Neville tells of a friend he believed had understood the message who in the last month sent him books by men Neville had known before they died; Neville sent the books back and told him over the telephone that he had known one of the authors as a seller of non-existent stocks and would not trust him.
Date (happened)
between April 1959 and 10 May 1959
unresolved
between April 1959 and 10 May 1959
stated · probable · preferred
between 18 May 1971 and 18 June 1971
relative · probable
Why
Append-only corrected interval; the legacy 1959 interval remains historical.
Reasoning
The whole passage provides only the relative phrase in the last month. Its carrier lecture nid 1055 is authoritatively dated 1971-06-18 with the incompatible 1959 date refuted, yielding a conservative one-month interval ending on the telling day. Confidence cannot exceed the live carrier's probable claim.
Told / reported
18 June 1971
conclusion · probable
Why
dc1-agreement-20261004, pm-actor-551 (PM 8702)
Reasoning
1 claim, no conflict: 1971-06-18 (node:1055).
18 June 1971
estimated · probable
Why
Lane L7 (#2354) re-derivation. Supersedes in substance, not in storage, the refuted-date told claim(s) on this event; those rows stand per append-only.
Reasoning
Re-derived, not walked down. The existing told claim(s) on this event took their date from a delivery claim on node 1055 that the corpus has since REFUTED, so the corpus was asserting that Neville told this on a day it separately says he did not lecture. That is a contradiction rather than an over-confidence, and lowering the confidence would have hidden it instead of resolving it. The refutation stands and the told claim is the wrong side of it. Node 1055 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1971-6-18 at `probable`. All claims on the node: 1959-5-10 refuted; 1971-6-18 probable (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1959-05-10 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`) | delta 1: 1959-05-10 at `probable` (run `v1.1/l4/ceiling/c2`). The telling is dated by its lecture, so with the refuted date removed from consideration the surviving claim is what the telling inherits, at that claim own confidence and no higher.
10 May 1959
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1055, 1959-5-10) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1971-6-18. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
10 May 1959
stated · refuted
Why
Corrects the confidence of the told claim written by run `corpus v1 / phase3b` at delta 0 on this event; that claim is left standing per append-only. Ceiling rule #2132.
Reasoning
Confidence only; the date is not re-adjudicated and is left exactly as written. This claim is derived from the delivery claims of node 1055 and asserts `certain`, but the strongest claim that node carries is `probable`, so there is nothing for `certain` to inherit from. nid 1055 delivery claims: 1959-5-10 doubtful; 1971-6-18 probable. Walked back to `probable`, the ceiling. Whether the DATE is right is a separate question this row does not touch; if the evidence turns out to support more confidence, it will have to come from a source other than this node. || v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1055, 1959-5-10) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1971-6-18. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources
Source
- Who Paul Really Is ¶23 (I had the dubious pleasure of knowing these men. The book that you just sent me . . that man is incapable of writing a decent sentence. I knew him when he sold stocks that did not exist, and there is no transforming power in death.)
1 tellings, oldest first. A date in brackets shows how it is known; "circa", "after" and "possible" dates are rough.
| Date |
Lecture or book |
Telling |
Passage |
| 1971-06-18 [exact/probable/final] |
Who Paul Really Is |
Now, here we only have two lectures left, and these will be in order, even though they seem repetitious. They cannot be repeated too often. Man so quickly forgets! You go away for a month, and those you thought really understood you . . when you return, they try to tell you, “I just found the most wonderful book on diets” . . the most wonderful book on how to get into Heaven in another way. A friend of mine . . I thought he understood it . . I thought he did, for he made extravagant claims, and in the last month he sent me books by men that I knew before they died here. We mustn’t judge from… |
529004 |