Maybe I'll draw a little I 'heart' New York on the inside of my thigh, just for you utterly useless New Yorkers - all 20 million of you, you rapist-and-pedophile tolerators.

I want some hard capital here.

Change, or the show goes on.

Hell, if it's off-limits for myspace or flickr, I can always post a 'taste' there and re-direct to Ripco, which is totally uncensored.

My page there is:

http://pages.ripco.net/~dymaxia

Come to think of it, that's ideal. And I'll post ALL of the links right here in this journal.

http://www.myspace.com/polishhooker

http://www.flickr.com/users/liveinreality

Tonight

"Tonight"

Tonight, Tonight, won't be just any night.

Tonight there will be no underwear.

Tonight, Tonight, you'll see my crack tonight.

Just for you, menstrual blood and pubic hair!

Tonight you'll get to see my anus -

New York you are so heinous,

And still you won't do right!

Oh moon burn bright,

please give these stalking thugs

Such a fright!

Tonight!"

Journal has been deleted. If you are raspberrywho, you have a period of 30 days to decide to undelete your journal.

HANOI, Vietnam

Authorities said Thursday they are searching for former British rock star Gary Glitter over his alleged relationship with a Vietnamese teenager.

"At present, relevant authorities Ba Ria Vung Tau province are trying to trace this gentleman, and clarify the relationship between this gentleman and a Vietnamese juvenile," Foreign Ministry spokesman Le Dung said.

The 61-year-old Glitter, who rose to fame with a glam rock act in the is perhaps most known for "Rock and Roll (Part 2)," which is still frequently played at sporting events.

Dung said authorities have conducted interviews with a 15-year-old girl who they found in the home rented by Glitter. The spokesman said Glitter, whose real name is Paul Francis Gadd, had applied for permanent resident status in Vietnam.

"If evidence of a (legal) violation is found against Mr. Paul Francis, and especially evidence of sexual child abuse, I believe that very strict legal measures will apply to him," he said.

In Vietnam, the crime of sexually abusing a child can lead to the death penalty.

Glitter was convicted in Britain in 1999 of possessing child pornography and served half of a four-month jail sentence before being released. He remains on Britain's sex offenders register.

He later went to Cambodia and was permanently expelled in 2002, though Cambodian officials did not specify his crime or file charges.

Glitter's other 1970s hit songs include "I'm the Leader of the Gang (I Am)" and "Do You Wanna Touch."

i mean, you just reproduce stuff of mine, but are apparently terrified of commenting too much. is articulation that difficult for you?

for example, what is the point in reproducing the comment above, if not 'intelligence gathering'. what is the purpose of quoting a blog, for that matter? don't you think it's a little odd to actively and routinely monitor someone you've never met? where I come from, it's a bit autistic and anti-social and weird.

of course, you won't answer, you'll just talk sideways to your 'brothers' by posting pictures that are really codes.

because i've been on ilx since early 2001 at the very least, and it was never intended for that. was a time when people understood concepts like 'engagement' and 'trying to see someone else's point of view.'

explain your beef with me, or retract your as yet unexplained intelligence gathering on me. it's more than a bit stalker-ish.

yes, i've changed my name. i have nothing to hide. i made a rational point in the above quote. if you're not a bunch of clams, you sure act like them in the way you 'ferret' out people's new e-mail id's as if to imply we think we're getting away with something. we're not. these tactics were used for years on usenet - how long before you people start adapting and developing some new ones?

The word you are looking for is "stoned".

you just have all of your little private jokes but you don't really engage. [...] i've been on ilx since early 2001 at the very least, and it was never intended for that.

Have you missed all the Ally/Tom/Dan/Ned/Jess/Nicole/Blount/Trife pally pseudolol threads with 500+ crappy one-liners that were around in 2003/04? ILX has always been like this!

i mean, you just reproduce stuff of mine, but are apparently terrified of commenting too much. is articulation that difficult for you?

for example, what is the point in reproducing the comment above, if not 'intelligence gathering'. what is the purpose of quoting a blog, for that matter? don't you think it's a little odd to actively and routinely monitor someone you've never met? where I come from, it's a bit autistic and anti-social and weird.

of course, you won't answer, you'll just talk sideways to your 'brothers' by posting pictures that are really codes.

-- whiteout (kee...), November 17th, 2005 7:25 PM. (bobnope) (link)

http://www.learningforallages.com/images/EI5200.jpg
http://www.boscovs.com/wcsstore/boscovs/images/store/product/images/38190826270036.jpg
http://www.stephaniegladden.com/images/cool/CScerealPostPink02.jpg

aka THE INTERNET

anyway, i haven't received a satisfactory answer, just more talking over and around me, so I'll rest my case.

more leprechaun dancing gifs, pls.

Stoned people take interest in funny things. Crazy people can be funny. You are crazy (or seem to be). That about sums up why people around here take an interest in your Livejournal. Pretty obvious, really.

i haven't had this much fun since that new edition of 12 triple cd-r double leopards!!!

What's up with the leprechauns?

Actually no, I don't know it. I never read it. I tried to decipher some of the early entries to find out when precisely you had gone crazy. I couldn't make sense of it and gave up.

Your answer is not satisfactory, but it's convenient now that you have nothing to cull and quote.

"Not satisfactory" = "doesn't fit in your conspiracy theories"? Sorry about that, but I don't know what those theories are, and, more importantly, I don't care.

It's all about creating a written record that "I'm crazy." The LJ was mostly about verifiable attempts to do that, and verifiable incidents. It's called 'dirtying up a potential witness' and you know it.

So the entry quoted above (that is from your LJ, right?) falls outside of "mostly" I guess?

Also, the 'pretending to ignore' thing...that's called 'blackballing'.

No, it's called "embarrassment".

And since when are people on the noise board concerned about distinguishing themselves from the 'crazy'?

Hey, it's always good to have someone crazier than you. Puts things into perspective.

Because people who are truly 'stoned' are not obsessives...

But people who were truly "stoned the night before" are sometimes "bored at work" and like to "go to Livejournal" to read some "crazy ramblings".

This board never made any sense, but it was a good bit funnier and nicer when it began.

I agree.

I like it when you people use the same word over again, like a code

You're not really doing a good job of defusing allegations that you're crazy.

'Crazy people' don't write in lucid sentences. This is a threat, since I had been hospitalized (because I'd received a death threat and had been harassed in 2002). That's your problem if it doesn't 'make sense'...but if it doesn't to you, perhaps you'd care to explain how you have the necessary 'information' to determine this.

You can't determine from a blog whether an individual is 'crazy' or not. That's not rational.

Are you with the branch of the CPD that is truly corrupt? Because the cops always use this 'we have the goods on you' tactic.

