It Was a Symptom and a Coincidence

 

I just tested the FBI just now, and even without looking at it, I knew I was confused.  The CIA didn't signal me.  What I saw was, I had typed in the phrase "nail polish" into the search bar on cia.gov, and then, at 6:27 p.m., I saw a woman walk by with nail polish on her fingers.  Maybe she saw me looking at it and curled her fingers up to conceal it.  She wasn't a CIA spy trying to signal me, it was a coincidence and I was fooled.  It was a symptom of my mental illness.  I think the key is, a lot of women wear nail polish.  It's like I was looking at the probability that a young woman would walk by on Sul Ross St.  The odds were high; I was fooled by my own attempt to get information.


Another time, I saw a bicyclist look at me at a particular time, and it seemed to mean, by July 4, from a therapist I had had in the past.  I believe that one right now...something will happen by July 4.  The reason why I felt gaslighted by the woman walking by is that it reminded me of the gaslighting codes at H-E-B.  A woman made a kissy face at me at H-E-B.  Also, a woman made a kissy face at me at Target one time.  I think that is a group of people trying to do something nasty to me.  I think the woman who made big eyes at H-E-B was just having an emotion and not even looking at or gesturing to me.


Basically:  I'm being psychologically affected by the kissy face mob.  I saw a sheriff's deputy in jail who made a kissy face at me; the guy had some name tag that I read but don't remember, but he looked kind of like Timothy Y. Chow, the MIT mathematician who used to post on Usenet (I had seen a photo of Timothy Chow on Google).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Math Update: My P != NP Proof Might Be Correct!!!!! -- (update, no it's not, see the note at the beginning and the updates near the bottom)

EDIT:  No, this proof is not correct.  See the updates at the bottom for details on why (based on Dr. Zelinsky's comment).  Fortunately, my GLL proof and MSR proofs still appear to be correct. It could be that Joshua Zelinsky's comment actually helps me to complete the proof. The GLL proof appears to be correct, AFAIK. The thing is, the fact that we can prove "PA is consistent --> P != NP" within PA and the fact that we can prove "PA is consistent" as a theorem of ZFC just shows that P != NP is a theorem of PA.  That isn't a contradiction, it's just another step in the proof. I think the striking idea is, P != NP is a theorem of PA, but not of ZFC.  That is what I worked to prove.  AFAIK it is possible for a proposition to be a theorem of PA but not of ZFC.  In particular, PA can be proved consistent from ZFC, so we would think it s possible and even likely that there are some non-theorems of ZFC that are theorems of PA. So this is great!  It l...
Read more

Hello, Texas - A Quick Monopoly Lesson

  So today, I thought I saw some people running around blurting code gestures at me.  One of the codes seemed to say, "Riot for a[buse] v[ictim] time -M".  Oh, M?  M as in Monolith, or M as in Monopoly fan who doesn't get it? Here, Houstonian code-talkers...let me teach you how to play Monopoly, since you are so hungry for free knowledge:  - Make deals with other players that benefit you.  - Offer deals to difficult players that are somewhat beneficial to them, knowing that they might reject.  - Watch which deals other players reject, and identify what *deal types* they are not likely to accept from you or anyone else.  - Be very very careful about your own deals--and behavior--lest you get figured out by your opponents and backed into a corner, with good, beneficial deals being made without you by cunning adversaries who know your every move. There's a poker lesson in there, too, but I don't want to get too educational right now.
Read more

Flash Non-Fiction: James Bond and Masculinity

  This was going to be a longer essay, but I decided to just blurt out my point rather than trying to write well. Basically, I think James Bond movies are good, and the songs are high-quality too, but it sends semi-dangerous messages to men in particular about what it means to be a man.  The Bond character is intransigent, aggressive, violent, and absolutely sure of himself in all cases.  He is portrayed as a big winner--able to date and have sex with beautiful women, almost impossible to kill, and lethal and elite at both armed and unarmed combat. I'm concerned that some men, including my estranged father ASW, have had their sense of morality warped by Bond movies.  They think that this dramatically presented way to be masculine is the only way.  I think that's unhealthy, and when people get the not-so-original idea to "try to be more Bond-like" in their personal lives, that leads to catastrophic conflicts with and major potential for deep pain for people that ...
Read more