Monday, December 29, 2008

Twelve Days of Christmas

The formula for the quantity of a given item on a given day of Christmas is:

N * (D-N+1), where N<=D

N is the number of that item given per day; for instance, 5 golden rings are given each day on or after day 5. D is which day it is: the fifth day of Christmas. N is less than or equal to D, otherwise you get negative number results.

I guess I could write a formula for how many total items of everything that you have on each day, regardless of what the items are. You have four total objects on the second day: two partridges and two turtle doves. But I don't feel like figuring out that formula.

I also thought of writing a C++ program that would display a list of all the items you have on any day... but it's been a really long time since I wrote any C++ programs and it would take too long to figure out all the details that I've forgotten. I vaguely know how I would do it. I'd probably use some kind of ... I don't even remember the name of it now. A set, or whatever the variable is that has several different custom-made attributes that can be displayed as text. An "object" or whatever. If I didn't do that, I guess I could make a whole bunch of IF-THEN statements, which would be hilarious and horrible. But I'm not going to.

How many French Hens do you have on the fourth day of Christmas?

N=3 hens per day
D=4th day of Christmas

N * (D-N+1)
3 * (4-3+1)
3 * 2
= 6 French Hens

Now you know. This is just in case a situation ever comes up where you have to find out how many Swans A-Swimming or Lords A-Leaping you got this year.

Saturday, December 27, 2008

I said "no" to going in early to work.

They called me to come in to work earlier than I was scheduled today. I heard the phone ring; I heard on the answering machine Christina asking me to come in early.

I remember some things from the assertiveness book that I read when I was a young teenager, "When I Say No I Feel Guilty."

Arguing logically isn't part of the assertiveness training. It's more about boundaries, feelings, and what you want or don't want. You don't have to argue the logical mistakes or implications in what anyone is saying.

I wanted to say no to coming in early. I was expecting to go in at 3:00, and they wanted me to go in at 12:30. It wouldn't have been so bad, but they called me on the morning of the very day in question. If they had asked me yesterday, I might have said yes.

What did I feel? Angry. Disappointed that all of a sudden, my whole day had been changed. I really had been hoping to do a couple of things. I felt weak. I felt like my wants and needs didn't matter.

Coudn't my activities be postponed? But arguing logically isn't part of this technique. True, they could be postponed. They weren't life or death.

But that is a weakness. Almost anything can be postponed. I can demonstrate this. Peter's wife Tammy knew a co-worker for several decades. It was an older woman, a mother of one of the other employees. Recently, she died. There was a viewing. But it was on a day when Tammy was scheduled to work. Something was going on at work that day and they were having parties or something, and scheduling various managers to cover the shifts of other managers while they were at the party, and then cycling through it until everybody had gotten to go. It would have been inconvenient to them if Tammy had left and hadn't covered her shift on that day. Tammy would have wanted to leave work and go to the viewing. There was another manager, a "higher-up," who DID go to the viewing. But Tammy herself didn't ask, didn't try. Nobody had ever given her any assertiveness training.

To anyone else, this IS an obvious life-or-death situation. You will never see that person's body again. That person was your friend. They will go down in the ground and decay, and their body will become unrecognizable. You will never see them ever, ever again, forever.

But if you leave work, the store will collapse, the universe will collapse, a disaster so inconceivable will happen, that you must absolutely under no circumstances leave work. She is afraid to do the slightest thing because she has Peter's medical care to worry about, and if she gets fired, she won't have insurance. So her choice looked like that. But I think it didn't have to.

So, as I was saying, almost anything can be postponed. Almost any appointment can be skipped. Arguing about whether or not your appointment can be postponed or skipped is ALWAYS a weakness in your side of the argument.

I worry about being fired, too. But I don't have anyone to take care of. No kids, no sick husband who needs medical care. And on top of that, I have parents who used to be wealthy back in the days when pieces of paper really represented some kind of money. (Some of that wealth is being lost right this very minute. I've tried a couple times telling Dad to buy gold and silver coins, and take physical possession of them. He says that in an economic collapse, gold and silver won't be worth anything. There is so much I would have to explain on that subject.) My parents are paying my rent during this time of my underemployment. So if I get fired, it's easier for me than it is for other people.

