Mike,

I meant to ask what you knew (implicitly or explicitly) going into the meetings, and what did you know intuitively about the variables (town, enemy, competing agendas)?

Did that change between meetings?

Did you find out things that either changed the value of what you thought you knew, or left you with more questions. Did it bring people or motives into question that you thought were settled before hand.

I think your last post was really interesting because you bring up the issue of "hard core" AQI, vs. the affiliated (bad word but it'll do I guess). It brings into light the idea of evaluating someones faith or loyalty to an idea or belief. In this case it is a combination of interpreting and evaluating the evidence you have against the impression you get from meeting with them. This ability to synthesize existing information in light of what comes out of the face to face meeting is critical to decision making.

I hope you write heavily about your experience in the context of meeting with the enemy. Its something I think can really benefit the community.

Best, Rob