanks to Donald Rumsfeld — lurk the unknown unknowns.

    And even if he had been the innovator of such a powerfully descriptive phrase [which he explicitly denied, crediting others], he would have been on the money on this point. The attack the man to dismiss the point rhetorical move is a notorious fallacy; one that is far too common today.

    Now, the wider point at that stage of my argument was “[t]o know where one does not know can be most important, albeit negative, knowledge.” That speaks to known unknowns, itself an achievement. Beyond, lie the unknown unknowns, even more radical ignorance and uncertainty.

    Going further, there IS someone I cite as a significant voice on key epistemological matters. Are you going to hold the fact that he was an Evangelical against him? Or, will you acknowledge that his key remark is of significant value:

    To have knowledge in the dispositional sense—where you know things you are not necessarily thinking about at the time—is to be able to represent something as it is on an adequate basis of thought or experience, not to exclude communications from qualified sources (“authority”). This is the “knowledge” of ordinary life, and it is what you expect of your electrician, auto mechanic, math teacher, and physician. Knowledge is not rare, and it is not esoteric . . . no satisfactory general description of “an adequate basis of thought or experience” has ever been achieved. We are nevertheless able to determine in many specific types of cases that such a basis is or is not present [p.19] . . . .

    Knowledge, but not mere belief or feeling, generally confers the right to act and to direct action, or even to form and supervise policy. [p. 20]

    I think he is on the money here, noting where I think knowledge, weak sense, is better seen as what on warrant is credibly true (so reliable) but open to correction.

    Do you have anything to say on this, or on the point that due to such issues, knowledge is not a simple concept? Which, implies that among other things, scientific knowledge claims must be held in ways that acknowledge such factors.

    KF

  8. 8
    kairosfocus says:

    PS, on matters geostrategic, what realistic alternative would you have put up, and with what likely consequences, short and longer term? On what grounds? I say this, not to sidetrack but to highlight the knowledge issue implied, on alternatives. [And BTW, taking in the post 1945 era, what would you have to say of Mr McNamara and successors? My own observation is that the UK understood long term strategic commitments in ways the US never has, and has done so for at least 300+ years, likely far more. Should I note, that c 1945, they WON their Vietnam war and did so using surrendered Japanese troops, then handed over to the French? Civilisational consequences, potentially fatal ones, pivot on that difference.]

  9. 9
    relatd says:

    CD at 6,

    What do you know about Robert McNamara? Do you know his background? Set in historical context, he was just part of a mechanism that he would soon learn was out of his control.

  10. 10
    relatd says:

    Jerry at 3,

    That was totally incoherent. People need truth – daily. They need to sort the true from the false – daily. Do you think people should make any decision with only 10% of the facts?

  11. 11
    jerry says:

    The most amazing fact on UD in a long time.

    ChuckDarwin is a lawyer. Would anyone want somebody so consistently wrong representing them?

  12. 12
    Alan Fox says:

    My own observation is that the UK understood long term strategic commitments in ways the US never has…

    The UK? Soon to become The United Kingdom of England and Wales? 😉

  13. 13
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: When one hears, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” for example, one should note that that is little more than a cynical policy of suspicion of the despised other.

    While the phrase can be used in that sense the basic idea is: if you propose something that runs counter to things we already know that have longstanding support then you’re going to have to have some pretty strong, extraordinary evidence. Something more than just a hint or a possibility.

    This is a typical stance in many areas of knowledge. I was just watching a programme, Fake or Fortune?, which looks at works of art that might be ascribable to well known, famous artists but have not been accepted as such so far. To convince the experts you have to go a bit further: you have to have scientific, stylistic, historical evidence and pretty strong evidence at that.

    I often think about the contention that we have been visited by alien beings. You can say: well, maybe they have overcome all the limitations we see, maybe they’ve discovered faster-than-light propulsion, maybe they’ve discovered how to use worm holes, maybe they have learned to fold space, etc. Without strong, compelling, physical evidence it’s all just speculation, science fiction if you will.

    It may not be apparent now but Einstein’s theories of relativity were not just accepted at first. They were argued about, tested, checked, argued about some more.

    Even in mathematics sometimes new ideas are so radical and disruptive that they are not taken onboard at first. Cantor’s ideas were incredibly disputed; some still won’t accept them.

    If you want to overthrow a well supported, widely accepted, working theory then you have to have some strong, extraordinary evidence. And that’s the way it should be. We should not toss away ideas that, heretofore, are working.

  14. 14
    relatd says:

    JVL at 13,

    It depends on the subject. It really does. If it was a historical event then a number of, usually not more that four, credible source documents are required. As someone who studies history, and the use of the internet, two things stand out. The internet teaches – actually teaches – people to be lazy. Real research, which I’ve been doing where I work and for myself, requires a certain method. It’s not go to google and put wiki in front of your search term. These 5 minute “experts” are not “experts” in anything. Another example is a forum I go to with claimed experts. Too many know very little about very little. In other words, they’re stupid.

