What are "the Basics"?

[RobertJasiek]

The discussion is what people believe the basics of go is.

Unlike you seem to suggest, not each expressed sentence of opinion is preceded by the statement "this is my opionion", discussion has the potential to evolve (here: beyond the topic what people believe the basics of go are), I have not doubted that someone (here: Tami) has expressed an opinion and that that opinion would be hers (but I have doubted the correctness of the opinion's contents viewed regardless of who is having it, i.e., I have started a discussion on the opinion's contents).

Saying someone else is not correct

See above.

only shows how flawed your "research" is if you don't understand this.

It shows that you have misinterpreted my discussion of contents of an opinion with your perception of it being casting doubts about whether it was expressed as somebody's opinion.

You need to learn to present your opinions better.

You need to learn that every piece of discussion can be also opinion unless it is a mathematical proof - even if not every piece of discussion is preceded by a declaration "this is an opinion".

So don't dismiss anyone else's posts and opinions by saying "You are not correct". The truth is they are just as correct as you are.

JFTR, "You are not correct." is your invention. I wrote: "It is not correct."

Everybody can (try to) be correct about what is his opinion. When saying "It is not correct.", see above.

Can you understand me (or anybody) only if each sentence is preceded by "I think that the contents of your opinion..."?

Discussion relies on discussion - not on preventing discussion. Discussion can involved different opinions - i.e., does not require agreement on everything that others have written.

[quantumf]

http://theconversation.edu.au/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

[RobertJasiek]

there are many, many cases where it's not true.

It is a principle which has exceptions. So far most principles have exceptions. It is a principle, whose exceptions one can perceive as exceptions only if one already knows the principle.

Insofar as you wish to claim it is usually true for weak players

No. I claim that the principle is true for all players, but that stronger players (about 5k+) need to know also its exceptions.

Maximising territory at a border is something one must always consider. Whenever no exception applies, it is correct. This is the nature of such principles that have exceptions at all.

It is also implicit in the moves of pros whose games we are supposed to study.

Of course. Studying games allows rediscovery of principles, but rediscovering all important principles by oneself (when studying games) is so hard that everybody overlooks something.

the best ever beginners' book by far (围棋实用全典) by Zhao Jiyun (1997)*. This page is the introduction to the boundary-play section.

And the best ever has not been translated yet:)

I'm sure I could also provide examples from before RJ was even born,

I have not claimed to have invented the principle. Instead I have characterised it as a principle that every DDK should know. I have not even rediscovered the principle because I learnt it from Saijo 8p. What I have done is to understand that what he was telling me was a principle worth remembering and applying regularly.

[RobertJasiek]

The game seems far too big to tackle with a "top down" approach

I have good hopes that it can be described with top-down or bottom-up, provided there are references to reading. Reading itself is lost if it is not guided by aims to be achieved. The wisdom used in descriptions for top-down or bottom-up provides such aims.