Fact = "face" "faculties"

frontal face has eyes, nose, mouth which are 3 "oaths"

for example mo-uth = "one utter" ("mo uth")

an oath is "solemn appeal to deity in witness of truth or a promise"

Three oaths = truths (tre-oths)

So ironically a fact IS indeed not truth BUT one of the threefold "affirmations" that constitute a truth.

Partial truths do not imply that the unseen part is false. If the unseen part or the partiality is false then the WHOLE thing is FALSE.

Absolute Truth can have no "inert matter". So I also would not consider the Cosby statements "truths". Ayinde, in my opinion gave a fair assessment of both (all) sides of the argument. He made it clear that the messenger, bias, context, perception and perspective are essential in the "interpretation" and deliverance

Truth is the suns rays.
We may see what we consider direct sunlight (but through air and water molecules)
We may see red/orange
We may see its reflection off of the moon
But the sun rays ARE sun rays...now do we know what the rays really look and feel like...NO, because direct sunrays are destructive.
BUT our perception/reception of the rays are our partial truths that (we hope) have no unseen lies.

All I wanted to do was extract what "kernels" of truth were in his bashing. Some admitted it while others said the comments were lies.

YES I AGREE, Cosby spoke very generalized and partial truths. This whole debate/reasoning has been about technicalities and emotions and counter-filibusters.