Therefore, because my parents are wealthy enough to help me out financially, I don't have any boundaries? My wants don't matter? This has happened to me again and again. Because I was lucky enough to have wealthy parents, I should actually be LOWER than all the other people in the world who have to actually WORK HARD for their money. My wants and needs should matter LESS than those of all the hard-working people out there, because I'm so lazy.

And it's like nobody else on earth has ever felt this way, like I'm all alone in feeling angry because they wanted me to show up earlier than I was scheduled to. Like there's something wrong with me for feeling that way, for having a few ideas of what I'd like to do today before going to work.

I finally called back. I have used my sjw once in the past two days or so, so it's possible my behavior is still slightly altered by that. I spoke to Christina herself, which might have made it easier, since she's not my manager. I massaged the collarbone point and the self-acceptance point which I remembered from the Callahan's Thought Field Therapy videos that I bought years ago, and from Emotional Freedom Techniques. So I was slightly soothed as I talked to her on the phone and told her that I couldn't come in early and that I had been planning to do some things.

And it WAS a 'bad case scenario.' No one would be there, she said. Those couple of hours would be uncovered. It wasn't merely that they needed extra help. She herself had to leave and apparently the other person did too. But you know what I feel about that? I DON'T CARE. That department is so slow, I often wonder if I'm going to get laid off just because I'm not needed and we never sell anything, and we throw all the food away, and the shrink is really expensive. We're probably BETTER OFF not having anyone there for a couple hours in the afternoon, if they've already prepared the refrigerated sandwiches and other long-lasting foods.

And so, even though it was a 'bad case scenario,' I still said no.

Role-playing will be an important part of the education that I create for my children and my community, whoever they will be. Role-playing of social skills and conversation skills. And some form of assertiveness training will be part of that. It might not be identical to the book I read years ago, but it will have been inspired by it.

Why is this going to my anonymous blog? I don't know. I don't want to complain about work on a page that my employers might be reading, I guess. And I am feeling more and more connected to this blog instead of my other one. I was thinking that somewhere on my profile or the "About" page, I would say that it's not really anonymous and that if anyone local ever wanted to meet me, they could ask. But it's anonymous to the search engines and to my future employers.

Monday, December 22, 2008

continuing the grooming experiments. thoughts about breastfeeding and child-rearing.

i've changed the way i brush my teeth. first, i was using sea salt to swish out my mouth. but that dried out my lips really badly, and they remained dry for hours, which was annoying. plus, it sometimes made my head feel funny, and my eyes got swollen and baggy looking. it was just too much salt.

so i switched to chewing on bits of red cabbage in order to deactivate the acids in things like coffee. it turns out that chewing on leaves works really well to give the mouth a fresh feeling. however, i'm a little concerned about the goitrogenic effects of eating raw cabbage frequently. fortunately, it's only a little bit of raw cabbage. but it would be easy to find some non-goitrogenic alternative leaf. that's not really an issue.

for a while, i was brushing my teeth with the toothbrush still, rinsing it under the running water, without toothpaste, just dry scrubbing the teeth.

but i have stopped doing that, for the past couple days. this was encouraged by the fact that i read at weston price that the primitive cultures did not brush their teeth at all, and did not even do any activity that even resembled toothbrushing, and their teeth were perfectly healthy so long as they had a good diet. someone talked about vitamin c being important for healthy gums and teeth, and that if you had enough vitamin c, you resisted any harmful effects of plaque buildup. plaque could build up and it didn't do any damage if you had plenty of vitamin c.

so i am looking at my teeth, and yes, there is plaque building up. my roots are exposed because of all the orthodontic work i was forced to get when i was too young to consent or refuse, and when the internet didn't exist, and so all of us were ignorant and unquestioning about everything, because we hadn't read about the possibility of any alternatives. that's the wonderful thing about the internet: it shows us a whole world full of people, some of whom do things very differently than we do. so, i got orthodontic work, and eight total teeth removed, which includes the wisdom teeth. weston price says that maybe, just maybe, my children won't have a small, narrow jaw with maloccluded teeth, if i eat really well during conception and pregnancy and breastfeeding. well, anyway, the plaque is most obvious as it clings to the exposed tooth roots.

this is actually a somewhat dangerous experiment, because i am eating an unhealthy modern diet. i drink coffee, and i eat lots of sugar. or rather, moderate amounts, maybe not as much as some people do.

