I have paid my dues, thank you.<p>Here is what is happening:  His writing has evolved to be laced with honeypot objectionables (on top of general obfuscation) so that he can sit on his mountain, avoid direct refutation, and look down at people that obviously don&#x27;t get what he&#x27;s saying.  That they conveniently map with his ur-self&#x27;s tonal ambitions is icing on the cake.<p>You&#x27;re hitting a honeypot, flavored by all the pickup from his ur-self that&#x27;s present in everything about what he chooses to write about.  Your statement, which is about what he says, is not the true true (about what he says) because it&#x27;s poisoned by what he <i>is</i>.  You can unsimplify it back up to a lot of stuff that he doesn&#x27;t <i>say</i> (in fact, stuff he doesn&#x27;t believe he believes).<p>If you have an alternate theory, I should point out that mine also explains Urbit.  Does yours?