    In terms of history, new facts may be discovered. It does happen. However, too many average people just go off the most popular or common source material which contradicts this new information. I’ve presented new information about a specific topic and was greeted with “No! It can’t be!” I had the relevant information, but it continued to be “No! It didn’t happen!” So, once an idea becomes “common knowledge” among average people, then anything that contradicts that will get met with people saying it can’t be true – even if you have relevant documentation from a credible source.

  15. 15
    JVL says:

    Relatd: So, once an idea becomes “common knowledge” among average people, then anything that contradicts that will get met with people saying it can’t be true – even if you have relevant documentation from a credible source.

    Yes, quite. I was thinking of the contention that Catharine the Great died as a result of a rather debauched interaction with a horse. Everyone knows the tale but there is no credible evidence it’s true.

    I do try, myself, to consider all the credible evidence, especially if it contradicts a commonly held ‘myth’.

    Obviously some of the interesting and contentious cases are where none of the evidence is definitive or some is contradictory. In which case we should just present all the available evidence and say: we can’t be sure but here are some possibilities. Like: did King Arthur actually exist? Did Mallory get to the peak of Mt Everest? Was Edward Heath gay?

    And then there are cases where one person or party thinks the evidence is strongly in favour of a particular conclusion but there are others who strongly disagree. I’m thinking of the Kennedy assassination and the 2020 US Presidential election. In those cases it’s good if everyone can examine the nature of the evidence without getting too rancorous . . . sadly, not always possible.

  16. 16
    relatd says:

    JVL at 15,

    I’ve seen too many examples of people being unable to ask the right question. On one forum where I go to, the first post on a topic began with a wrong assumption about a “myth.” It is very wrong, unless talking about actual mythology, to assume some historical piece of information was a “myth.” Good research never starts there. The question should be: Did this device or object actually exist? That is a correct question. In my example, the question was related to observation towers used by a certain branch of the German Military during the Second World War. The poster assumed these were mythical. I was able to provide photographic evidence. It turned out the poster was creating a “myth.”

    The Kennedy assassination is very well documented. However, The Warren Commission Report was presented to the public as the entire explanation of what happened. There were also 26 Hearing volumes which included witness and evidence reports. One man did the shooting, he in turn was shot and killed and that’s that.

    Not so fast. An attorney named Mark Lane wrote Rush to Judgment which was released in 1966. Glaring inconsistencies were highlighted. It was clear that The Warren Commission Report failed to include important information about the killing of a much beloved President. It soon became clear that the President had been struck from the front. This was made clear in the book J F K: A Conspiracy of Silence by Dr. Charles Crenshaw. He was called to Trauma Room One when Kennedy was brought in to Parkland Memorial Hospital. He details his observation of his wounds. Finally, Mark Lane returned with another book in 2011: Last Word – My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK.

  17. 17
    JVL says:

    Relatd: In my example, the question was related to observation towers used by a certain branch of the German Military during the Second World War. The poster assumed these were mythical. I was able to provide photographic evidence. It turned out the poster was creating a “myth.”

    I think we agree; I just didn’t make my point as well as I could.

    It soon became clear that the President had been struck from the front. This was made clear in the book J F K: A Conspiracy of Silence by Dr. Charles Crenshaw. He was called to Trauma Room One when Kennedy was brought in to Parkland Memorial Hospital. He details his observation of his wounds. Finally, Mark Lane returned with another book in 2011: Last Word – My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK.

    As you know, there is disagreement about whether or not Kennedy was shot from the front. You might find some arguments compelling while I might find other arguments compelling. IF we chose to discuss the various opinions then I would hope we could do so peacefully and courteously without expecting the other person to change their mind. I’m not suggesting we should have that discussion but I would hope that, if we did, we could consider each other’s points fairly.

  18. 18
    relatd says:

    JVL at 17,

    Either Dr. Crenshaw saw the wounds as he saw them or he did not. That is where the word opinion no longer matters. Dr. Crenshaw had experience with gunshot wounds. However, the President’s body was then taken to a Naval hospital and examined there. X-Rays were taken of the head. Later, those who compared the X-Rays to the wounds they saw concluded that the head was reconstructed in part. No need to discuss this further if you don’t want to.

    In the 1990s. there was alarm in the United States government over a recent poll that showed over 70% of the American people did not believe the official government story about the assassination.

  19. 19
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Either Dr. Crenshaw saw the wounds as he saw them or he did not. That is where the word opinion no longer matters. Dr. Crenshaw had experience with gunshot wounds. However, the President’s body was then taken to a Naval hospital and examined there. X-Rays were taken of the head. Later, those who compared the X-Rays to the wounds they saw concluded that the head was reconstructed in part. No need to discuss this further if you don’t want to.

    Even with his expertise he could have been mistaken. Experiments show that a rear entry (small hole) would tend to create a large exit and an ‘explosive’ force pushing the head backwards. John Lattimer wrote a whole book about his investigation into the shooting and that effect. Have you read it?