the only time i felt unusual pain was a day or two ago. i had eaten something strange. i had some skittles candy, and i had snapple orange drink. i think i had one or two other candy-like things. the tooth that hurt was the new cavity, the one that he said was almost at the point of a root canal, the canine tooth on the right. it hurt only a little bit. i am trying to notice a connection between teeth pain, and what i eat. but it will also be connected to the bruxism from exposure to, or deliberate use of, st johns wort. and i might have had that a couple days ago, so it was probably the reason. in fact i did, definitely, use it sometime this past week.

but i do feel sure of one thing. there is no reason at all to brush a baby's teeth while it's nursing. that is the most natural, animal diet that can possibly be given to a person. if there is anything in the world that our teeth were designed to withstand, it's human milk. i don't know how old a child is when it gets its first teeth, but if you breastfeed them for a long time, as i intend to do, they will have a few teeth for a little while during breastfeeding. the bonobos nurse until they are five years old. i think my policy will be 'always say yes.' there won't be a set in stone time when i suddenly start rejecting my baby just because the doctors and the calendar tell me to. just 'always say yes.' that's easy enough. but i won't be surprised or worried if the kid really DOES nurse until they're five years old or so.

the contraceptive effects of breastfeeding fade away at about six months. i intend to try to get pregnant again and then tandem breastfeed. i think this is probably unnatural and unusual, something bonobos wouldn't do - they only have one at a time, i think. but then, they aren't really meat eaters. they eat small amounts of meat occasionally. humans are probably stronger, more fertile, and more able to nourish babies because of meat eating. but i wonder what will happen to the colostrum if i give birth again while tandem breastfeeding. the nature of the milk will change. it will be newborn milk again, and the older child will get milk not designed for its age. they say that the calories increase, in milk, as the child ages. he gets more calories in the milk as he gets older. i imagine this is because toddlers are walking around, using energy, instead of being held and carried, and their muscles are developing. the 'scientists' said they were surprised to find that milk had MORE, not fewer, calories as the child got older, because they expected the breasts to try to wean the child as it was learning to eat solid food. or rather, that's my paraphrase. they expected the children wouldn't need the milk anymore because they were eating food, so it would therefore have fewer calories. but it looks like that interpretation is wrong. the milk intends to continue feeding very active children who are also eating solid food, and running around, and learning muscular coordination, and developing their brains and nervous systems.

so, if my second baby gets this milk, will it be high-calorie milk then, during the baby's inactive period of just sitting there and being carried around? will it then be too fattening for a little infant, if it's still the milk designed for an active toddler?

well, anyway. teeth don't need to be brushed when the baby is only nursing, if it has any teeth at all. since my kids will be nursed a long time, they will definitely have teeth. but they will start eating solid foods, and so if i choose the right foods, they won't have problems.

i think that emotions like 'shame' and fear are created in young infancy. i intend to prevent my children from feeling those feelings. i will raise them with acceptance of their bodies. nobody is going to be 'bad' or 'good' because they did or didn't make it to the toilet in time, for instance. they simply don't have control of those nerves and muscles. being unable to control your nerves and muscles is not 'bad.' i believe that if children are raised without shame and fear in infancy, then they become shameless and fearless for their whole lives, and don't even know how to feel those feelings. if you are forced to feel those emotions in adulthood, they don't hurt you as deeply, they don't 'push your buttons' or control you as badly. those feelings of shame and fear can only control you if they throw you back into infancy. i know about this because of the psychotronic attackers putting me into fake situations of artificial shame and fear. it's not the same as it would be if i were a child raised in an authoritarian house with punishing parents who made me feel like i was 'bad' or 'dirty.'

the one problem that i do have is fear of touch and intimacy, which DOES come from my infancy. i was like an autistic child and couldn't stand to be touched. there were reasons for that - food sensitivities, and possibly my being a week premature, and my bad reaction to mom's anaesthesia.

i think that what you do in young infancy will shape a child's whole life and all of the emotions that they feel. their physical health and the psychological environment will permanently teach them to feel a certain way, and to be unfamiliar with feelings of shame, fear, rage, helplessness, traumatic loss, and other negative emotions.

