“without the opportunity for dialogue” — “opportunity” means something. This is exactly that. I can put something into print respond to questions. That is still dialogue. The book is the same. If you read the book and want to discuss something that you do not think you understood correctly I would be happy to discuss it.

In a court there is a moderator and it is open for dialogue…just like this but the details are a bit different. A much better reference is Wikipedia to see how a public court works with dialogue. Check the details of how Wikipedia works.

There is a lot more. If you look at some of my other responses and papers since Sept 1 you will see most of it I hope.

I do the opposite of claim this is my insight. What I claim is that there is cognitive science which is indeed new that leads to a claim that An Internet Court of Lies is the ONLY option to put fiat lies under control. Once enforced moderated dialogue is established on a fiat lie (that someone pays to be put to court) then the outcome is what the court can say about the lie as a result of the moderated, public, open dialogue. In all my writings I point out that the first major time when fiat lies assaulted human kind led to the Age of Enlightenment (about 1600AD … 100 years after printing, and because of printing). Part of the cognitive science in the book that proves the case is the proof that any sentence (or story) can be a lie. It is this fact that means you and I and everybody lies all the time. We may not know it (these are fiat lies), until challenged by someone who thinks it is a lie.