    The Kennedy family chose him in 1972 as the first non-governmental expert to examine evidence taken at Kennedy’s autopsy. Lattimer performed ballistic tests and other research to prove that Lee Harvey Oswald was likely the sniper who shot and killed President John F. Kennedy from the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas. Lattimer frequently performed a demonstration of Oswald’s shooting, firing three well-aimed shots within 8.3 seconds with a 6.5×52mm Italian Carcano M91/38 bolt-action rifle, the same as Oswald’s actual weapon and under the same firing conditions. By doing so Lattimer intended to prove that Oswald could have performed such a feat. He continued to perform this demonstration well into his late eighties. Lattimer owned Oswald’s Marine shooting record which he said showed that Oswald was an excellent shot. In 1980, Dr. Lattimer wrote a book: Kennedy and Lincoln: Medical & Ballistic Comparisons of Their Assassinations in which he did an investigation of both the Lincoln and the Kennedy assassinations, and supported the findings of the Warren Commission. In his book, Lattimer theorised that President Kennedy’s arms exhibited the “Thorburn Position” with elbows extended and arms folded inward, as a neurological reaction to the bullet wound to his spine.

    You can still find his book on eBay; I have a copy.

    Also, there are those who dispute Dr Crenshaw’s claims and he himself seemingly backed off from some of them:

    https://www.jfk-assassination.net/crenshaw.htm

    How does Crenshaw know such things? According to the book, he had a central role in treating Kennedy. Yet when the New York Times called up Crenshaw in reponse to his book, he backed away from the book’s claims as to how central he was, saying that Hansen and Shaw “took poetic license” on this issue. Crenshaw “admitted . . .that the role he played in Kennedy’s case was minor.” See the Times of May 26, 1992

    Then there is Crenshaw’s “Conspiracy of Silence” thesis. For Crenshaw:
    Every doctor who was in Trauma Room 1 had his own reasons for not publicly refuting the ‘official line’ . . . . I believe there was a common denominator in our silence — a fearful perception that to come forward with what we believed to be the medical truth would be asking for trouble. . . . Whatever was happening was larger than any of us. I reasoned that anyone who would go so far as to eliminate the President of the United States would surely not hesitate to kill a doctor. (pp. 153-154.)
    This is almost breathtaking in its absurdity. Crenshaw published a book in 1992 claiming he was breaking a “conspiracy of silence.” Yet the other Parkland doctors had been talking their heads off for nearly 30 years by this time. Many have talked to conspiracy authors like Groden, Lifton and Livingstone. Their statements can be seen in books like Six Seconds in Dallas, High Treason, High Treason II, and Best Evidence. They can be seen in videos such as The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Bob Groden’s The Case for Conspiracy, and NOVA’s Who Shot JFK? Most have given statements that — if they have been quoted accurately — imply a conspiracy. The conspiracy writers (including Gary Aguilar) know this, because the have been quoting these doctors extensively!

    For example, Crenshaw claims he literally ran to the Emergency Room with Dr. McClelland, and that he and McClelland approached Dr. Perry (who was already treating Kennedy) together. See pages 73-78. He describes the head wound, and then recounts:

    I also identified a small opening about the diameter of a pencil at the midline of his throat to be an entry bullet hole. There was no doubt in my mind about that wound. I had seen dozens of them in the emergency room. At that point, I knew that he had been shot at least twice. (p. 79)
    Unfortunately for Crenshaw, McClelland told the Warren Commission that the tracheostomy was already begun and the throat wound obliterated when he arrived. The following is from 6H32:
    Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe, if anything, as to the status of the neck wound when you first arrived?
    Dr. McCLELLAND. The neck wound, when I first arrived, was at this time converted into a tracheotomy incision. The skin incision had been made by Dr. Perry, and he told me—although I did not see that—that he had made the incision through a very small, perhaps less than one quarter inch in diameter wound in the neck.

    Perry confirmed McClelland’s account when he told the Warren Commission that, at the time he began the tracheostomy, McClelland was not present and he (Perry) instructed that he be called (3H369). He also said that McClelland arrived “shortly after” he had entered the neck (3H370). Further, Perry said that he and Carrico were the only people who saw the unaltered wound, and McClelland did not see the wound (3H377).
    So either Crenshaw’s claim to have entered the ER with McClelland is untrue, or his claim to have seen the unaltered neck wound is untrue. Since McClelland confirms that he entered the Emergency Room with Crenshaw (6H31), it seems that Cranshaw gave a vivid description of a throat wound he never saw.

    It’s important to consider ALL the evidence. And in complicated and fast moving situations like a President being treated for fatal head wounds things get messy and missed.

    In the 1990s. there was alarm in the United States government over a recent poll that showed over 70% of the American people did not believe the official government story about the assassination.

    Was there that much alarm? When did the congress revisit the event and cast some doubt on the Warren Report?

  20. 20
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL:

    the basic idea is: if you propose something that runs counter to things we already know that have longstanding support then you’re going to have to have some pretty strong, extraordinary evidence. Something more than just a hint or a possibility.

    In attempting to deny the point, you have managed to underscore it.

    The point is, only responsible, adequate warrant is required to show ANYTHING, where the degree of reasonably accesible evidence is that for that sort of thing; typically, matters of fact, observation, record etc.

    And of course, what one “knows” already used as a premise to demand the extraordinary [often, what cannot be obtained for matters of fact etc], in that context will too often amount to refusal to attend to corrective facts. In short, excuse for dogmatism.