anyway, on the grooming experiments, i'm still going without shampoo. as i've said before, i originally was using shampoo to wash my whole body, which i learned when i lived with eric. it feels much nicer than soap, and it doesn't clog the pores and cause pimples. it leaves your skin feeling actually clean, instead of having a waxy buildup all over it.

well, i'm not even using that anymore. i am still taking hot baths and showers, not necessarily every day. but i now see that as something which can be done in a primitive setting, now that i know that you can heat up rocks in a fire, and then put the rocks into a small pool of water. i had imagined that it would be almost impossible to create hot water in a primitive setting, because i imagined you'd have to boil a cauldron over a fire for hours to get enough hot water. cauldrons are usually made of iron, and they'd be hard to make in a primitive, fiat-moneyless tribal setting. but the hot rocks in water technique convinces me that i'd still be able to get hot water as needed, just not as conveniently as i can here. hot water isn't as much of a scarce luxury as i thought it was. it's very useful for aches and pains, nausea, overall illness, tiredness, coldness, achy joints, menstrual cramps, etc.

my hair has gotten greasy, but it reached a plateau of greasiness, and i got used to it. it now feels about the same every day. i was already familiar with that because i had already been doing experiments of going longer between hair washings, the way people used to do in the old days. when i was a teenager, i learned to wash my hair every day. but that's because i had a perm, and i styled my hair every day with hair sprays, mousse, gel, and a blow dryer. but now that i think about it, when i was a young kid, still taking baths instead of showers, i might not have been required to shampoo my hair every single day, in every single bath. maybe i did, maybe i didn't. i don't remember. it might have been every other day. but back in the distant past, it was normal for people to go a week without washing their hair. i'm just not washing my hair with anything at all except hot water.

and i'm no longer scrubbing my scalp. originally, i believed that the more you scrubbed your scalp, the better off you were. i scrubbed it with my fingernails while washing, and i scrubbed it with the comb while combing it. i deliberately scratched the scalp for a soothing effect. it does feel good. but it triggered scale and dandruff. i don't mean that it merely loosened up the dandruff that was already there. i mean it CAUSED dandruff to develop, which had not been there previously. now that i'm no longer scrubbing, the dandruff isn't even there. it isn't merely sticking to my head and failing to get scrubbed off. there just isn't any. or rather, very little. the scrubbing and scratching supposedly made it easier for fungus to grow, or something, according to the theory. every time i would use the comb and scratch my scalp, there would be scale and gross clumps of dandruff within a day. now that i am not scrubbing it, there is almost none.

and now, i know for sure it's been at least a week, and actually, it's been longer than that, because i didn't record the exact date that i started, since this was kind of unofficial. but i no longer feel dirty or uncomfortable. i no longer feel 'icky.' if i pay attention to it, i notice that my scalp feels a sensation which is slightly unpleasant. however, i think that some of the skin problems might be from bad water quality - i think it has fungus in it. anyway, the air is cold and dry here in december, and i don't even feel sweaty or greasy on the skin over my whole body. only the head and face are greasy.

i rarely had problems with dry skin in the past. the only time i ever had dry skin was when i used antibacterial soaps, like dial. i only used it because i lived with my parents, and that's what they had bought. i don't believe in antibacterial soaps, and have always had contempt for them. when i used dial to wash my whole body in the shower, it always made my nipples in particular very dry, with peeling skin. it would happen very quickly after using dial. and it happens if i wash my hands with antibacterial soaps. so if i had ever been using that in the past, i would have noticed now that the dry skin problem had gone away. but since i didn't use any chemical soaps, my skin just feels as normal as it did before. it is neither dry nor greasy, except, as i said, on my face. my face has to be washed almost every day, or else the grease runs into my eyes, and it burns a lot. that might change eventually too.

i definitely won't give my kids fluoride. i don't think they need any fluoride at all in their entire life. fluoride treatments at the dentist seem particularly silly. they stick that awful-tasting goo into those styrofoam bite things. then you keep it on the teeth for a short time. this seems very pointless to me. the idea is that you're giving them a high concentration of fluoride, which is supposed to create new, hardened enamel then and there. but i believe that fluoride probably weakens the tooth structure, no matter how it's used, no matter how you ingest it, whether you apply it topically to the teeth, or are forced to drink it in your water supply.

