More Thoughts On Code Signalers

 

I bet even the H-E-B woman who stood on her toes was bad.  How did she get that information??  Yes, the one woman who smiled attractively at me and did the kissy face was also bad.  Part of it is, I am getting better.  Also, the bad guys are being baited by someone who doesn't like them.  They had a less similar-to-Dr.-Steg looking person standing out by the edge of the H-E-B parking lot one time.  They thought that would make me think that the guy in Virginia was Dr. Steg...instead, it made me think that someone was pleased that I was making progress at figuring it out.  Ted LaFemina was not necessarily into "good choices"...he wasn't a horribly offensive boss at DRC, but he seemed sort of cynical.  As a reader of fiction, I have a tendency to identify novels and novelists written/writing as "overly cynical," and I have a sense of people in the workplace who are overly cynical too.  Dr. Jake Stenzler, the physics Ph.D. from University of Maryland who worked at ABSG, was extremely cynical.  Ted LaFemina was kind of cynical, and less offensive.  The comment is, it wasn't a "good choice" from a behavioral perspective to show up and be prepared to lie about it at Walmart.


So the woman standing on her toes is bad too.  If I or anyone had called police, she would have lied.  She would have said she wasn't signaling me.  I wonder how she got that information from South Florida LS?  I guess they have a spy there.  Maybe Brooke mentioned it in a conversation with whomever the planted spy is.  Someone can probably tell...it was the person who swiped my spiral and then gave it back to Chelsie Byars, whom I did not like as a therapist.


They think I'm very susceptible to "good cop, bad cop, worse cop" routines.  Whatever, I don't care that much.  I don't think I'm naive or overly trusting, I'm just trying to figure out something that doesn't make sense.  I think there are good guys, but the problem was, the "protocol" I was suggesting--signaling me by making an unusual gesture--was one that people weren't willing to do, perhaps mainly because *someone else* might have called the police, and it might have been hard to explain.  I guess they don't teach much about empathy in cryptology classes!


It sounds like Ted LaFemina might be linked to this bad guy organization.  I had worked for Dynamics Research Corporation briefly in 2011, Ted was my manager there.  There was at least one guy there who had apparently worked for Microsoft before coming to DRC.  That was Sergey Kulikov.  I don't know if Microsoft is somehow involved in messing with me?  It's not an "ouster," that's a trap signal from the bad guys.  The police were trying to say something, 3:38 was the time the woman and the other person--I think he was a man--walked in.  They walked past me and did not change their facial expressions while walking past me...no odd signals.

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