Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I think the claims you made were quite clear. In response to the suggestion of the schizophrenia counterfactual, you wrote prec

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I think the claims you made were quite clear. In response to the suggestion of the schizophrenia counterfactual, you wrote precisely: > I don't have to consider that counterfactual, since deBoer himself stated clearly that he knew the accusations he was making were false at the time he made them My understanding of that was that you saw the fact that “ clearly that he knew the accusations he was making were false at the time he made them” as a reason to disregard the counterfactual. Can you explain what you meant by that other than the suggestion that the latter half of that sentence was sufficiently inconsistent with schizophrenia as to render the comparison meaningless? I apologize for using quotes to distinguish the view I was referring to from the rest of the sentence. I thought it would be clear that I wasn’t quoting you since the comment I responded too was so short.