    Here is a better view: extraordinary claims require adequate — this includes, reasonably available — evidence.

    Any stronger demand cometh of selective hyperskepticism.

    KF

  21. 21
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: The point is, only responsible, adequate warrant is required to show ANYTHING, where the degree of reasonably accesible evidence is that for that sort of thing; typically, matters of fact, observation, record etc.

    If you consider all the evidence, including longstanding and repeated evidence, then a few anomalous results are not enough to overthrow everything else. That’s the point. You can’t just focus on some anomalies. Take all the data together.

    And of course, what one “knows” already used as a premise to demand the extraordinary [often, what cannot be obtained for matters of fact etc], in that context will too often amount to refusal to attend to corrective facts. In short, excuse for dogmatism.

    I understand that for someone like you who disputes the current widely accepted version of what happened it’s frustrating to feel like you’re not being heard. I get that. But your response should be to find even more evidence to support your views instead of just complaining that people aren’t taking you seriously. Do some research and find more data to support your case!

    Any stronger demand cometh of selective hyperskepticism.

    Always consider all of the available evidence. When there is sufficient quantities to overturn the existing view then things will change. I don’t think you’re there yet. Go find some more evidence.

  22. 22
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, look at the two vids, frame by frame, tell us what you see, what it implies; especially the exploding head. As to other things, I start from what happened in my homeland in the 70s and 80s, complete with the battling narratives. It was in June 76 that my reaction to a parliamentary speech was, I smell a Reichstag burning; I challenge you to get and read a copy of Pearnel Charles’ book, Detained. I smell a burning Reichstag again, and it tells me a lot including whose reports fail the responsibility test. This is a far more dangerous day than many wish to believe. And, the issue pivots on recognising that knowledge is a complex issue that requires prudence. KF

  23. 23
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, dismissiveness to the “anomalous” — a synonym for extraordinary — once it is adequately warranted is precisely the selective hyperkepticism I have highlighted. All that can be required of evidence is what is responsibly, reasonably accessible in fulfillment of first duties of reason: to truth, to right reason, to warrant and wider prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so too to fairness and justice. Go read Detained. KF

  24. 24
    kairosfocus says:

    PS, it seems I need to pose to you this from Lehninger, on a crucial bit of evidence:

    “The information in DNA is encoded in its linear (one-dimensional) sequence of deoxyribonucleotide subunits . . . . A linear sequence of deoxyribonucleotides in DNA codes (through an intermediary, RNA) for the production of a protein with a corresponding linear sequence of amino acids . . . Although the final shape of the folded protein is dictated by its amino acid sequence, the folding of many proteins is aided by “molecular chaperones” . . . The precise three-dimensional structure, or native conformation, of the protein is crucial to its function.” [Principles of Biochemistry, 8th Edn, 2021, pp 194 – 5. Now authored by Nelson, Cox et al, Lehninger having passed on in 1986. Attempts to rhetorically pretend on claimed superior knowledge of Biochemistry, that D/RNA does not contain coded information expressing algorithms using string data structures, collapse. We now have to address the implications of language, goal directed stepwise processes and underlying sophisticated polymer chemistry and molecular nanotech in the heart of cellular metabolism and replication.]

    Let me add, codes [especially complex ones] are language and algorithms are stepwise, goal directed processes, here, embodying sophisticated polymer chemistry. Under normal circumstances they are readily seen as signatures of intelligently directed configuration, for excellent reason. That has been ideologically locked out by Lewontinian a priori imposition of evolutionary materialism as can be documented. If you disagree, kindly show us where, per actual observation, blind chance and mechanical necessity have created complex coded messages and algorithms beyond 500 to 1,000 bits of information carrying capacity. And if you wish to suggest that self replication gives incremental work around, be reminded this first applies to a Darwin warm pond or the like, and that this has been on the table since Paley’s Ch 2 c 1804 on a thought exercise on a self replicating clock. That is, addition of a self replication facility for an automaton showing already a sophisticated metabolic network dwarfing the process flow system in an oil refinery, using molecular nanotech, is a massive further increment of complexity. Your answer: _____________

    And, has it dawned on you that having seen my native land ruined by agit prop, lawfare and 4th gen civil war advanced by subversives with external aid, I might have a little bit of concern to see that averted on a civilisational level?

  25. 25
    relatd says:

    JVL at 19,

    The Movie JFK was released in 1991. In it, Donald Sutherland portrays a Mister X, who was actually L. Fletcher Prouty who served in special operations in the Pentagon before and during the Kennedy Administration. Mister X explains to Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner), an attorney investigating the JFK assassination, how additional security for the Kennedy visit to Dallas was denied. How a certain group in the government had the means, motive and opportunity to carry out the assassination. He resigned his commission in 1964. He discounts any Mafia involvement and makes a succinct point: “Why was Kennedy killed, who benefited, who had the power to cover it up?”

