The Cover-Up: How Was Movement from Phase I to Phase II Justified?

[Magda Hassan]

.....
In the meantime, here's another idea that I got out of my random proposal generator: any hypothesis put up for consideration (not discussion) is treated with a specific set of standard and procedures. (I am making this up on the fly, but the basic intention is about accountability to truth, while recognizing how difficult it is to arrive at truth in a blogging format.)

I think this is what Adele was referring to earlier in this thread as well. And I would nominate Adele to any such role if she wished to take it up.

I won't have any part of this -- and not because of Adele, whose commentary on any position I might take or hypothesis I might offer always will be welcome.

To do this would be to dumb down the process. And why? Because Josephs doesn't get it?

And what's the distinction between "consideration" and "discussion"?

And I won't submit to anyone's judgement about my "accountability to truth."

Search for my Chicago "plot" hypothesis thread. If memory serves, none of the many correspondents who considered AND discussed my original premise failed to understand the nature of hypothesizing.

What's next? Putting a limit on syllables per word so "Albert Doyle" can keep up?

No thanks, Maggie.

I'll address Lauren's post in detail next.

Personally, I value Lauren's and Adele's attempt to get some mutually agreeable structures and standards of definitions to work with so that constructive and civil progress can be made. It helps when we are talking about black spots or black dots or black circles.