Yes, I was hospitalized. That doesn't mean I'm 'crazy'. This is the cops' whole thing with me - I was followed by several harassers in 2002, and it got to the point where it was either take a medical leave or remain in danger. I was suffering from sleep deprivation and needed to take an extended medical leave. I did invite people to call my doctor and ask him about this - no one did, although one person claimed to have done so.

Why do you people use the same words over and over again. I am not convinced by your 'claim' that I am being monitored because of some 'crazy rantings'. Perhaps you'd care to specify which ones were crazy, apart from the obvious trolling quoted above (you don't seriously believe that I hate an entire metropolis, do you?) Because most of the blog was about dealings with suspicious phone calls at work, and suspicious 'dealers' on places like Ebay and Amazon. If you're going to call that 'crazy ranting', be prepared to explain why.

I'm not afraid of your using my 'psychiatric' history against me. You are not privileged to what really went on, for one thing. For another, lots of people go into hospitals or take sleep medication - that doesn't render them invalid or incapable of reason.

But that was their plan all along - to drive me to a point where I had no choice - hospitalization or injury or death. Some weeks before, my bicycle had been sabotaged when I was out of the office. It came apart on State Street, and I went sliding down the street, resulting in a black bruise down my leg.

Then there was the car on LSD earlier this year that deliberately ran into me, accelerating just as I'd come to a near stop in the far right lane.

Do you think that's 'crazy ranting'? There is a police report and there were plenty of eyewitnesses to back that up.

You're just doing damage control here. You guys are in a lot of trouble, probably being investigated by the feds, and you have to dirty up the witness. This has been going on long before there was an internet. Just claiming I'm 'crazy' in the hopes I'll get scared that you'll reveal my 'mental health' history (well what person being harassed wouldn't report to a psychiatrist that they were suffering from sleep trouble?) and go away again. No deal.

Again, please use other tactics - I'm quite familiar with these, and I am NOT intimidated by you. I suffered a clear attempt on my life in March, and I'm not going back.

If you're so bored, why are you still posting?

If you would care to refute that, you're going to cite facts and instances from my entire life, such as the ones I talked about on the blog. Instances like the time I went to church with my father, and someone set fire to his car while we were inside. Can you refute that? Is that a 'crazy ranting'? Is the fact that in 2002, I repeatedly came home to my apartment to find that a useless lock that I never locked myself was locked? And that when I called the landlord about it, they'd denied that they'd ever gone into my apartment and offered to re-locate me on account of the obvious trespassing? Can you refute that? Do such claims automatically make a person 'crazy'?

Can you refute the slander against my father and sister, such as the slander used against my sister to evict her from her apartment (in violation of Chicago's Landlord and Tenant Ordinance), the slander that said she blasted her stereo in the middle of the night and that her dog was barking in the middle of the night (neither occurred). Or the slander that my father 'verbally assaulted' the doorman at my building on a night when he wasn't anywhere near the building? Can you refute that, or at least demonstrate how writing about such things makes me a 'crazy ranter'? I mean, since you want a 'show trial' and all....

I could post more things...going way back to when I was a kid. What it is about is that you never liked my father or mother, but you can't stop there, you have to 'dirty' up the witnesses, i.e., their children. It's my job to put an end to it and tell the truth. It starts with the CPD, but apparently they brought in other 'hired guns' because they need help gathering 'intelligence' and dirtying me up. The fact is, there is no dirt. I do not have a criminal record, I have a decent credit rating, my credit cards are paid off, I've got a good drivers' citation...you have nothing, except the fact that I was hospitalized because I couldn't take the harassment anymore and do my job.

Again, this isn't the fifties, you guys. We're all wise to the tactics - please try harder to smear me. Let's see some more of that 'dirt' you have on me.

Laura H., did I say I was 'bored'?

Obviously someone wants to have a 'show trial' with me.
Fine - we'll have it on this thread. Don't make claims about me you can't back up. I'm sorry if you don't like reading the facts.

And I never said that 'everyone' was in the CPD. Again, do try to be rational, fair and logical in your responses. I mean, since this is a 'trial' and all, you might want to adhere to some principles.

From yourself, for instance? It's all about creating a written record that "I'm crazy." - your words.

'Crazy people' don't write in lucid sentences.

What about Franz Kafka, Philip K. Dick or Daniel Paul Schreber? I have to admit it's pretty rare. My advice to you is to keep blogging and get a book deal as soon as you're widely recognized as the craziest woman on the internet. Which might be soon if the word spreads.

I can't even address the rest of your last two posts since I have no idea what you're talking about.

Go ahead - say it's crazy. Fact is, this has been dogging me on the internet since late 2001 at least. I even had dinner with one guy who was following me, and he kept making references to the bookmarks on my computer at work - more non-sequiturs.

After the documented slander and the attempt on my life, I have no choice but to postulate a theory about what I'm seeing. I owe it to society, too - is it my duty to keep silent when I encounter evidence of criminal activity? Some people engage in non sequiturs, and it's fair to ask why their posts are so 'non sequitur' and what they mean.

I've been dealing with these dumb misogynist cops for years - I'm not intimidated by them.

x-post: Yawn, you did NOT demonstrate through logic and facts that I am 'crazy'. Nor am I convinced that the above writers were 'crazy'.

You might start by making a case for your definition of 'crazy'. What do you think 'crazy' is? Is it a term that can be 'revoked'? Of if someone is deemed 'crazy' by some arrogant ass who thinks his opinion is the final authority on such things, can it be revoked? Does it mean that nothing a 'crazy' person says is ever factual?

Do explain your definition of 'crazy'.

And I'll note that you fail to reply to my discussion of the burning of my father's car, the slandering campaign against my family, and the attempted murder on Easter Sunday of this year. Do you have evidence that I made those things up? Because that wasn't 'crazy ranting', so it's an exception to your claims.

However, you DID make the allegation that I'm 'crazy' based on my livejournal. Do let us go back and try to follow my logic again. You said my livejournal is just 'crazy ranting'. I am asking you if the above facts I posted are indicative of 'crazy ranting'. If you fail to address them, you don't have much of a case for arguing that I am categorically a 'crazy ranter'.

Fact is, you wish I would 'keep blogging'. The more exposed I am, the more likely it is that someone will try the sort of bullshit that was tried on me back in March.

If I am crazy, then I am making that up - right?

Or if I'm not making it up, then who can blame someone from getting 'emotional' about such a thing - most likely aggravated from frustration and a lack of sleep?

You DO need to take more care with your arguments.

I have to say this freaked me out too. I also have a Monopoly game.
I feel like I'm being watched.

