Neville's wife opposes Tommy's romance

Neville's wife disapproved of his artist friend's romance with a much younger woman and worked to separate them, while Neville did not mind either way.
Date (happened)
before 1969
unresolved
  1. before 1969 bound · possible
    Source Your Creative Power ¶27qualifying source passages 533450; telling lecture nids 1216
    Reasoning Qualifying passage ids [533450] belong to telling lecture nids [1216]. Each listed lecture contributes the selected safe envelope year 1969 (MAX of its non-refuted delivery years); 1969 is the MIN across telling lectures.
  2. before 29 October 1965 bound
    Source Your Creative Power ¶27
    Reasoning The opposition is completed before the telling. Authoritative carrier adjudication makes 1965-10-29 the strongest safe upper bound.
  3. between February 1942 and April 1957 bound · probable
    Source Your Creative Power ¶27
    Why M7 dating pass (529; 525's readers, packet 011)
    Reasoning Passage 533450 places the story 'back in New York City' with his wife disapproving; marriage 25 February 1942, New York residence to April 1957.
Place
New York City
Persons
Catherine Willa Van Schmus
Neville Goddard
Ritchie
Told / reported
  1. 29 October 1965 estimated
    Source Your Creative Powernid 1216 surviving delivery claim after refutation. All claims: 1965-10-29 certain; 1969-9-26 refuted; 1965-10-29 certain (preferred)
    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 1216 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 1216 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1965-10-29 at `certain`. All claims on the node: 1965-10-29 certain; 1969-9-26 refuted; 1965-10-29 certain (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1969-09-26 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`).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. 26 September 1969 stated · refuted
    Source Your Creative PowerYour Creative Power (nid 1216), telling 1216-5, told 1969-09-26
    Reasoning || v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1216, 1969-9-26) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1965-10-29. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources

Source

  • Your Creative Power ¶27 (Well, my wife is a very fixed person when it comes to such ideas and so she was against her husband in this one picture.)