Neville answers a woman's defense of Billy Graham in San Francisco

He recounts saying in San Francisco that Billy Graham's real subject is Billy Graham, whereupon an incensed lady rose to rebuke him for speaking so of 'Dr. Graham', and he kept answering 'You mean Billy?'
Date (happened)
before 1965
unresolved
  1. before 19 September 1969 bound · possible · preferred
    Source Dreamer 2
    Why M7 dating pass (529; 525's readers, packet 044)
    Reasoning Telling lecture nid 1758 probable delivery 1969-09-19.
  2. before 1965 bound · possible
    Source Dreamer 2 ¶63qualifying source passages 543355; telling lecture nids 1758
    Reasoning Qualifying passage ids [543355] belong to telling lecture nids [1758]. Each listed lecture contributes the selected safe envelope year 1965 (MAX of its non-refuted delivery years); 1965 is the MIN across telling lectures.
  3. before 1969 bound · possible
    Source Dreamer 2 ¶63corrected envelope; qualifying source passage 543355; telling lecture nids 1758
    Why Corrects the phase4 L6a envelope on this event from before 1965 to before 1969.
    Reasoning Envelope recompute, arithmetic only. The phase4 L6a row on this event states its own rule: each telling lecture contributes MAX of its non-refuted delivery years, and the envelope is the MIN across telling lectures. Recomputed live over lecture nid(s) 1758 that row cites, MAX(non-refuted field_delivery_year) gives 1969, not the 1965 the row carries — the bound was below its own stated rule and therefore UNSAFE: it asserted the event did not happen in 4 year(s) where it may sit. Same premise, same evidence, no re-reading and no re-judgement; only the maximum was taken correctly. The L6a row stands beside this one (append-only). Ruling: #2235 delta 1, architect 378.
Place
San Francisco
Persons
Neville Goddard
Billy Graham
Told / reported
  1. 19 September 1969 estimated · probable
    Source Dreamer 2nid 1758 surviving delivery claim after refutation. All claims: 1965-2-23 refuted; 1969-9-19 probable (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 1758 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 1758 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1969-9-19 at `probable`. All claims on the node: 1965-2-23 refuted; 1969-9-19 probable (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1965-02-23 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`) | delta 1: 1965-02-23 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.
  2. 23 February 1965 stated · refuted
    Source Dreamer 2Dreamer 2 (nid 1758), telling 1758-10, told 1965-02-23
    Reasoning || v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1758, 1965-2-23) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1969-9-19. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
  3. 23 February 1965 stated · refuted
    Source Dreamer 2Dreamer 2 (nid 1758), telling 1758-10, told 1965-02-23
    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 1758 and asserts `certain`, but the strongest claim that node carries is `probable`, so there is nothing for `certain` to inherit from. nid 1758 delivery claims: 1965-2-23 doubtful; 1969-9-19 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 1758, 1965-2-23) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1969-9-19. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources

Source

  • Dreamer 2 ¶63 (I said that in San Francisco and one lady rose and she was incensed beyond measure, oh so incensed. She said, “I think that was most unkind of you to mention that of Mr. Graham, ah, Dr. Graham.” Every time she said Dr. Graham I said, “You mean Billy?”)