I Get an Uneasy Feeling While I Analyze This

 

I worry, "What if the billionaire stalker is right?"  I feel that this person delusionally believes that he has a sort of "personal relationship" with me, and he sees me as "deeply flawed" and yet a person with some talent.  The person thinks I am very vulnerable and "easy to exploit," and revels in proving me wrong and cutting off my social connections, like a rapist stalking a victim for sex.  Indeed, I have lost personal connections and opportunities due to this stalker.  People seem willing to do the things that this person wills others to do in an uncanny way and at an uncanny level.  At South Florida LifeSkills, one of the employees--whom I was never able to identify--apparently stole my spiral notebook that I was journaling in, at least twice.  While after I complained, I was able to re-obtain my spiral, it was always through my (hostile) therapist who would not tell me who had stolen it and how it had been returned.  AFAIK, there was no investigation into the theft of my spirals, which doesn't bother me any more but unnerved me a lot when I was at SFLS.


Whenever I analyze this, there's always something I'm missing.  I feel sort of dopey and confused about this, because I can't figure out exactly what's going on easily.  I know that I am smart, but I feel that this stalker is targeting my weaknesses, and getting away with it a lot.  I believe that my parents may have been trying to murder me on the night that I defended myself and then got traumatically arrested by bad Henrico cops.  To be sure, if my parents had gotten the knife successfully and stabbed me, and I died, I would have been taken to a hospital, but under no circumstances would I have been investigated for and my parents would not have been charged if I had been killed.


I think by fabricating evidence, and getting VA government people on their side, my parents successfully turned a lot of people, especially strangers, against me.  I think a lot of people think that I am lying, and that I actually did it.  ASW himself is aware that both he and many other people have a tendency to believe government prosecutors when they accuse someone else of a crime; the belief is, if the person hadn't done it, the prosecutors and the government wouldn't try to charge he person.  That is an ignorant perspective that the Innocence Project has investigated and disproved in many cases.  There are lots of overzealous (at least) prosecutors who don't care at all if the person they are accusing is guilty.  They want to see if they "can build a case" that "sounds defensible" and push forward to get the person arrested and sent to jail.


Anyway, that's my feeling about things right now.  I'm going to go walk at around 6:55 p.m., and I'll grab my meds when they're available--sometime between 7 o'clock and 7:15 pm. most likely.

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