say S'ace cares & is integral coherent (integer)

then say he navigates judges into measure

realize everyone is equal to the Law and in court

then S'ace defines a coherence test for each member of a chamber that decides on a case

is that possible because he motifies it by being equal to each judge considering knowing your language is even more decisive than interpreting the law complex?

so some doubt on each single judge is synchronized to the validity of the outcome / verdIct?

can members here give/raise their meaning on this bean?

[Take it as granted the case portals the wholly exercition within 3 months / 10 weeks without any ego psyche of the navigator]

a term that guides the case is 'distant to default'

--- On Wed, Oct 15, 2014, Bruce Schuman wrote ---

I think it will help us a lot to move past all the abstract theorizing, and get into some clear-activism on specific things.

It's been a busy day, and I might not get a formal invitation sent out today. But the framework is getting smoother.

Here's a little optional guideline for the tag process. A little tight to squeeze it into a graphic, but maybe you can read it.

"People who care"

If you care about something, say what it is. Say why. Say how. And say it really briefly -- bottom-line only -- "power-points" as they say -- so that other people on the network can select with one click what you enter.

If we can get 1,000 or 10,000 tags circulating in a big resonant cloud that is about everything everybody is interested in, from every angle they find interesting, and other people can select their way into that resonant energy field -- we can connect a zillion things into one forcefield -- all in a very natural and intuitive way.

This graphic is just an initial sketch, but it hints at where things are going.

------