This point inadvertently exposes an aspect of information management which is sorely unaddressed and inadequate to purposes of understanding within a commonweal

This point inadvertently exposes an aspect of information management which is sorely unaddressed and inadequate to purposes of understanding within a commonwealth: That situations conflict which are already well understood to history are regurgitated as mysteries, and the knowledge system is practically useless to providing coherent access to previous experience and context. When a mod has to write: > If you look at <URL> and the links back from there, you should find more than enough (indeed, frequently repeated) explanations of the relevant points. If you (or anyone) want to familiarize yourself with those answers and still have a question I haven't addressed, I'd be happy to try. Why has a new thread been created? Why isn't this article and the attending thread of comments already situated within existing paths of discourse helping readers to assess the long prevailing (say 100 years) of understanding on the topic and identify, explore and integrate the outlying views? Why hasn't all the redundant and trivial junk of the previous thread been sifted and gleaned into salient regards for the situation? Does any media apparatus help with us with knowing how what's happening today relates to what we understood yesterday and the days before? Why is all news manifest as a reverse chronological list of forgettery, de-contextualized factoids and rediscovery of precedents among initiates?