OK. In your case:

        * 301.00 Paranoid Personality Disorder
    A. A pervasive distrust and suspiciousness of others such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:
       1. suspects, without sufficient basis, that others are exploiting, harming, or deceiving him or her
       2. is preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends or associates
       3. is reluctant to confide in others because of unwarranted fear that the information will be used maliciously against him or her
       4. reads hidden demeaning or threatening meanings into benign remarks or events
       5. persistently bears grudges, i.e., is unforgiving of insults, injuries, or slights
       6. perceives attacks on his or her character or reputation that are not apparent to others and is quick to react angrily or to counterattack
       7. has recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding fidelity of spouse or sexual partner

Does any of this sound familiar to you?

Again, I know all of your routines. Argue with me by addressing my points, using facts and logic. Your other tactics won't hold up in a court of law, nor an official debate, and you know it. They're called 'ground rules'.

You made the allegation - substantiate it.

Oh fuck you feminazi. Quit mocking me. Address my documented instances from which I base my claims, or explain your purpose in posting. Or get the fuck out. This 'you're a paranoid tinfoil hatter' shit won't stick unless you've been with me my whole life and no every instance of harassment and slander. Have you? No?
Then shut the hell up. Mockery has no place in a rational debate. Let's do this the formal way, or consider yourselves un-cooperative.

Was that an attempted murder in March of 2003 or not?

Was my father's car not blown up in the early eighties or not?

Did people lie about my father and sister this year or not?

Did I have dealings with shady book and DVD dealers this year or not?

Was someone stalking me back in 2002 or not?

Was someone locking a lock in my apartment that I do not use, or not?

Did someone send me loads of weird-ass e-mail in 2002 or not?

And there is much more. It's called 'gathering evidence'. Excuse me if you feel that people have no right to put pieces together when they have enough evidence to make a legitimate claim of harassment.

Address the attempted murder on Lake Shore Drive this year.

I mean, if someone tried to kill you, and it was quite obvious, wouldn't you feel just a mite 'paranoid'? Wouldn't you ask questions as to who might do such a thing?

Why do you fail to address the EVENTS I described above (the accident, my father's car, the lies, etc. etc.).

I mean, if those things happened to any rational person, they might conclude that they were under some sort of surveillance - no?

I am not 'malevolent' at all. I do not 'bear grudges' and am not 'unforgiving'. I do not have suspicions 'without basis' - what sort of person just accepts it and stays silent when someone deliberately rams his car into hers on Lake Shore Drive? What sort of person allows a years-long pattern of slander against my family to go unaddressed?

That answer will NOT suffice.

Now you are ranting here instead, in a place that is way more exposed than your LJ. I don't follow your logic.

Yawn - no, it doesn't.

Figures. Crazy peple don't know that they are crazy.

Why do you fail to address the EVENTS I described above (the accident, my father's car, the lies, etc. etc.).

Because I don't know what that is all about, and I don't care either.

I'm not going to be worn down by your repeated assertions that I am 'crazy'. I have plenty of backing and moral support now. The ball is in your court. Merely saying things are so is not the same thing as constructing a thesis and supporting it.

It is far too late for you to make the 'crazy people don't know they're crazy' claim. Even my own doctor does NOT think I am crazy - he simply thinks I am burned out. Care to take it up with him? Because the last person who claimed to do so did NOT. Wonder why.

I'm not 'ranting', either - I am quite calm. In fact, your failure to argue on my level is quite amusing.

I'm sorry, but this old 'you're crazy, you need help' racket is just not going to work on me any more. It was tried in 2002, and people got busted for it - they failed. Please try some other arguments.

wait a second, guys, why am i bothering?

Now, the thing is: I can't supply you with logical reasons why you are crazy. There may be people after you or not, I don't know. I can't factcheck your evidence, and I wouldn't if I could, because I still don't care. But the way you insist on people being after you, the way you keep going on and on about them in places that have obviously nothing to do with any conspiracies, makes you look completely and utterly insane. There are two possible explanations for your failure to see this: 1) you are taking the piss; 2) you are crazy.

Even my own doctor does NOT think I am crazy - he simply thinks I am burned out.

Have you shown your doctor your LJ?

Though, in all seriousness, you should should see what's in her sock drawer: WOW.
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=L806
- -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Cryptix OpenPGP

iD8DBQE5s7LHMLBhoCNoxtsRAvnSAJ90uk2rBro/oX0eyIX6dyiY7HYvhgCeObEu
ii6eKQ53XUU0sGCA3/h5btw=
=Xeib
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Fair question.

I responded that it's because you're crazy,

Really? There are people all over the 'net who could be considered 'crazy'. Do flesh this out some more. And do you have other words besides 'crazy'? You have never explained what 'crazy' means to you. Also, you really ought not say 'you're crazy' but you should say, 'it appears to me that you are crazy'. Because 'crazy' is not a thing that can be measured objectively.

and, hence, entertaining. You responded in turn by unfolding a muddled net of conspiracy theories,

Are you saying that the car crash was a 'conspiracy theory'??

Is my 'conspiracy theory' on trial here, or is it that whole victimization business that is on trial.

It's only a 'muddled net' if you say so.

Look, moron - my argument is this:

Lots and lots and lots of bad things have happened to me and my family. Things that are so objectively cruel and bad that only a 'CRAZY' person would NOT ask questions and attempt to formulate theories about them. Only a CRAZY or IRRATIONAL or ILLOGICAL person would NOT ask questions and be a good little girl and stay silent.

I'm sorry - I'm not going to let someone try to kill me or my father and stay silent. Please address my 'stories' and explain how you think my daring to ask questions about them is 'crazy'. But first you have to explain what you mean by 'crazy'.

written in very clear prose,

Yes indeed. You are contradicting yourself.

then asking why people think you are crazy.

Who are 'people'? I don't know any of you. I don't get treated as a 'crazy person' in my hometown or at work or by my family or by people who know me. Isn't that more important? Why do you seem SO convinced that some anonymous stranger's opinion of me will 'sink in' and convince me that, 'yeah, he must be right - I should go back to that doctor he's so interested in and seek help.' Please. That is an authoritarian and bullying attitude. You think I didn't consider back in 2002 that I might be imagining things? I am a practicing skeptic, for Christ's sakes. Since when do YOU know my own mind and life history better than I know my own? I've examined that possibility, but things got SO bad and so threatening that I had to rule it out.

Now, the thing is: I can't supply you with logical reasons why you are crazy.

No, you can't. So why do you persist? And what you should write here is: "I can't supply you with logical reasons why I think you are crazy."

There may be people after you or not, I don't know.

In which case I wouldn't be 'crazy' after all. So you are opening up to the possibility that I may be right.

I can't factcheck your evidence, and I wouldn't if I could, because I still don't care.