    A bullet was recovered on a stretcher in Parkland Memorial Hospital which was decided to be “the” assassination bullet. It was only partly deformed. It had a very tiny loss of material at the tip. Remember, Governor Connally was also allegedly hit by this same bullet. Bullet fragments were still in his wrist at the time of his death. Assassination researchers approached his wife to ask for permission to examine the wrist. She declined them permission.

    This movie also helped spur:

    “The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 created the Assassination Records Review Board as an independent agency to re-examine for release the assassination-related records that federal agencies still regarded as too sensitive to open to the public. The Board finished its work on September 30, 1998, issued a final report, and transferred all of its records to the National Archives and Records Administration.”

    The evidence points to another conclusion. In brief, more than one shooter. The recovered Mannlicher-Carcano rifle had a misaligned sight. In fact, significant work had to be done to get it into a correct position for use, or ‘sighted in.’

  26. 26
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Though this is only a small slice of the story, try this article on the infamous detention. And yes, at the time the public had no idea of the atrocious conditions, tantamount to psychological torture. Targetting like that is a very bad sign indeed. KF

  27. 27
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N2: The issue as to what knowledge [normal, weak sense] is — warranted, credibly true (so, reliable) belief, and the credibility/ authority/ legitimacy it confers goes to the heart of the cynical attitude of a Pilate about to commit judicial murder: what is truth. That is, substituting a battle of ideological narrative dominance for the challenge of warrant and responsiveness to objective truth shows that corrupt, cynical power classes are long since well aware of the revolutionary, transformational potential of truth and have studied the arts of locking out and suppressing knowledge of truth (including first duties). Let’s listen to the exchange:

    Jn 18: 33 So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” 34 Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” 35 Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?” 36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” 37 Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world— to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” 38 Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”

    Of course, he said to the accusers, I find no guilt in him, but was all too willing to yield to power-pressure and knowingly judicially murdered an innocent man.

    This is foundational, in a foundational document of our civilisation. Complete, with a grim warning as to where cynicism to truth ends up.

    We have no excuse.

    KF

    PS, Let’s add, the general conclusion, exposing what is really going on in our civilisation:

    Jn 3:19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

  28. 28
    Alan Fox says:

    So Andrew Holness and the Jamaica Labour Party are apparently not social democrats but conservatives. They were elected by a landslide in 2020. I’d have guessed Kairosfocus would approve.

  29. 29
    Alan Fox says:

    Michael Manley! There was a character. Fondly remembered in Jamaica till this day, I see.

  30. 30
    Alan Fox says:

    P. J. Patterson, Manley’s Elisha and Jamaica’s longest serving prime minister, left a legacy of economic success that’s pretty impressive.

  31. 31
    kairosfocus says:

    AF, regrettably irrelevant and distractive as usual, I see (especially in the face of the issue of detainee No. 1 c 1976/77: Pearnel Charles). Do you have something substantial to say regarding what is central?

    To have knowledge . . . is to be able to represent something as it is on an adequate basis of thought or experience, not to exclude communications from qualified sources (“authority”) . . . . knowledge authorizes one to act, to direct action, to develop and supervise policy, and to teach. It does so because, as everyone assumes, it enables us to deal more successfully with reality: with what we can count on, have to deal with, or are apt to have bruising encounters with. Knowledge involves assured truth . . . [pp. 19, 20 and 4, Dallas Willard & Literary Heirs, The Disappearance of Moral Knowledge, Routledge|Taylor& Francis Group, 2018. ]

    KF

    PS, FYI, to describe Jamaica after the fiscal policy fiascos of the 70’s (blunders in the teeth of warning) that destroyed the balance of payments position, as an economic success, sadly, does not even pass the giggle test. At best, there has been a long, mostly losing struggle to begin to recover. The path of the J$ exchange rate tells the sad tale. In the ’70’s the biggest J$ bill was $20, now it is $ 5,000 . . . and that is rather roughly 1 1/2 times the same real value. Maybe, in another 40 years.

  32. 32
    Alan Fox says:

    Yes, I think, taken in the round, Michael Manley’s political career is much to be admired.

  33. 33
    kairosfocus says:

    AF, still on tangents. Focal:

    To have knowledge . . . is to be able to represent something as it is on an adequate basis of thought or experience, not to exclude communications from qualified sources (“authority”) . . . . knowledge authorizes one to act, to direct action, to develop and supervise policy, and to teach. It does so because, as everyone assumes, it enables us to deal more successfully with reality: with what we can count on, have to deal with, or are apt to have bruising encounters with. Knowledge involves assured truth . . . [pp. 19, 20 and 4, Dallas Willard & Literary Heirs, The Disappearance of Moral Knowledge, Routledge|Taylor& Francis Group, 2018. ]

    KF

    PS, MNM was not to be admired for this https://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/lead-stories/20201030/why-manley-said-pearnel-charles-was-locked-former-politician-yet-be

  34. 34
    Alan Fox says:

    From the Gleaner article KF links to:

    Charles admitted that he even turned his gun on Manley, pointing it in his face before making an escape amid a hail of stones.

  35. 35
    kairosfocus says:

    AF, in self defence as proved in court. KF

    PS, what you left off:

    Charles was placed under house arrest for the duration of the 1976 state of emergency after he was eventually released from Up Park Camp. He was later freed of serious allegations levelled against him.

