Kant Implicated In A Crime

I belong to a couple of lists where the owners, admin, etc. do not seem to care who drops what or when or why. I would! I'm having problems with this blog already. I find it devilish to search for comments, etc. And I fear that comments to comments to comments are buried in commentary and people will just browse to body of a post. It takes a double click to get onto the comments where the real meat, and the value of this club, lies.

So this to let everybody know that L. J. Kramer is dropping some VERY important points in the commentary No. 31 to "Not cream in my coffee, please" blog commentary thread.

Kramer argues that if an implicatum has been effectively communicated eo ipso the CP and attending maxims can be said to have had 'existential' validity. Etc.

I argue (I have to play strawman -- what's the good of a club if we're just going to enjoy each other's smoke?) that 'implicatures' cannot be THAT important. Hence the header, "Kant Implicated in A Crime": he failed to communicate a message (e.g. that the freedom of the autonomous will is the realm of ends for the nous of the practical reason). Surely that is an important truth, and it would be too clever of Kant if, for all he wrote, he failed to SAY it, but just implicated. It would have been not short of a crime.

Etc.