Then why were you so insistent earlier that I am 'crazy' and that it was irrefutable? If you don't care, then why do you bother to defend this un-natural interest in me? Why the 'interest' if you 'don't care'?

But the way you insist on people being after you, the way you keep going on and on about them in places that have obviously nothing to do with any conspiracies,

Did -I- start this thread? No. I came on to ask questions and defend my character. Fact is, I DO believe that attempted murder is serious and warrants such seriousness. Perhaps you do not.

makes you look completely and utterly insane.

To WHOM? I'm validated in my own world here in Chicago - I couldn't give a shit about the old 'gang-bang' and 'isolation' tactic. It's been done to me since grammar school, because my parents were political troublemakers and whistleblowers here in Cook County. It's only reasonable then to speculate that those who have a beef with me and my family would follow me to boards - I'm just doing the rational investigative thing and trying to figure THAT out. That is a rational and well-considered response to what's been going on here in Chicago to me and to my family. I put it on a blog because you're free to ignore it. I NEVER asked anyone on ilx to consider it. But there is a hatefulness on here and a lack of willingness to engage people that wasn't here back in 2001, and that merits consideration.

There are two possible explanations for your failure to see this: 1) you are taking the piss; 2) you are crazy.

I don't 'fail' to see anything. YOU do not control what is in my brain and you cannot. I WILL not 'come around' to your way - I have put years of research into this crap that is being done to my family - now that someone tried to kill me, it is my DUTY to not remain silent.

I posted the police report elsewhere. Go ahead and call them and ask them about the crash on LSD on Easter Sunday. And that was the second one - the first was the bizarre attack on my father, in which the Illinois State Police's signature wasn't even legible, and in which the perp was lying his ass off. I'm supposed to watch this stuff happen again and again and not ask questions and say nothing?

If you think I'm lying, fair enough if you don't know me, but social etiquette demands that you not 'rub it in' in case I might be telling the truth. I mean, if you think I'm lying about harassment and attempted murder, you really ought to shut your fucking mouth or at least explain why you're inclined to disbelieve someone you don't even know. Or do the noble thing and stay the fuck out of it and not comment about it - here or in some chat room.

I mean, I've witnessed all sorts of conflagrations on the boards these past several years, and I usually just stay out, because I don't want to take the chance of coming down on the wrong side regarding people I don't know, I don't want to take the chance of hurting someone by playing a role in their stigmatization and isolation. I try to keep an open mind about things.

>>Even my own doctor does NOT think I am crazy - he simply thinks I am burned out.

Have you shown your doctor your LJ?

I don't SEE a doctor regularly, nor do I see him anymore, because I don't really need him. Also, it is none of your business what goes on between me and my doctor. I have not seen him in nearly a year - because I don't fucking need a psychiatrist, I was having sleep problems and that is documented.

Why - do YOU think I should show it to him? First you claim 'you don't care' and then you ask this irrelevant question.

Moreover, I DID tell my doctor exactly what's been going on. When he was on leave, I saw another doctor. Neither said that I'm 'crazy' or 'psychotic' or anything. Sleep deprived, exhausted, overwhelmed and maybe depressed - yes. 'Crazy' or 'psychotic' or 'paranoid' - NO. It was more about stress and sleeping and eating habits. I mean, since you ask or intimate or whatever it is you are doing.

But really, my alleged medical situation is none of your business. Your question implies that my doctor ought to know what I'm thinking. He does, for one thing. I told him back in 2002. For another, your inquiries imply that I am not responsible for my own thought - that I need YOU to tell me what is 'real' and what is 'factual' and what is 'sane', and that I am incapable of determining that on my own. It also implies that you are certain what I've been doing and thinking lo these past four years.

That is an authoritarian and hostile viewpoint.

That's the whole point of this exercise - to flush out those who absolve themselves of social responsibility out of concealed hostility and rationalized apathy and other social flaws.

But those things REALLY happened. Your obligation as a decent person is not to assert that someone is 'crazy' yet somehow deserving of hostile scrutiny. I have NEVER treated someone this way. If you're in doubt, stay silent and keep your own counsel. Don't participate in what could very well be a witch hunt. Just how hard is it for citizens to act according to basic enlightenment principles: fairness, reason, logic, etc.?

Explain your certs here. Just how have you become so convinced.

Because in my rational universe - that of a long-standing, practicing skeptic - one's opinion is just that. But you won't say it's an opinion. You won't admit it's your opinion.

You refuse to read my statements with care, and you refuse to respond to them point by point. That is labeling.

I'll take that as a refusal to engage me according to the principles of reason and logic. You're fond of making declarations without explaining yourself.

I'm not going to dignify this with a response. The proper place for it is the legal realm. I am not going to be your little nigger and make .pdf's for a bunch of strangers. The police and other authorities have the necessary info, and that's enough. That was not my point. My point was that this stuff CAN be validated, and as a decent person, you ought to entertain that notion and back the fuck away.

I do have a police report. It's been posted all over the place. I have lots of things. I'm not gonna slave for you and do all that, I'm gonna do the right thing and give it to law enforcement or management or whatever proper authority in charge of those things.

Just as people here ought not play psychiatrist when they have no such authority, nor should they play judge when they have no such authority.

Because that's just another fucking tactic. Going through the whole thing again would be extremely stressful and damn it - that IS the point of asking me to put together two years of work - to burn me out again and again.

That is not my job. Admit you don't know, shut up and back out is what a decent self-described message board participant OUGHT to do. Since when is the noise board a fucking tribunal? I'm simply asking you to back the fuck away from me, there are good reasons for why I do what I do, and you ought to consider that before doing such things as labeling, assuming and mocking people.

Yawn, cut the crap. These links and quotes were not posted by here BY ME. I came here to get some answers, and I'm still not getting satisfactory answers. Then there were baseless snipey comments. Quit dodging - if you're going to make assumptions and talk trash about people, you owe them a forthright explanation and not transparent evasiveness.

Look at the beginning of the thread: I did not start this.

But I do enjoy arguing with people who apparently have no motivation whatsoever to be forthright, fair, or rational.

BULLSHIT.

I'm not going to dignify this with a response.

LOLZ.

You might as well ignore us then. As you pointed out, none of us know you, so why does it matter what we say about what you do?

Are you kidding?

Nice carefully considered reply there.

>>I'm not going to dignify this with a response.

LOLZ.

How mature.

anyway, what is the purpose of all your livejournal diarrhea, if not to be scrutinized by the intranets at large?
-- cutty (holle...), November 18th, 2005.

It's for me to sort things out, and it's for my friends. What is the purpose of quoting me and sniping at me while expecting me not to reply?

You still haven't answered the question: what is the nature of your interest in me?

