Hi again
I thought I should address this as well. I’ve reached the point where I now believe that DN 1 is not supposed to be an exhaustive litany of views.
For one, the eel-wrigglers cannot fit into the scheme, since they do not wish to articulate their views. Likewise for the listing of the viewpoints of the annihiliationists. If DN 1 is supposed to be exhaustive, it appears to have missed out the version in SN 12.17, where after the annihilation of one Self, another succeeds it.
Previously canvassed here - Not-self and no-self and possibly non-self. Totally different - #22 by Sylvester
So, it would appear that the Buddha did not wish to be associated with Annihilationism, because at least one variety of it repudiated kammic continuity/accountability.
Cheers!