SO WAIT: IF I DON’T KNOW *HOW* TO SPEAK TRUTHFULLY, I CAN SPEAK HONESTLY BUT ERR

SO WAIT: IF I DON’T KNOW *HOW* TO SPEAK TRUTHFULLY, I CAN SPEAK HONESTLY BUT ERR?

(floundering on the obvious)

Yet, if I *DO* know how to speak truthfully, and I do not, even if I repeat my prior statement, I am speaking dishonestly.

So, then if a constitution defines honesty non-obscuranatly (operationally) then one cannot claim to NOT know it, yet at the same time argue within the constraints of the constitution? Right?

Too simple.