There is no 'evidence' here that the 'good stuff' on there has been fairly 'scrutinized' (although I've gotten GOOD results from it - perhaps that is the REAL reason that some people are annoyed by it?). You just select the most purposely ridiculous and humorous parts from it...for what purpose? That is what I'm asking.

Fact is, I DO get good results when I put this stuff online. That is the purpose: to let people who care know what is going on, and please help me corroborate or sort it out. Use some common sense and display some decency - do you think it's fair to ridicule and libel someone who is justifiably upset because someone tried to kill her? Do you think that is decent behavior? I wouldn't do it, so I'm wondering what sort of person would do it. I mean, if you're a rational person, you have to consider the possibility that it is true. If it is true, you're threatening someone's security by opening them up to further ridicule and distortion and by 'spreading' this information. You're asking me to accept your 'reality'. In my eyes, you are justifying an appalling lack of ethics and empathy.

You might as well ignore us then. As you pointed out, none of us know you, so why does it matter what we say about what you do?

I don't know who you are, Yawn. That doesn't mean I don't know everyone on the entire board. It DOES matter, since I've been here since early 2001 as far as I can tell. It does matter, since someone or some group clearly has it in for me - if someone is trashing me, it is rational self-preservation to hold them in suspicion, no??

Why do you even bother with these pitiful questions?

And if you have nothing to do here but make inane comments, I suggest you leave, because you are basically admitting that you don't take an allegation of attempted murder seriously. Or you are admitting that you don't care enough about me to take MY attempted murder seriously.

Do you really want things to look that way?

Why do I ask? Because I'm a caring person, and frankly, I wouldn't shrug off such a thing. I'd give it some thought and care. There have been times on the 'net when I've come across people in distress and I've tried to give them moral support or at least help them get to the bottom of things. One time I helped a woman who was being stalked and ridiculed over her dead child - no one else was coming to this woman's defense. It wouldn't matter if it were 'true' or not - the fact is that ridiculing a woman who'd lost her baby is morally indefensible, and I felt that someone ought to take a stand against that behavior. I don't believe in refusing to take a stand or refusing to get involved when people are the subject of unnecessary cruelty or ridicule.

I wouldn't shrug off what happens to people by making the anti-ethical statement that, "people are shit and that's the way it is, what do you expect?" That sort of argument is really hostility in disguise, a statement that one doesn't have to care if one is not legally obliged to do so. I guess that's perfectly legal, but it's just so unethical and cynical and sleazy...

Are you pretend?

Love,

gbx

xpost: sandy!

Nice reference to 'Chinatown' - mind telling me where you got it and why you posted it?

I'm still waiting for an answer to the question...why.

Instead I get, "I'm sorry to break it to you, but we don't give a shit if you die." Answer me: that IS what you are saying, no?

But I get no defense of that 'philosophy', or whatever you want to call it. I get a shrug and an implicit justification.

WHY DO YOU POST THE THINGS YOU DO?

And Jon, obviously you didn't see my 'vag', since it was 'cleaned up'. That was a fucking joke.

And yet you display an untoward interest in me - that is something I have trouble reconciling. What is your interest in proclaiming that I'm 'crazy' and that an inexplicable interest in me is justifiable, yet not so interested that you would care if I were killed?

You take an interest, you take the time to label me and assume things about me, and yet you claim you don't care that I was in 'a car crash' (it was an attempted murder, by the way - the guy (who gave his name on the expired license he had with him as 'Mugur Simionov') accelerated deliberately to a ridiculous speed just as I had (properly) slowed down because the car in front of me had slowed down).

Please note: there was no 'controversial' journal before this 'hit' on me.

Hey, .pdf asshole: I don't work on demand. I don't put up .pdf's and put together all of my files and notes because some anonymous asshole demands it. That was a transparent attempt to demand more 'work' out of me. That IS my point, or are you another anonymous idiot who can't comprehend my arguments?

Oh not in you personally, just the endless stream of paranoid delusions in your blog. It's entertaining! A bit in the bumfight league, maybe, but still.

WE SHOULD HANG OUT. I'll swing by your place after work. Don't worry, I already know how to get there.

Were the events listed above 'paranoid delusions'? Do you have a hard time separating someone's writing from their person? Do you think your scrutiny and ridicule has no consequences? Do you automatically behave that way when someone is trying to figure out why someone would want to kill her? Do you think it's 'irrational' and 'delusional' for a person to sort it all out as a means of getting to the bottom of a mystery?

Do specify. Otherwise, you're really making yourself look like an ass, because you're making claims without bothering to engage or substantiate. You just say the same thing over and over again in hopes I'll crack. I won't - I have some authority and moral support in this now, and you know it.

giboyeux - I am a Chicago native. I don't 'hang out' with people I don't know. And how DO you 'get there'?

WHY. How is this relevant to this discussion? My question is - why the interest in me? The first explanations given were not logical, nor could they be substantiated. I'm waiting for a satisfying explanation.

I'm waiting for a satisfying explanation.

The explanations were perfectly fine, you just can't accept them because that would mean accepting that you are paranoid, overreacting, having a nervous breakdown, whatever. I think we are moving in circles here.

Bzzzt. Sorry, but that address locator is out of date, apparently. But I DID used to live there - how 'bout that!

I don't know if the events listed above were real or not.

Wow, an admission of fallibility!

Claiming that people are after you and your family and speaking in codes in messageboards on the internet to conspire against you

Um, yes. Criminals DO speak in code. Or don't you read about these things? I've busted a few of them. Like, really specific references to things in my apartment and stuff. However, my blog wasn't really about that - was it? No, it wasn't. I'm not putting it up again - it's being saved. All of the events described have been forwarded to the right people, so there is no need for it. However, that is a grotesque distortion of what was going on. You are simply taking advantage of the fact that it is down in order to make outrageous claims about it. i.e., you're covering your ass.

that strikes me as pretty fucking delusional, especially when you fill an entire blog and several lengthy threads with those claims.

I'm 'claiming' that someone tried to kill me and my dad?

I told you - ANSWER MY FUCKING POINTS. If a perfectly rational person experiences an attempt on their life (along with TWO ENTIRE YEARS of more-than-suspicious events), it is their duty to themselves and their community to 'decode' the whole thing and try to put it together.

>>I'm waiting for a satisfying explanation.

The explanations were perfectly fine,

No they were not. They were satisfactory - to you. To you. That's called 'subjectivity'. Are you seriously arguing that what appears to be YOU to be true is an undisputed fact? Because that is what your statements imply.

How difficult is it for you to say, "in my opinion, but I could be wrong?"

