Should have wrote AND following the information is better.
I catch myself more often using 'but' where it's really an and.
One information object in one mind does not imply a destruction of any objects in any other mind, unless their mind is garbage collecting data because all 'references' to perhaps objects now deemed untenable by the owner of those objects, the individual person who Anon can sense as unified with Anon by logic, regardless of ANY differences that can be LISTED AND REPEATED, all of which would also extend from the same but with an 'additional' set of objects that for some reason are to be blindly trusted as bug free.