I have questions for James but it seems that I got back to reading him a little too late.
I stopped watching the internet years ago while James was debating relativity with the admin on this board but then last year I ran across the following article using a word that I encountered only once before - "affectance". The article from Cornell University's computer science department discusses the use of affectance as a model for increasing accuracy of measurements involving networked radio telemetry.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.01704
Ad-hoc Affectance-selective Families for Layer Dissemination
Dariusz R. Kowalski, Harshita Kudaravalli, Miguel A. Mosteiro
(Submitted on 6 Mar 2017)
Information dissemination protocols for ad-hoc wireless networks frequently use a minimal subset of the available communication links, defining a rooted "broadcast" tree. In this work, we focus on the core challenge of disseminating from one layer to the next one of such tree. We call this problem Layer Dissemination. We study Layer Dissemination under a generalized model of interference, called affectance. The affectance model subsumes previous models, such as Radio Network and Signal to Inteference-plus-Noise Ratio. We present randomized and deterministic protocols for Layer Dissemination. These protocols are based on a combinatorial object that we call Affectance-selective Families. Our approach combines an engineering solution with theoretical guarantees. That is, we provide a method to characterize the network with a global measure of affectance based on measurements of interference in the specific deployment area. Then, our protocols distributedly produce an ad-hoc transmissions schedule for dissemination. In the randomized protocol only the network characterization is needed, whereas the deterministic protocol requires full knowledge of affectance. Our theoretical analysis provides guarantees on schedule length. We also present simulations of a real network-deployment area contrasting the performance of our randomized protocol, which takes into account affectance, against previous work for interference models that ignore some physical constraints. The striking improvement in performance shown by our simulations show the importance of utilizing a more physically-accurate model of interference that takes into account other effects beyond distance to transmitters.
Years ago when I first heard that word, I tried to look it up with no luck. Fortunately someone asked James about it and he provided what seemed an appropriate definition. More recently seeing this article, I had to wonder if it was the same "affectance". After a good bit of study, although I can't say that I totally understand it all, I realized that it was the same as James' defined affectance - "subtle influences", especially relating to radio transmissions. Shortly after that I had to wonder if perhaps the infamous "James S Saint' was in fact one of those listed engineers in the article; Kowalski, Kudaravall, or Mosterio. But then I found another article from the University of Massachusetts. And today when I do a search I find definitions and all kinds of articles about "affectance". Someone was onto something, something subtle. Something with quite subtle influence. He seemed to be quite a remarkable character.
I had been observing James decades ago after he captured my attention with a topic - "Watching the watchers watching the watchers watch". I immediately knew what he was talking about but it took a couple of days before I realized what he was really saying. It was clear that he was aware that the people employed to observe the public live with a different frame of mind and value standard. Judgements occur that ethically shouldn't. And I first thought that he was commenting on the observer's supervisors watching them watch. But he wasn't. What he was bring to light was that just as the public live in a bubble of skewed belief, unaware of the thoughts and perspectives of those observing them from above, those very observers are also living in a skewed bubble of belief, also never thinking that they too are being not merely observed, but often misjudged and misguided by a third layer of unseen eyes, attitudes, and agendas. I found that thought disturbing. And that was only the beginning of many unsettling revelations James seemed compelled to bring to light.
The next topic he raised that rocked my boat was about techniques for establishing complete social invisibility - leaving undeniable evidence that one person was actually a different person who was trying to hide his identity - a surprisingly effective trick. He explained the details and how those two topics were directly related (James, if you are still out there - How am I doing?

). In those days it was common for discussion boards to suddenly develop a problem and disappear. In this case, I could easily see why. James had a way of blurting out things that serious people didn't want heard. And that led to just about every organization blasting him with any kind of allegation that might stick, calling him every name in the book. In that regard he reminds me of President Trump and the liberal media. Both he and Mr T just boldly blurt it out and let the chips fall where they may as long as it gets all worked out in the end. And James too seemed to have known too much about the deep state swamp, US socialist agenda, globalism, and how they all play together. He often showed a deep disdain for people manipulating the masses no matter who they were. He was the natural whistlerblower type. I wonder how he would have been as a Fox News host.
James seemed to have a way of causing people to think and with an endless list of wizened sayings. I wish I had had the forethought to record them. On occasion I'll be reminded of yet another one. I had to wonder where he ever came from. What kind of man when discussing religion thinks about things like what the words "god", "Adam", "Man", "spirit", and such really mean before getting into it? How did he ever find out? He was a consummate deconstructionist ensuring that everyone was on the same page. It would have been great to see him and Ben Shapiro debate something but I can't think of anything they would argue about.
After reading up on him more and starting to think like him, I have to wonder. Is affectance a thing and substance? Or is it a philosophy of subtle influence? Seemingly both.
It's great to see there is a book to reference.