1. A battery of structured well-well reservations to be added

"Well" is a deep subject. - American

FIRST, adjust sensibly to the site's General Disclaimer. It says about attempts at improving health:

Otherwise too one should not accept or take things for granted through rash faith, but instead try to consider them in the light of Buddha basics against being taken in by dogmatic talk and rhetorics and whatever. In line with Buddha's guidelines, the site is furnished with many subsumed reservations, adjusting to what Bertrand Russell says about "qualifications":

If you want to make a statement with a great many qualifications, put some of the qualifications in separate sentences. - Sir Bertrand Russell [Hir]

Reservation parts are like clothes. See to it that they match one another.

This has been done on the site. An offering of standard reservations and how to tailor some of them to any story, period, and illustration on-site is devised, and presupposed for the whole site, and also for thriving, sanity and some decent fare.

In very many cases terse statements presuppose or subsume one or more palatable and supportive reservations. Supportive means, ideally, supportive to me and this site, first and foremost. That is for safety reasons, of course. But ideally, 'supportive' is supportive to both me and you. That is a so-called win-win deal. Go for that. How? Form a suave, handy, cogent medley of reservation elements from our "Grand Platter" of reservations: [More]. An example of subsumed qualifications to "knit" together and adapt to any statement throughout:

Presumably • maybe eventually under fit conditions • to the degree it is correct • to some degree • in some/a savoury, sound, rewarding, profitable, and satisfactory (ie, good) way or sense • if seen from certain angles • under so and so conditions • to be statistically verified later on, hopefully • maybe never. [More Qualifications]

2. What is called "good" or "well"

1. Good vs (versus) at least sensible "we-aims" aligned to "What's good for the goose needs to be good for the gander."
   
2. Good vs dealing with opponents - There is a lot of competition with its opponents in the human realm, and among animals and downwards.
3. Good vs looming common goals to serve in a decent setting - if you are friends, or by common or large agreement (consensus). These also serve as conformity-ensuring standards.

Ad 2, Good vs dealing with opponents: Other souls should get sound and tidy and need to keep it up that way. Other souls need to know or be told a good "thing" must be well enough nuanced and tidy to look at. What is called good and worthy needs to be impressed on others; then they can stick to it. - And so on.

Ad 3, Good vs common goals: Is handy to look at, or as handy as can be - decent all over is preferred. Not heart-breaking, and hardly scarring innocent bystanders.

There are many more nuances of what "good" - and "well" - may be taken to mean on a separate page. Remaining careful and polite comes in addition. And as with the "supposed reservations", the suitable selections of 'good' at any time serves this site first, next others. [More]

Also, something is good if it is: Dedicated to basic usefulness and not rueful in itself - Dedicated to a decent fare - Serviceable in the long run - Decent all over is preferred - And not without inner consistency. [More]

3. A standardised structure yields meaning to statements within it

Hir: Russell, Sir Bertrand. "How I Write". I The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell. Redigert av Robert E. Egner og Lester E. Denonn. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1961:63-65. Essayet på Internett: www.solstice.us/russell/write.html