Meta Question 1 & 2. Sorry I didn't explain that.

With regard to peaching and impeaching each other's evidence, I think this is where the conversation would go meta and turn towards a discussion of epistemology, ontology and language acquisition, how we determine what is and isn't true.

I think the goal with having a rational discussion is to assume that there is a common ground that can be reached until it is seen that the common ground is in fact unreachable. If we all join in that intent, to be willing to work towards a common ground, and to do it methodically and reaching out to each other along the way, we'll at least make more progress than if we simply throw our statements of belief at each other over and over again like monkeys flinging their feces.

I essentially agree, a discussion in a forum like this must essentially be moderator-less. And we must rely on the participants' genuine intent in working cooperatively with each other. And for those who see no value in the character of pursuit within this thread, they may simply not read or participate.

I'm still waiting on clarification from Tzu, about the focus on a single question. I think there is purpose in the restriction, but too restrictive and it would seem that progress is impeded. Perhaps another one of those things up for review after trying it out for a while.

well met mattie, welcome to the discussion.

Now where did I put my tea?