    “I felt that Manley, in detaining me, was upset about what had happened [in Nain] because it was rumoured that he said he would catch up on me,” Charles said, highlighting how Manley, as the leader of the National Workers’ Union, led a crowd at the bauxite plant to chase him out, which eventually led to Charles getting punched in the eyes and him shooting one of his attackers called ‘Cookie’.

    Charles admitted that he even turned his gun on Manley, pointing it in his face before making an escape amid a hail of stones.

    Charles said Manley was the chief witness against him during the trial on shooting-related charges.

    He was eventually freed by a jury.

  36. 36
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: The evidence points to another conclusion. In brief, more than one shooter.

    Odd that the person who berates others for being hyperskeptical picks and chooses which evidence he chooses to believe.

    Take all the evidence on board, even that which is contrary to your beliefs. Gerald Posner in Case Closed and Vicent Bugliosi in Reclaiming History have extensively covered and laid out the evidence in the case. They address at least some of the issues you bring up. If you want to be fair, honest and objective then please acknowledge that there are credible views that differ from yours. Otherwise you are just as dogmatic and close-minded as those you criticise.

  37. 37
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, first, you have confused me with Relatd in 25 and have built a castle of innuendoes on air. What I have said is, look frame by frame at the two videos of the event. I particularly pointed to an exploding head, pardon. I do not wish to delve on typical terminal ballistics of entry and exit wounds and wound tracks, especially a couple of months since my cousin was murdered by being shot in the face, in Cayman, with terrible effect. He had been a supt of prisons and was in a shop when gunmen came in to rob it. Kindly, work it out for yourself. KF

  38. 38
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: What I have said is, look frame by frame at the two videos of the event. I particularly pointed to an exploding head, pardon.

    I have looked at those films and read Dr John Lattimer’s book about the ballistics and his experiments showing that the films are consistent with shots coming from the book depository. The very least you can do is to acknowledge that there are credible experts who disagree with your view. The very least.

  39. 39
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, you have not acknowledged your misattribution, nor that your innuendoes are built on air. You do not know my view [which is not what you misattribute to me], I have simply pointed to the key source for direct evidence. KF

    PS, I add my comment in 22: “look at the two vids, frame by frame, tell us what you see, what it implies; especially the exploding head.” I still really don’t want to go into these matters in detail given a recent family tragedy. I note, enhanced video shows a skin hinge with a fair sized part of cranium, obviously top-right of the head, the vicinity of the awful puff of matter.

  40. 40
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: It is clear that there is no effective counter to the core point made by Dallas Willard, as adjusted:

    To have knowledge . . . is to be able to represent something as it is on an adequate basis of thought or experience, not to exclude communications from qualified sources (“authority”) . . . . knowledge authorizes one to act, to direct action, to develop and supervise policy, and to teach. It does so because, as everyone assumes, it enables us to deal more successfully with reality: with what we can count on, have to deal with, or are apt to have bruising encounters with. Knowledge involves [ADJ: warranted, credible] truth . . . [pp. 19, 20 and 4, Dallas Willard & Literary Heirs, The Disappearance of Moral Knowledge, Routledge|Taylor& Francis Group, 2018. ]

    This is highly significant as it decisively undercuts the politicisation of education, media, policy and practice. This, we would do well to heed, but it is probably the case that we will have to go over the cliff before there will be a critical mass to support a return to responsible consensus.

    KF

    PS, let me add a comment on certain tactics above. For argument, assume I am a hypocrite regarding the principles and a supporter of unprovoked threatening of lives — neither of which is so. Would — note, hypothetical conditional — that change one whit on the force of the argument by DALLAS WILLARD? Does it change the force of my suggestion that a weak form view of truth is more reflective of common use? No, and no. So, why were such gambits used, in both cases turning on distortions? Sadly, that reflects the toxic atmosphere that we face, and it tells us that Willard’s point hits close to the mark. We need to restore objectivity pivoting on warrant and recognition that this confers legitimate authority.

    PPS, similarly, I notice that after significant time, those who tried to dismiss recognising code in D/RNA on claimed superior knowledge of biochem clearly have no cogent answer to what is in Lehninger, a well known reference level text. Otherwise, they would have given it. In short they tried a bluff. It has failed. We may freely point to coded, complex algorithms in the heart of the cell and raise the normal import of such. Language, goal directed process, deep knowledge of polymer chemistry. I suggest, it is absurd to suggest without observation of such happening, that such came about by blind chance and mechanical necessity. I go further, this is the real wow signal sought by SETI.

  41. 41
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: I add my comment in 22: “look at the two vids, frame by frame, tell us what you see, what it implies; especially the exploding head.” I still really don’t want to go into these matters in detail given a recent family tragedy. I note, enhanced video shows a skin hinge with a fair sized part of cranium, obviously top-right of the head, the vicinity of the awful puff of matter.

    Consistent with a shot from the book depository as shown by actual experiments done by Dr John Lattimer as fully explained in his book which you can buy on ebay (it’s out of print now).

    Anyway, off to watch the funeral. History being played out.

