I Think the H-E-B Signalers Who Aren't Friendly Are Trying To "Let Me Know I'm Being Watched"

 

A possibility I hadn't considered until now, based on the "2:56 whisper hi" code:  What if some young woman in this area has been fabricating claims that I am giving her unwanted attention, such as Facebook or email messages, and in response, a number of people who know this young woman have mobilized to go to the H-E-B store and gesture at me to "let me know I'm being watched" and scare me into "not emailing her" again?  Is that what it is?  The hint from the 2:56 women may have been, "not few get the hot b----" or something.  Few get the b.h.--my internet writings.  It could also be that a private security firm is spoofing the idea that some local woman is complaining about me giving her unwanted attention.  The thing is, though, surely someone would notice the odd activity, and follow some of the people who are signaling at me home.  If it were a professional private security firm, they would get caught for working for the person who is sending them by.  Maybe it is a professional private security firm, and the customer person *has* been caught, and doesn't mind, because he thinks that he couldn't be successfully prosecuted.  It's just odd that most of the signalers are elderly women, making very odd faces at me.  I did ask for signals at H-E-B technically...I don't really understand what's going on.  I have a number of things that are very mysterious:


 - Why no one in government will write back to me about by very urgent and pressing complaints about the court case.

 - Why I got an email in 2023 that said it was from "Sandra Hesse" and said "Hola"...was that from someone with access to my Dominion Hospital medical records??

 - Why the John Steg guy showed up at Publix...was that a hallucination??

 - Why people who do not appear to be likely to be FBI agents gesture at me at the H-E-B grocery store.

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