Woman's wish-book idea is adopted by the Sears Christmas catalogue

A friend present at the lecture told him that eight years earlier she had given her small son the Sears Christmas Catalogue and called it a wish book, the neighbourhood children playing with it that way ever since - and now Sears has itself renamed its Christmas issue the Sears Wish Book; Neville keeps her letter and the notice she was mailed.
Date (happened)
c. 1960
certain
  1. c. 1960 conclusion
    Why dc1-agreement-20261004, pm-actor-551 (PM 8702)
    Reasoning All 2 claims agree on c. 1960: passage:538779; passage:538779.
  2. c. 1960 stated · preferred
    Source I AM in You ¶27"Eight years ago", told in I AM in You (nid 1381)
  3. c. 1960 estimated · probable
    Source I AM in You ¶27passage 538779 (and preceding 538778, same telling), lecture nid 1381, 'So eight years ago, playing with her little son...' / 'that was eight years ago' / 'after eight years'
    Reasoning The passage states a relative interval ('eight years ago'), not an absolute year, so 1960 is arrived at by arithmetic against the lecture's own delivery date, which makes this a worked-out value (type estimated) rather than something the source itself states (type stated). The arithmetic must use the lecture's surviving, certain delivery claim (1968-09-30, after the L7 refutation of 1969-03-19) which gives 1968-8=1960, matching the year already on the stored d0 claim; only the type and confidence need correcting, since a friend's rounded 'eight years ago' recollection should not sit at certain.
Place
Los Angeles
Persons
Neville Goddard
Told
  1. 30 September 1968 conclusion
    Why dc1-agreement-20261004, pm-actor-551 (PM 8702)
    Reasoning 1 claim, no conflict: 1968-09-30 (node:1381).
  2. 30 September 1968 estimated
    Source I AM in Younid 1381 surviving delivery claim after refutation. All claims: 1968-9-30 certain; 1969-3-19 refuted; 1968-9-30 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 1381 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 1381 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1968-9-30 at `certain`. All claims on the node: 1968-9-30 certain; 1969-3-19 refuted; 1968-9-30 certain (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1969-03-19 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.
  3. 19 March 1969 stated · refuted
    Source I AM in YouI AM in You (nid 1381), telling 1381-2, told 1969-03-19
    Reasoning || v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1381, 1969-3-19) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1968-9-30. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources

Source

  • I AM in You ¶27 (I have it at home, not the catalogue, but I have the notice that came to her in the mail and her letter saying what she did, and the thrill that is hers that she could actually create this way.)