Starmer dumps doormat?

[John Young]

>it's hard to take the step to a message which can 
>be both in transmission and not in transmission at the same time.

Quite philosophically challenging and not altogether unprecedented
in the reletivaty of simultaneity.

Mistakes in interpretation by officials and citizens might be eased
by describing this state of simultaneily more understandably.

For example when does this condition occur and what should it
be called rather than both-in and not-in.

To be sure, there are those who want the confusion to continue in
favor of maximizing benefits for one side against the other.

Transmission is the problematic needing clarification, along
with reception. Each is extendable to the far reaches of the other.
Reception commences with transmission initiation, so patents
declare, and transmission continues to the end of reception, other
patents assert, neither of which may be terminable due to leakage 
in data packets, machinic faults and sensory-brain limitations,
aided and abetted by wizard lawyers and expert witnesses hairsplitting 
and braiding.

Not to say extrasensory signals well known to emanate from
every electromagnetic emitter-absorber intergalactically. 
More earthly, harvesting emanating fiber is now so trivial that 
dangers of simultaneous transreception must be in use as 
diverting camouflage.

No doubt dissertations have solved this a long time ago. My
mouth to your ear as if our skulls and stems did not aim at 
unparented progeny, as if signals just appeared from nowhere,
no law broken your honor, I swear on a stack of miswritten
manuals and deceiptful privacy policies.