Let us not forget that here you go again, taking an interest in me and basically confessing that you have enough 'knowledge' of me to deem me 'delusional' and 'paranoid' - I mean, if you are a rational man to be taken seriously, then surely you must have put a lot of time into your amateur diagnosis - am I right?

So let's say you are the rational man whose conclusions are to be taken as gospel - I mean, since all of your opinions are apparently so self-evident and all. Well, you must have put a lot of work and thought into it, doing what I do, self-examining your observations and opinions, considering you may be wrong and all.

You took all that time with my livejournal, and yet...you claim upthread that you don't know me, don't care about me, why should you care about me, it doesn't matter if I die because you can't do anything about it.

All this time and energy deciding I'm 'paranoid' and 'delusional' and yet you take no personal concern in me at all.

WHAT I AM ASKING FOR, Mr. Blockhead, is an explanation for how that can be so. How can you take such an interest in a person and yet not give a shit if they live or die?

you just can't accept them because that would mean accepting that you are paranoid, overreacting, having a nervous breakdown, whatever. I think we are moving in circles here.

I think you are making a lot of claims you can't substantiate. I also feel you have contradicted yourself.

Once again, you narcissistic egomaniac: your opinions are not universal, nor are they scientifically demonstrated FACT. I couldn't care less that you think I'm 'paranoid', 'delusional', etc. What I AM interested in is WHY you think that, or how you have come to think that.

And why you persist in saying the same things over and over again, instead of responding - point by point - to what I have written here.

I'm just killing time while lying in bed with the flu. Why do you give a shit about my answers to your points, when I am a moron, a blockhead, and a narcissist? I don't like your attitude.

Now she lives in Rogers Park.

Seeing as someone tried to kill me, Mr. "Yawn", I take a logical approach toward anyone who displays a rather prejudiced interest in ME.

I don't live there anymore.

I did once state that I was re-locating, but that 'for security purposes', I wasn't telling where I lived.

x-post, Laura, your comments are unfair and betray a disregard for my painstaking explanations above. Can you say 'attempted murder'? I thought you could. Now tell me, how would a lucid, rational person respond when someone apparently tried to kill her, only months after her father was seriously injured in a deliberate hit as well?

Laura, 'holding contempt for the people here' is YOUR take on my sentiments. Please take responsibility for that. I am a practicing skeptic asking questions and trying to get answers. It would be nice if people responding to me would not attribute sentiments and notions that I do not have.

Again, Laura, since you essentially admit that you are far too apathetic to take someone's arguments seriously and fairly (a pity, since when I am in a discussion, or even when I am reading one, I strive to do this) - what is a person supposed to do when she writes about harassment, an attempt on her life, an attempt on her father's life, and several ludicrous slanders against family members in her blog, and some faceless stranger takes a bunch of angry joking out of context on another forum?

Is it not fair and reasonable to ask WHY someone would reproduce elements of that blog in the most incriminating light? Is it not reasonable to ask why anonymous strangers would claim interest and yet disregard for someone who repeatedly claims that what drove her to do this is the attempt on her life?

Or do you just keep posting to this thread, basing your 'questions' on nothing I've taken the time to write, in hopes that my blindingly lucid arguments and total composure will be buried in a flurry of irrelevant comments and questions? I believe this is 'the last word' strategy. It's taking advantage of the layout of ILX to bury what is beautifully reasoned and worth taking seriously.

Laura, please answer: how can someone who suffered an attempted murder write off ANYONE who goes around making unsupportable claims that I am 'paranoid' and 'delusional'?

If this failure to respond to my comments upthread keeps up, I will simply post my arguments again and again. I am NOT wasting energy. I am making a fool out of anyone who would claim I am 'trivial' or 'delusional' or not to be taken seriously.

C-O-N-T-E-X-T, Laura - it is clear from the events since about December of 2001 that I DO have enemies. Therefore anyone who is quick to judge or label me WILL be held under suspicion. Again, that is the fair and rational thing to do. It is in my self-interest to gain knowledge about people who are quick to label or question me.

I am clearly NOT 'full of contempt' or even 'angry' at this point. I enjoy doing this. I enjoy tearing apart lousy ill-considered arguments. Please stop attributing sentiments to me that I DO not have.

wait, this is confusing. did laura "suffer" an attempted murder? did jon? did the cpd? was it col. mustard in the kitchen with the candlestick?

And most car accidents happen close to home, etc. Not sure what the stats are for attempted murder.

You had better be careful. What kind of pills are these? I'd warn anyone to be on guard against sleeplessness. Earlier this year, I started out just waking in the middle of the night, but by May and June I was losing 3, 4, 5 nights in a row at least once a week, and was suffering from extreme paranoia as a result. I'd see a doctor before it gets worse. It could be a medical problem. I still don't know what was wrong but thank god for Ambien - it's keeping me alive and sane right now.
-- Kerry (dymaxia...), October 2nd, 2002.

In what universe is a long-time poster nearly murdered, and her father nearly murdered, and her family subjected to repeated harassment, and NONE of it is taken seriously - with no consideration whatsoever.

Do let's try to be logical here:

Laura asked me to 'write everyone off'.

I said I can't, because someone tried to kill me last year. Ergo, it is reasonable to be a bit alarmed when someone takes an unfriendly interest in me. I think the sentence is pretty clear.

Giboyeux, you KNOW 'Mugur Simionov'? That was the name on the police report, since it was the name on the 'license' he used. That does not mean that the individual you reference is the same person, but nice try.

Tell me about him. The name was spelled with a 'U', by the way.

It wasn't any sculptor who tried to kill me. The guy obviously had drug connections and was probably using a bogus license anyway (he was taken into custody because it was expired).

Also, I never called you "trivial" or "delusional," or claimed to be "apathetic," so I would ask you to stop attributing sentiments to me as well.

Ah, good - I see we are finally going to put that crazy bitch on trial.

Well let's have it, then.

YOU try not sleeping for four or five days because of harassment and not feel 'paranoid'. That LOGICALLY does not mean that someone didn't try to kill you. That is a temporary condition, and it does not mean one is permanently paranoid and just imagining everything.

You guys are in a lot of trouble. The feds and some media people are reading this.

Laura, you know damn fucking well I have no intention of 'changing minds', so quit playing fucking dumb. Read the above sentence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

haha wintermute! I have linked that for her before :(((

well, tell them we aren't the ones who tried to kill you. we like you, you crazy bitch!

I probably knew what 'Occam's Razor' was when you were in diapers, you condescending, judging-me-without-recognizing-my-education piece of shit.

That doesn't mean they did it, you twit. It means they might know things, or they might not be forthcoming, and in that climate, they are at the very least ethically obligated to be forthcoming.

If you didn't do it, and you don't condone it, then WHY.

WHY.

WHY do you fucking mock it?