  42. 42
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, still no acknowledgement of a significant misattribution on which innuendoes were piled up. Sad, but duly noted. KF

    PS, we await response on Willard’s key observations.

  43. 43
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: still no acknowledgement of a significant misattribution on which innuendoes were piled up

    Looking back over the conversation I admit I did misattributed the quote that the evidence points to a different conclusion and for that I apologise.

    After that you continued arguing for a situation which I believe has significant and credible arguments against. And that has been what I have been discussing with you AFTER the initial confusion. You chose to continue following a thread which you did not have to do.

  44. 44
    kairosfocus says:

    I have not argued beyond, go to the evidence, which must control. You are forcing me to delve on matters of personal grief tied to a murder, itself a further problem. View frame 313 and ask regarding evident explosion. KF

  45. 45
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: I have not argued beyond, go to the evidence, which must control.

    Whatever that means. I have explained and pointed to evidence which disagrees with your view. You can choose to look at that data or not but if you ignore it then it’s fair to say you’re not taking all the data into consideration.

    You are forcing me to delve on matters of personal grief tied to a murder, itself a further problem

    I am not forcing you to do anything. Unless you think I can override your free will then you have to acknowledge that it’s up to you to respond or not.

    View frame 313 and ask regarding evident explosion.

    I have already said I have done so and I have already told you why I think the evidence from that frame is explained, via experimental data (source given), by a shot from the book depository. For some reason you keep insisting I have not considered the what you are bringing up when I have said at least three times now how I have taken that information under consideration but come to a different conclusion.

    Please explain why I should continue to respond to your continued objection after already having done so clearly and repeatedly? Can you not accept that a) there might be data you are ignoring and b) someone may, especially if they are taking into account data you are ignoring, come to a different conclusion?

  46. 46
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, first, you have acknowledged misattribution. I have little wish to go on and on a personally painful subject given recent horrific double loss: murdered cousin, uncle dying of the shock — I hope this gives enough to see why it is simply not appropriate to try to stir up prolonged debate on such a topic at this time. It is also sidetracking a key issue. I just note to you that you continue to presume and project a view, a strawman fallacy. Meanwhile, it is clear that Willard’s point is made and that is central. KF

  47. 47
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: I hope this gives enough to see why it is simply not appropriate to try to stir up prolonged debate on such a topic at this time.

    Then why did you bring up frame 313? Several times? You could have just stopped responding. But you didn’t.

    I just note to you that you continue to presume and project a view, a strawman fallacy.

    I don’t see how; I’m just pointing out that there is credible, experimental evidence that the shots came from the book depository. No straw man involved.

  48. 48
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, you seem tone deaf. Okay, I will say a few things. One, the security was botched. Second, the med treatment and autopsy process were inexcusably poor in a forensic context. Third, the convenient rubbing out of Mr Oswald just as he said he was a patsy compounds the matter. Next, the Warren report raises a lot of questions. Fifth, the explosion raises questions as to ammunition and fragmentation etc that also cast questions on the bullet found in the hospital after allegedly passing through two bodies and hitting bones. I wonder about the condition of the rifle and compare the old mad minute 15 rounds per minute rapid standard for the fast action SMLE. There are more issues and FYI, my actual view is that this cannot neatly be tied off, especially with oh everything is readily accounted for by theories X, Y, or Z. Beyond, given targetting of Castro and other fishing in troubled waters, multiplied by associations of the assassin, serious suspicions and questions cannot be neatly disposed of . . . one may doubt but cannot neatly dismiss. In short, tying back to the OP, I am saying negative knowledge is knowledge. Maybe, they were trying to avert Cuba Crisis 2, the assassination, given botched work. Now, please do not try to drag me in further, in a context where my cousin just had the back of his head blown out by a gunman in KY and his dad my uncle died of the shock. It is clear to me from matters above, that you have tried to poison the atmosphere to cloud what should be a reasonably direct main point from Willard, and have been willing to play games with a man still mourning five close deaths; Sunday would have been my brother’s birthday; okay. That speaks, not in your favour. KF

  49. 49
    Alan Fox says:

    my cousin just had the back of his head blown out by a gunman in KY and his dad my uncle died of the shock. It is clear to me from matters above, that you have tried to poison the atmosphere to cloud what should be a reasonably direct main point from Willard, and have been willing to play games with a man still mourning five close deaths; Sunday would have been my brother’s birthday; okay. That speaks, not in your favour. KF

    Whilst I’m very sorry to hear of the manner of your brother’s violent untimely death, why on Earth are you lashing out as if JVL had something to do with it? In fact, why on Earth are you giving out private information on a public blog read by complete strangers?

  50. 50
    kairosfocus says:

    AF, you continue the tin ear problem. First you did not read closely enough to note I was specifically discussing my cousin and uncle (the other three close deaths are unconnected to the murder); when more general remarks were ignored, showing part of the wider picture of loss of basic regard driven by an increasingly polarised atmosphere. That is why I gave a slight increment of detail, in hope that there would be willingness to wake up and go in a different direction. Second, consider reflection on the terminal ballistics of head injury for one with quintuple mourning, all in a context of toxic polarising distraction and targetting based on misattribution and strawman caricature. Of course, it seems there is something in Willard that hits close to home, hence distraction. As for you, you are in continued evasion of Lehninger confirming that yes highly knowledgeable parties routinely and matter of factly accept that D/RNA in the cell carries coded information. All of that together paints a telling, sad picture. KF

  51. 51
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: One, the security was botched.