the point was, even if i did have my children brushing their teeth in some way, with a plain toothbrush, or with any kind of toothpaste at all, it would be fluoride-free. if you do compromise on teethbrushing at all, fluoride STILL seems totally unnecessary and harmful, based on what i know about it now. 'animal humans' wouldn't have EVER been exposed to that chemical in the wild. primitive humans, even if they did have some method of chewing leaves or scrubbing something against the teeth, would still NEVER have had fluoride anywhere on or in their bodies. it's such an unusual chemical that you would never run across it 'in your backyard.' it has to be mined from the earth, and refined into chemical elements, using technology and manufacturing and factories and other things that people never had thousands of years ago. non-human animals don't have their teeth falling out as they get older, unless there is a problem - domestic livestock might, but wild animals don't, as far as i know. domestic livestock eat corn and other unnatural foods, which would cause them some problems. anyway, animals aren't chewing up rocks full of fluoride in order to preserve their teeth.

twice now, sue gave me an altoid mint at work. i drink coffee at work, so i would have the usual amount of coffee breath. she drinks coffee too, and smokes, and so she carries those mints around, and she found out that i like them. so it might not be abnormal for her to offer me mints. it could be within the normal range of bad breath that you'd expect from coffee. i would be curious to know if my breath was much worse than usual. i'd wonder if i have 'carnivore breath.' like rotting dead animals, or some other horrible decay smell. but that would be noticeable, and i'd smell it myself, and i don't think i have carnivore breath. i don't think that the plaque buildup smells very much. but i don't have much of it, and i don't yet know what it will be like.

i'm wondering about the 'doing chores' phenomenon that i'm reading about in some of the attachment parenting blogs.

i don't think we're going to be writing charts. maybe, maybe not. i probably wouldn't have minded chore charts so much, except that in the beginning of my psychotronic attack experiences, one of the things they forced me to do was make a chart of each day when i was supposed to take out the trash, etc.

i want the kids to contribute to the household functioning in a way that actually matters. they are not going to do stupid, trivial things like 'pick up your socks off the floor' or other petty nagging. instead, they are going to contribute economically in such a way that they are eating the food that they themselves planted and harvested and cooked. i saw a tv show where some primitive tribe had a little toddler sitting on the ground, holding a big sharp knife and cutting up food. and another kid ran right by, and the toddler moved the knife out of the way. the tv show stopped the camera on the shot where the other kid had run next to the knife, and they drew a circle around the exact location where the child's hand or whatever body part had been, to show how close it was. this tv show portrayed it as an 'oh my god!' sort of incident. with disapproval about the fact that the toddler was using a knife at such a young age. that convinced me that toddlers can and should learn how to use sharp knives. it's amusing, i was convinced of the exact opposite of what the tv show wanted me to believe. those tv shows were disapproving of the horrors of this primitive lifestyle, in a poverty-stricken community somewhere in africa or south america or somewhere. where kids are forced to use knives to cut food at such a young age, instead of having the luxury of sitting in front of a television all day watching barney the dinosaur.

the only thing that i am wondering about is what will happen during tandem breastfeeding to the constituency of my breast milk. (it's strange to say 'my' breast milk, instead of 'the' breast milk, in an abstract detached way. i don't have any arrangements in the real world that would lead to marriage or childbirth right now, especially with the poisons on my carpet, and the resin fillings in my teeth causing such breast pain. i can't imagine how i would nurse with my severe breast pain and tenderness. and i don't want to share the poisonous plastic bisphenol-a with my nursing babies or my developing fetuses either.)

another thing. i looked at that book in my google library about make-believe. i'm convinced that children do learn mental/psychological habits like that from their parents, and that they can be encouraged or discouraged to think in an open-minded way at a young age. some kids will have a temperament that leads them to be closed-minded adults anyway, but you can have a greater or lesser degree of closed-mindedness if you encourage make believe and tolerate questioning and the unexpected ideas that kids have. so even if my kids are helping grow the food in the garden, or whatever, i still want them to have fantasy lives, and i still want to 'educate' them somehow by giving them books. but i'm not sure about the books, i'm not sure what i'll do with that. books can be very confusing and can mess you up, because i've read books that were just horrible and insane, and they made me feel hopeless and confused. i remember something they said about the enneagram six: you ask yourself, which belief systems made me feel MORE secure? which belief systems made me feel LESS secure? i've encountered books that just made me feel insane and miserable. i want my kids to have books that make them feel like they can understand the universe and have sane, realistic guidelines. i want them to know how to protect their minds and their belief systems.

well, that's about all for now. i might read about tandem breastfeeding. i am concerned that the older child's high-calorie milk might be too 'heavy' for the young infant.

