Mentalizing About the End Date

 

Usually, the people who come by to signal me who are bad guys act unfriendly/unappealing, and, they typically do not provide any true, useful information with their codes.  They try to create false hope by signaling things that I might wish were true but that are not true.


I think the woman H-E-B who smiled and did the kissy face was conveying useful safety information.  In particular, the gesture meant, "av ve is fake."  I have said that before.  Maybe she was also saying, the date is Jun 11.  That might be true.  It could also be that the top bad guy who has been gaslighting me was getting frustrated, so he tried to change tactics and share a little bit of good information--that I should stay off the e-bike--to try to buy my confidence again and trip me up.  Whoever this person is, he is *very much in awe* of fraudsters and con artists.  The amount of respect and awe that this highly motivated weirdo has for con artists is actually kind of hilarious, if you feel open to being amused by this, which I do not myself.


It could mean that the person is saying, "TD = Tori Daniel date is fake."  It is true that I used to eat with Tori Daniel after work sometimes at ABSG Consulting.  We didn't go on any dates though.  We were just friends, and after I quit ABSG, she didn't decide to keep in touch with me.


I will keep my eyes peeled for June 11.  I won't be surprised either way if that is not the end date.  I would be surprised if it's not over by July 30.


I think one key reason why Judith Glasser would be telling me the end date is, *she was heavily spied on*, which means she is aware of the situation.  What I don't understand is, why me so much?  I am very good at math, but not the best ever.  Is there some reason other than math why I am being spied on?


Maybe JZ was saying something about it.  Maybe the H-E-B woman is just the next upgraded fake, and it's not until July 30 as Dr. Glasser said.  If Dr. Glasser got a lawyer to find out from DOJ to plan for her finances, she probably wouldn't give an inexact date.  I think JZ was saying, it's not CC--the date that it would be if  it were Jun 11--it's DV--the code that you get for July 30.  Maybe he is saying, I am "strong with the force" at something that he is not that good at.  It seems that JZ is better at or at the very least more accurate at math than I am.  Maybe it is believed that I am excellent at debate.  Maybe someone is very concerned that I will go into politics, and carve out a "happy home" for liberal atheists, politically.  Maybe JZ takes an interest in this, because he views radical pro-Christian forces that are anti-atheist as also suspicious in terms of maybe being anti-Semitic, too.  Perhaps JZ would prefer that all anti-non-Christian political movements would end.


Also, btw, I'm feeling today like I might not want to go into economics after all. =(.  It's kind of a sad thing.  I just worry that my idolization of STEM research might be misplaced...maybe economics research is not the best way to help Africa.


I don't think I'm going to go into politics, even if the true reason why I'm assaulted by bizarre people with lots of resources is that I'm seen as a great debater.  I must be great at something--why else would these people feel so aggressive towards me and apparently so scared of me??


I don't know what I'm going to do after this is done.

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