    Possibly but that didn’t affect how many shooters there were.

    Second, the med treatment and autopsy process were inexcusably poor in a forensic context.

    Again, possibly. I have to think that the physicians at Parkland were in a desperate situation trying everything they could as quickly as possible.

    Third, the convenient rubbing out of Mr Oswald just as he said he was a patsy compounds the matter.

    IF what he said was true. Why do you believe him? Especially considering all the evidence that he was the single gunman? In Bugliosi’s book he goes through the day with Oswald step-by-step. You should read it sometime.

    Next, the Warren report raises a lot of questions.

    Maybe. It answers a lot more, the ones they were investigating.

    Fifth, the explosion raises questions as to ammunition and fragmentation etc that also cast questions on the bullet found in the hospital after allegedly passing through two bodies and hitting bones.

    The so called ‘magic bullet’ was the second shot fired and was fairly pristine because it DIDN’T directly hit any bones. The third shot, the one that created the explosive effect, was not pristine afterwards.

    I wonder about the condition of the rifle and compare the old mad minute 15 rounds per minute rapid standard for the fast action

    Quite a few people have duplicated Oswald’s rate of fire and accuracy over the years. Remember, he was a very good marksman.

    There are more issues and FYI, my actual view is that this cannot neatly be tied off, especially with oh everything is readily accounted for by theories X, Y, or Z.

    Maybe. But it seems to me that when you look at ALL the actual data there is one simple, clean, parsimonious answer.

    Beyond, given targetting of Castro and other fishing in troubled waters, multiplied by associations of the assassin, serious suspicions and questions cannot be neatly disposed of . . . one may doubt but cannot neatly dismiss. In short, tying back to the OP, I am saying negative knowledge is knowledge.

    There is no such thing as negative knowledge. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You can speculate all you want but you cannot draw conclusions based on data which doesn’t exist.

    Now, please do not try to drag me in further, in a context where my cousin just had the back of his head blown out by a gunman in KY and his dad my uncle died of the shock.

    I am sorry for your loss but I fail to understand why you are still online arguing about something you claim to find painful. I think you are disrespecting your own family by hammering away at your keyboard instead of being with them in a time of need. I am not playing games; how could I when I am not privy to your private life.

    No one is forcing you to come onto this forum and discuss issues you find painful. The only person who is responsible for that is you. Maybe you should wake up and go a different direction? The world does not revolve around you; people will continue to discuss things that might offend you or cause you pain. It’s up to you to stop participating.

  52. 52
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL,

    the tin ear game continues and shows the gaps that need to be dealt with. I will comment to a few points, just to underscore that a negative knowledge conclusion is pivotal: known unknowns, never mind your hyperskeptical dismissal — we know we do not know any neat clean solution here, no one holds authority of positive knowledge. That is before we raise issues of unknown unknowns in the case: johari window extended to policy analysis. Secrets, successfully kept [known to others but not to us] and aspects no one recognised then and now [things known only to God].

    The botching of security is the first sign of through and through incompetence; they just were not ready for this sort of issue.

    The next botch was the treatment and autopsy i/l/o forensics requisites. Wounds were not properly investigated, there was interference from officials, law enforcement and military [right there in the autopsy], so we do not know the actual wounds properly, there is conflict over even where some were and whether they connect to others. This includes the link to Gov Connally’s wounds and that of a bystander grazed by what seems a bullet fragment or a bit of pavement. There is no proper control on entrance wounds and number of wounds. There is medical testimony the back wound was finger deep only, and there is testimony that the neck front wound was a bullet entry; which was then turned into a tracheotomy. I will not more than mention disputes on numbers of shots, heard locations, suspicious people nearby, possible fake Secret Service agents, and the like. The Warren report seems to have poor, leading question methods, too that would frustrate eyewitness evidence.

    Even the handling of the casket was questionable.

    Not to mention, removal from TX jurisdiction.

    There was no proper chain of custody on fragments, evidence seems to have vanished.

    If one bullet fragmented in a head so explosively then the claimed bullet that went through back and neck, broke a second person’s rib, broke wrist, deposited in thigh maybe and was claimed to drop out in a stretcher in the hospital becomes highly questionable. Nor do I buy oh it near missed and broke, that is speculation posing as knowledge.

    We could go on and on, but enough is there that the best conclusion is negative knowledge and strong suspicion of cover up, perhaps to avert Cuba Crisis 2, the assassination.

    As to telling me, poster of OP to leave my own thread and allow toxic tangential, off topic speculation and accusation free reign, that is blatant disrespect.

    Reason to shut down this thread as a lesson, even though that too can be used to play onward rhetorical games. Never mind, this thread further establishes the patterns of behaviour that have been going on and will shape onward threads.

    KF

Comments are closed.