Sunday, December 21, 2008

a protection racket might be better than government

i'm starting to think that a protection racket would work better than this government. a protection racket - maybe i should look up that phrase to see if it means what i think it means. the thing where you pay the gang to leave you alone, and if you don't pay them, they break into your house with guns and force you to give them the money.

i came to that conclusion because i was thinking that a government that does nothing is safer than a government that does something. when they even TRY to do anything at all, it causes more harmful consequences. we would all be better off just paying the salaries of the government agents, and then letting them sit in their offices watching movies. if we paid them to do nothing, paid them to just ignore us, then we'd have a better chance of taking care of ourselves.

that amounts to the same thing as the protection racket. pay them to leave us alone.

if they give us laws and regulations we have to follow, it's the same thing. do a particular thing, pay money to someone, waste time and effort obeying regulations, or else they'll break into your house and take money from you, take your belongings, or throw you in jail.

you could just skip the 'follow the laws and regulations' part. let people use their own judgment about what to do and how to do it. let them regulate themselves. just get paid to leave everybody alone. i think the government really would do less damage that way.


this is for retmeishka.

i just thought of something yesterday, that i can't just open retmeishka to the public (or rather, those who know me), because i had a long rant about mark. hurting people isn't what i want. i remember what i was trying to express: anger towards the voices. anger about what they had been saying and doing to me for months, telling me things about mark and making me think it was about martin. anger that they made it sound like i would LIKE what he was doing, when actually i find it disturbing. still the whole rant makes it sound like i hated mark, and that's not what i meant, but that's what he would think if he read it.

i thought of him this morning, because i put on a pair of pants that i think i must have worn when i visited him. i have two main pairs of pants that i've been wearing at home. the one that i put on had been washed, but when i put it on, i felt an antidepressant effect that wasn't st john's wort. it's a numbing effect. it's a pharmaceutical psychiatric drug, the one i noticed that had contaminated me after i visited mark. i don't know if it will come out after a few washings, or if i will have to throw away the pair of pants. i've been buying pants at goodwill, but over the last few months i switched to trying to wash laundry again. there will still be accidents now and then, but at least now i know about the phenomenon of drugs contaminating clothing. still, i had assumed that pharmaceutical drugs contaminated you less than herbal essential oils. i thought that they were more of a dry powder, perhaps less staticky, less able to stick to things and stain them. but from what i've been experiencing, this seems to have been a wrong assumption. all drugs have a risk of contaminating objects, surfaces, clothing, etc.

yesterday i saw someone at work and he glanced at me and he looked SICK. i don't want to upset people so badly that they look sickened when they look at me. i don't mean that he was sickened BY ME, but rather, sickened by things i had said. i wrote things that were disgusting and disturbing and sexual in the other blog.

the words we were saying yesterday were: i want you to be proud of everything you do. it was because just recently, the voices had been saying i was a celebrity, and then they started urging me to find out about how google recorded my name on the other blog, and they gave me a news article - i assume it was given to me personally, because it seemed to have relevant timing, just like many other news articles - about how employers look people up on the internet before hiring. it would explain why i was not being hired.

i feel partly tempted to blame them, to say they're the ones who forced me to write a non-anonymous blog about mind control. however, i sort of agreed with that idea. it was the feeling that this needs to be out in the open, that the taboo needs to be broken. and yesterday we were saying, i want you to be proud of everything you do. that means proud of writing my blog. and that i must know the reasons for doing it.

i was reading harry browne the other day when i was working in the seafood department. i wanted to write down his rules. they were rules of his personal morality. it was from how i found freedom in an unfree world. i'm not going to do it right now, but i was thinking of actually copying them down by typing them into the computer by hand.

i could deliberately do things to make my blogs more popular, more well known. i don't have stats on my other blog, but i happened to look at the profile yesterday, and it said there were like, 436 views of my profile. that was unexpected. i don't know if that's the same people viewing it more than once, or what. that's because i think that's where my links are to my other pages. i forget. i would have to look at it again.

