In London in 1925, aged twenty, Neville urged his friend Matthew Bentley to take an interest in his retired mining-engineer father's philosophy; Matt wanted to make a million first, went to India for a tea company, and died of malaria three months later.
Date (happened)
-
1925
stated
Source
"back in 1925 in London", told in Law Your Choice And Risk (nid 2139)
-
between 1925 and 1927
estimated · possible
Reasoning
Passage 543400 places Matthew alive and twenty-plus in London in 1925, then says Neville returned to America four months later and subsequently heard that Matthew died at age twenty-one. A death in roughly 1925-1927 fits the stated age and sequence, but the phrase 'next thing I heard' supplies no exact elapsed interval, so the range is possible rather than probable.
Told / reported
-
1971
stated · probable
Source
Law Your Choice And Risk (nid 2139), telling 2139-5, told 1971
6 December 1966
estimated
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 1759 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 1759 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1966-12-6 at `certain`. All claims on the node: 1965-2-2 refuted; 1966-11-30 refuted; 1966-12-1 refuted; 1966-12-6 certain (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1965-02-02 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`). 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.
2 February 1965
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1759, 1965-2-2) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1966-12-6. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources
Source
- Believe Him In ¶27 (In 1925, [...] in London—I was then twenty years old—I said to my friend, who was my age and whose name was Matthew Bentley, “Matt, why don’t you show some interest in your father’s philosophical approach to life?”)
- The Law: Your Choice and Risk ¶38 (And he said, “Oh no, God is an old man” — but if Paula was saying, I would say fifty, he was saying my age, which was twenty, 1925, and his father was an old, old focused party, he was concerned, and so was his mother, beautiful, lovely lady, I would say…)
- Word 2 ¶44 (I said, “Well, your father gave me this Light of Asia and he gave me all these lovely books, and I can’t tell you, I just can’t tear myself away from them.” “I’m not interested,” he said, “My father is an old man.”)