That is the ONLY reason I came here, and I'm still not getting an answer.

You like attempted murder, don't you?

Oh no, someone who survived that, and watched her father get his arm torn up NEVER gets rattled, and if she does...she must be crazy.

And that is NOT suspicious behavior at all. No, perfectly normal humane people behave that way ALL THE TIME.

It's because you're Irish. (I am like ~60% Irish.)

WHY. Can you argue rationally, or not? Or do you just condescendingly re-post shit from Wikipedia because you're too fucking dumb to use anything but Cliff Notes?

Let's see some of YOUR fine education put to use.

Fuck you, Jon - my family were Irish Republicans. You think that doesn't mean anything to some vindictive types, you're fucking ignorant. Again, stop acting as if you haven't lived my life and had a bunch of anti-Irish stereotypes thrown at you.

The least you heartless fuckers could do is say you feel bad or sorry about what happened to me. But you won't do that, because you've basically admitted here that you don't give a shit when people nearly die.

Demonstrate some humanity for the love of god. The sort of humanity that WAS here in 2001, 2002 etc.

Why look for humanity online?

Why do I keep repeating these things? Because you just arrogantly make claims, but don't logically explain anything.

Take your psychobabble bullshit and shove it up your ass. You don't know me. I'm feeling great, now that I see what an arrogant, inhumane asshole who laughs about murder is really all about.

Cutty, what relevance is my like or dislike of this board have anything to do with it? There is a thread here that references me out of context. I am obligated to respond. That has nothing to do with what I think of the noise board - I have no opinion on it. I just don't understand why people post trivial garbage when the subject matter is so serious. Seems to me to be indicative of someone with serious social adjustment problems. Again, because I wouldn't do that.

Book 'em!!

Unlike you, I do NOT take a cynical view of humanity, even if the deck is currently stacked to make humanity look as, well, 'un-humane' as possible. It is simply not within my experience to think that everyone online is a predatory shitbag. Writing online has more benefits than liabilities.

Yawn, you're still being trivial. Answer me definitively : do you feel nothing when someone claims they were the victim of an attempted murder - I mean, I say this as a long-standing member of this online community.

What does 'community' mean to YOU? Does it mean you have no responsibilities or obligations toward others in that community?

It doesn't to me.

I couldn't give a shit about the White Sox.

It's called being 'mature' and socially well-adjusted and well-raised and well-mannered and all of that.

Some stranger? No, not really. He could lie.

Does it mean you have no responsibilities or obligations toward others in that community?

Responsibilities or obligations towards people who I don't know, who are obviously crazy and who keep insulting me? Again, no.
xpost, ahaha "well-mannered"

-- whiteout (kee...) (webmail), November 18th, 2005 4:47 PM.

I dunno. I thought that a lot of your posts sounded an awful lot like you were trying to explain yourself. And even if you are trying to create some sort of record here, I don't know why it's necessary to repeat yourself so many times unless you're hoping for a new reaction. But like I said, as long as you're getting what you want out of this, carry on.

do you feel nothing when someone claims they were the victim of an attempted murder
Some stranger? No, not really. He could lie.

Fair enough, but I wouldn't parade my callousness about it, either.

Which brings me to the important point: how DOES one evaluate another's credibility or sincerity? Me, I look for the sincerity of expression, the painstaking thought, the attempts to understand...if someone demonstrates these things, then I myself feel obligated to give a shit. Or at least, I don't shrug off something as serious as attempted murder.

But the fact is, to the socially adept, there are ways to evaluate sincerity. I gave people more than enough material to demonstrate that I am thoughtful and that I think before I write or speak.

Regardless, what IS truly baffling is your persistence, Yawn, in taking an interest in things and then claiming you're NOT interested. If it didn't matter to you at all, you wouldn't persist. However, you are talking to me directly, and you are telling me that you see no reason to care whether someone tries to kill me or not. I think that speaks for itself.

Responsibilities or obligations towards people who I don't know, who are obviously crazy and who keep insulting me?

You trotted out the 'crazy' thing first. You keep repeating it. You ARE insulting, you deliberately ignore my points and your behavior is more than a mite suspicious. I never insulted you until you took the plunge - that is a FACT. Furthermore, I have indicated to you time and again that what is 'obvious' to you is not a universal truth.

Will you acknowledge the fact of subjectivity, or will that be yet another point of mine that is over your head? When YOU say someone is 'obviously crazy', you must recognize that this is your opinion. Why do you repeatedly fail to address that? Why do you have problems admitting that your opinions are a subjective matter?

I give up now, btw. Whiteout, the board is yours and all the chess pieces have your color.

Hmmmmm.....

>>>Laura, you know damn fucking well I have no intention >>>of 'changing minds', so quit playing fucking dumb. Read the above >>sentence.
-- whiteout (kee...) (webmail), November 18th, 2005 4:47 PM.

I dunno. I thought that a lot of your posts sounded an awful lot like you were trying to explain yourself.

No, I'm giving myself 'equal time'.

And even if you are trying to create some sort of record here, I don't know why it's necessary to repeat yourself so many times

It's called 'interrogation'. It helps me to understand where people are coming from. Do you really not recognize this? When did ILX go from being a board of high-SAT scorers to people with no sophisticated reasoning capability whatsoever?

It might be difficult... The market for fiction is really tough these days.

False claim. Cannot be supported. What is the purpose of making
claims you can't substantiate again?

I'm doing this to you in hopes that maybe some of you might
be able to recognize the debating standards of logic and critical thinking. Did you guys go to college (or even a decent high school) or not?

And to WHAT does this 'book deal' nonsense refer to? Did I say I wanted a 'book deal'? What is THIS shit about, I mean, since my daily work revolves around censorship and the book trade, it IS curious. But no, I didn't say I was angling for a 'book deal' and even if I did write a book, it wouldn't be about the things you people obsess upon, since it is apparent to those who really know me that my passions lie elsewhere.

INTUITION - what does THAT mean? What does that refer to?

Explain your little 'inside jokes'. This thread was started as an attack on me, or at least some sort of 'inquiry'. Please try to demonstrate some maturity and try to be relevant.

in·tu·i·tion
The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition. See Synonyms at reason.
Knowledge gained by the use of this faculty; a perceptive insight.
A sense of something not evident or deducible; an impression.

TRY IT SOMETIME. ALSO THIS:

e·mo·tion
n.
A mental state that arises spontaneously rather than through conscious effort and is often accompanied by physiological changes; a feeling: the emotions of joy, sorrow, reverence, hate, and love.
A state of mental agitation or disturbance: spoke unsteadily in a voice that betrayed his emotion. See Synonyms at feeling.
The part of the consciousness that involves feeling; sensibility: “The very essence of literature is the war between emotion and intellect” (Isaac Bashevis Singer).