i think this drug makes me feel hopeless, and more depressed. i don't like it. it caused anorgasmia the first day after i visited mark. it was very obviously a pharmaceutical antidepressant. st john's wort doesn't give me that symptom. he said he wasn't on drugs, either - he had recently said things that at least SOUNDED LIKE he wasn't using any drugs at that time. either he was lying and he actually was on drugs, or else the drugs really did contaminate his clothing. whatever it was, it got enough of a contamination on me that it was all over that outfit, and it didn't wash out on the first washing.

and people don't believe the drug contamination theory, either. that frustrates me. i get voices who act like they're new people who don't know me. i don't know if that's real, if it's really true that they're 'clueless newbies' as i call them, or if they're just pretending to be new. the new people don't believe in the existence of my contamination. they weren't here when everything happened, when i had my first experiences, when i made several important observations over a period of years:

how, first, when i grew my sjw, i found out that it goes through the skin. i found this out by touching the leaves.

how i remember that there were incidents, in the apartment above, where i felt like i was getting a dose of prozac, even though i hadn't taken it in months, i had rejected it after only a week and a half or so, because it was intolerable. i wasn't taking the drug, but had incidents where the symptoms would reappear. the contamination theory explained that quite well, after i learned about the phenomenon.

how i had learned several years before, during the feingold diet, that i put a lotion on my skin one day, and the lotion contained extracts of oranges and other fruits and herbs, to give it a smell. and i became intolerably hyperactive afterwards. the salicylates from the fruits in the lotion gave me the same symptoms that they gave me when i ate them. or something else in the lotion. the point was that it was the lotion, and it went through my skin.

so i found out, one thing after another, that a lot of drugs and chemicals can be absorbed transdermally.

and the events in my apartment, when i began growing the herbs, handling the seeds. first i had tobacco, and it started to grow, but i didn't yet know about juglone, and i didn't know that the dirt from under the walnut trees was killing all the plants i tried to grow. nothing grew very well.

and when the seeds of the ephedra plant were delivered in the mail, i handled the envelope and had not yet even opened it or touched the seeds directly. and i had insomnia so severe that i called off work because i felt desperate for sleep and felt that i was going crazy. it was unbearable. and i didn't know what was causing it.

i don't know how i solved that - i must have taken a shower or washed my hands and gotten rid of enough of the ephedra poison.

but it was the ephedra that pointed out to me the phenomenon of contamination once and for all. i already had the awareness that drugs could go through the skin. but i assumed that the drugs would only be produced in a fully grown plant. i assumed the seeds would not have any. so i started planting the ephedra. it was okay for a few minutes, but then i pressed one of the seeds down into wet soil, and the water got on my finger. immediately the ephedra went through my skin. there must have been enough of it already on my fingers, and getting them wet gave it something to dissolve into.

i remember what happened. the plant light suddenly seemed too bright, and the light seemed to be vibrating. the bright light seemed to give me a strange unpleasant feeling, and i turned it off. (that would be because of the mydriatic effect: pupils dilated.) i then had feelings of panic and terror, and a rising feeling of greater and greater terror and panic that just kept getting worse. it directly affects the heart. it was the worst feeling i have ever had. it was uncontrollable fear and panic and i became unable to think. my head, my brain, would no longer work. i think i must have washed my hands. but i must have also touched some other things first. and the envelope also touched things.

and it was afterwards, after i threw away the seeds, after i got rid of all the plant growing equipment, that i began to find that other objects in the house triggered the same event. i had reset all the clocks one day, as a spontaneous act, in order to help me get to work on time. that would have been a strange behavior, and it was triggered by drugs. it turns out that i had ephedra all over my hands, from handling the envelope, and i touched all the clocks. when i touched the clocks later on, i had another incident of rising, increasing fear and uncontrollable terror and panic. those were unbearable contamination incidents.

the terror and panic were so unbearable that it traumatized me and i became terrified of touching any unfamiliar objects that hadn't been handled in a long time. if you experienced that unbearable sensation after touching objects around your house, you would be terrified of touching objects too. there were one or two other places that had ephedra.

