The 747 dude said:

> None of these things worked very well at first.  But eventually, 
> what with continually changing sides, we all eventually fell into 
> traps that we had ourselves designed while playing on the other 
> team.  And if enough time had passed for us to have forgotten that 
> we had built a trap, then it might be quite effective against us.  And 
> we were just too stupid to fix the traps that we built so that they 
> wouldn't trap their creators.

     This says, that traps that we build to trap others never work,
until we ourselves fall into them later.  They only work on us.  Thus
we can only trap others by helping them fall into traps they
themselves built to get others.

     This is in similar line with Electra's idea that the first overt
was the effort to convince another they had committed an overt when
they hadn't.  This of course failed because you can't hurt or lie to a
clean being.  However once a being has tried this overt AND FAILED, he
is then prone to having it done to him by another. whether the other
is clean or not.

     Because of his own earlier attempted missed done, he is prone to
wondering if he is in fact guilty of an overt, and the doubt effect
then convinces him he is.

     "Doubt is self casting".
     Wondering if he has done wrong, makes him feel so bad, he is sure
he has.

     The question then is where does a being get the idea to commit
such an overt?

     If it is done to him first, it will fail of course, but now he
has the idea and will dramatize it on others.  Once it fails on
others, when it is done to him again, it will succeed, he will feel
guilty over the false overt and withhold himself.

     If a being originates the overt (DED) without having had it done
to him first, it will fail if done on a clean being, but may succeed
if the target is himself guilty of this attempted done.

     Early beings all had failures on their first dram or ded,
but later beings, coming in on an already unclean party, may have
succeeded up front.

     This theory leads to the interesting idea that for most, the
first overt is not a done but an attempted done, with recognition of
failure.  THEN it is done to one, but what is being done is being
convinced by another that one has committed an overt when one hasn't,
which keys in on the earlier overt that the being did do and failed.
He ends up feeling guilty for the later false overt because the
earlier attempted done is withheld and missed.

     Thus the first overt is an attempted, failed (and missed) done,
and the first motivator is being convinced of a false overt!

     This is just twisted enough to persist.

     The guilt persists because of its misplacement in time.