False claim. Cannot be supported. What is the purpose of making
claims you can't substantiate again?

-- whiteout (kee...) (webmail)

Actually, this is very well substantiated.

Address me - why DO you play this 'game' on what should be a very serious thread?

A lie is a statement made by someone who believes or suspects it to be false, in the expectation that the hearers may believe it. Thus a true statement may be a lie if the speaker thinks it is false. Fictions, though false, are not lies. Depending on definitions, a lie can be a genuine falsehood or a selective truth, a lie by omission, or even the truth if the intention is to deceive or to cause an action not in the listener's interests. To lie is to tell a lie. ...

If that is you guys, I'm not afraid of you. You're already in a lot of trouble, and you just obsess on me to convince yourselves that you're not. Ain't that just like a dirty cop.

Then what DO you think if I'm not 'lying'? Listen you uneducated cop idiot, 'fiction' is deliberate, just like a lie. Quit weaselling, or as we educated folks call it, using sophistry.

When you imply I'm 'writing fiction', you imply I'm lying.

It stinks like cop, it's a fucking cop.

Well I'm sorry you're all getting busted for being dirty and all, but that was never my fault and you know it. Keep masturbating - it keeps you in the dark about how much fucking trouble you're in.

Yeah, dirty Chicago cops play these mind games. They've been playing them for years. They don't seem to realize we're not in a sixties or seventies police state anymore, but they keep playing the same old games.

I mean, slumming it on message boards. How low you pigs have fallen.

I know it's you, too, because I run into some of you 'following' me. What, do you think I'm fucking dumb? It's not my fault you underestimated my intelligence, or my inability to be intimidated by you.

Good night, Chicago terrorist pigs.

You're going down. But do keep masturbating, it serves us well.

It's not my fault you got in trouble with the feds, and you know it.

Who the fuck ELSE would go into my fucking apartment repeatedly?

You fucking rapists.

In the excepts of the Exegesis reworked into the "Tractates Crytptica Scriptura" that close the novel VALIS, Dick expresses the MIT computer scientist Edward Fredkin's view that the universe is composed of information. The world we experience is a hologram, "a hypostasis of information" that we, as nodes in the true Mind, process. "We hypostasize information into objects. Rearrangement of objects is change in the content of information. This is the language we have lost the ability to read." With this Adamic code scrambled, both ourselves and the world as we know it are "occluded," cut off from the brimming "Matrix" of cosmic information.

Instead, we are under the sway of the "Black Iron Prison," Dick's terms for the demiurgic worldly forces of political tyranny and oppressive social control. Rome is the eternal paragon of this "Empire," whose archetypal lineaments the feverish Dick recognized in the Nixon administration.

Demonstrating that prisons, mental institutions, schools, and military establishments all share similar organizations of space and time, Foucault argued that a "technology of power" was distributed throughout social space, enmeshing human subjects at every turn. Foucault argued that liberal social reforms are only cosmetic brush-ups of an underlying mechanism of control. As Dick put it, "The Empire never ended."

I would like to assert the possibility that the prison has always been under construction, and it gets closer to view as it nears completion.

While the current administration continues to play "The Grand Chessboard" under the Orwellian facade of peace through war and freedom through slavery, we must ask ourselves: to what end? While some have compared Bush's tactics to those of Adolf Hitler, others feverishly argue that this is necessary to protect America's self interests. The prison-builders have always strived to coerce the citizenry into sacrificing liberty for pseudo-security. As H.L. Mencken observed:

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

So now as we embark on a lifelong irrational "War against Terrorism", which comedian David Cross concluded is as feasible to win as a "War against Jealousy", and the CIA-ridden oil-soaked media monopoly continues to parrot the current Administration's macro-management of reality, some of the true prison-builders begin to emerge.

Prison-building with fear

We, as humans, are scared of the unknown. The media frenzy of kidnappings a few months back, which served as a well-timed distraction to events that were conveniently sidelined, also served the prison guards and their prerogative: subdermal microchips.

Shortly after 9-11, in the wake of irrational reactionism, Applied Digital Solutions, parent company of Verichip, went on a flurry of an advertising campaign, asking everyone the Simpson's tagline: "Won't somebody please think about the children?". Andy Rooney came out on 60 Minutes proclaiming; "I wouldn't mind having something planted permanently in my arm that would identify me.''

This market tactic was paired with their "Get Chipped!" promotion, and the "Chipmobile", which is touring Florida Senior centers, prowling for Alzheimers patients who must get chipped "for their own safety". Soon deals were made with China, Mexico, and South Korea to perpetuate the meme that global slavery equals global safety.

Just before the FDA ruled that Verichip is not a regulated medical device, Microsoft MapPoint announced a partnership with Verichip to "pinpoint the location of almost anything you want to track—in real time. You can even receive critical information about body temperature, pulse, and more." The FDA then charged: "ADS's conduct flagrantly disregards FDA's prior comprehensive advice."

Then in November the tune changed, from a medical device back to a location and tracking device, as a Washington forum debated the benefits and hazards posed by a new way of identifying people with a microchip implanted under their skin to replace conventional paper identification. Privacy advocates argued the microchip could spell the end of anonymity in the United States, particularly if authorities began requiring people to wear them to meet conditions of parole, employment or border crossings.

As the prison is beginning to emerge and the thoughts and nightmares of writers of the past are birthed into existence, we embark on a new millennium, a new day in America.

"This is not a dress rehearsal for the apocalypse. This is not a pseudo-millenium. This is the real thing folks. This is not a test. This is the last chance before things become so dissipated that there is no chance for cohesiveness." -Terence McKenna (1946-2000)

I would agree that at the time of this quote, we may have had a few more options. I believe that we have surpassed that now and there may be no turning back, no changing the direction of the ball once it has been thrown, and individually we must decide, Das Experiment-style, as Americans:

Do we want to be the prison guards, the prisoners, or do we want to find a way off of the island?

It's not a prison if you never try the door.

-------------------------------------
Visit Wade's fine website at http://www.libertythink.com. Wade can be reached at: valis@libertythink.com
-------------------------------------
Permission to reprint this article is granted providing the original author is cited and a link to PRISON PLANET.com is included. The views expressed in this article may not necessarily be those of Alex Jones or Paul Joseph Watson.
-------------------------------------
E-MAIL THIS LINK
Enter recipient's e-mail:

Philip K. Dick's Black Iron Subdermal Prison

By Wade Inganamort

As we slingshot into the 21st Century, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the governments and institutions that mold our minds have implemented a system from which we cannot escape. Are we really trapped in a prison with no doors or walls?

No, I am implying that you're nuts.