the floors had tobacco on them. the tobacco leaves had grown for a short time even in the walnut juglone soil. they must have emitted volatile oils which settled on the floor, and i tracked them around. when i touched the floor, i got hit by a drug that felt like tobacco. i wasn't aware of this at first, but after learning about the ephedra, i knew what to expect.

i don't like dealing with voices who weren't there when all this happened, as i observed and experienced step by step the phenomenon of household contamination. as i found out that it doesn't wash out of laundry, and laundry has to be thrown away. some person just tried to tell me the other day 'there is NO CONTAMINATION' or something like that. i don't know if he's really new or just pretending. they think i'm superstitious and i have delusional beliefs.

i'm not that concerned about it, because they can't tell me anything that will change my behavior. i know what needs to be done about this. the house needs to be cleaned. nothing they say is going to change how i behave around the house. gradual tests to undo some of the fears about touching unknown objects - that's okay - but you can't just dismiss the whole idea of the contamination. and i was furious about the incident where they would not let me think without zapping, when i tried to plan how i would bring home the futon, and so i ended up causing a foreseeable, preventable problem, by throwing it directly into the car trunk where the toxic laundry and the borax were. and now it got the whole futon ruined.

the main obstacle is the carpet. that disturbs me the most. it cannot be removed entirely from fabric on something like a carpet. the carpet fibers, the carpet strings, whatever you call it, the bristles of the carpet, have too much surface area. the substance has been ground down into them. also, when you shampoo the carpet, it removes some of the chemicals, but pushes it around and down into the bristles. so it gets reduced but not entirely removed. the carpet can only be thrown in the garbage. i will reduce it as much as i can, and then, i will relocate to another apartment, maybe one in this same building, and i will let joe replace the carpet, as he did in my previous one upstairs. however, while they're doing that, they will walk around on it. even if i clean the linoleum in the kitchen as well as i can - linoleum is fine, i'm not worried about it - they will track small amounts from the old carpet to the linoleum, then replace the carpet, then track from the linoleum to the brand new carpet. there will be small amounts. however, i can only do what i can... but it bothers me. the new tenants won't understand the phenomenon of contamination, and their blood pressure will rise, and they'll go to a doctor, who will say 'you have high blood pressure. here, take this prescription drug for the rest of your life.' and the blood pressure was caused by environmental poison.

so i have to reduce it on this carpet, so much that it will be trivial.

and it was more than one chemical. here are all the possible herbs and chemicals that have been in this apartment at various times: st john's wort, stevia rebaudiana, tobacco, ephedra, cacao, coffee (yes, i also tried to plant them), camellia sinensis (i suspect that one's causing some symptoms too). and on the laundry i used borax, which i think got all over a lot of things. and i think that at least one of my coins is made of lead instead of silver, and i get strange sensations when i touch the coins, and my head becomes dopey and stupid afterwards. the coins weren't on the carpet, except a couple of coins in one specific place, but so, there could be lead poisoning in that location. i'm not sure if that really is a problem or not. but i do know that when i touch the box that the coins are in, i get a dopey, stupid head, and can't think. it's not all of the coins, either, because when i buy new ones, i don't have a problem touching them directly and handling them. there might only be one counterfeit coin in that box. it was actually the voices who pointed out to me that i might be getting heavy metal poisoning while handling the coins, and i agreed with them. the silver might not be as bad as the lead, because, as i said, it isn't ALL the coins that cause problems.

i was glancing over this again: 'i want you to be proud of everything you do.' my knowledge: i know what i've observed, even if people disagree with me. there are those out there who would agree with all of my contamination experiences. there are those who would agree about the mind control. there are those who would agree about small local communities in anarchy, with the national government broken up and reduced as much as we can. there are those who would agree about my long hair and grooming obsessions. there are those who would agree about my sexual beliefs and social beliefs, about how to raise children, how to feed them, what to teach them.

and if i reach out to look for those people i will find them, but i haven't been reaching out looking for people. i know what i would do if i looked. i already have ideas of what to do and how to do it.

Saturday, December 20, 2008

solstice; quitting christmas; annoying music; imagination and pretend; individual flight; psychotronic experiences; leaving the gang


caution. towards the end this is a VERY NEGATIVE blog about my psychotronic experiences... not really pleasant reading. also, it's rambling and disorganized. i'm not mentally at my best today.


i did use sjw finally after going without it for a while longer than usual. that's why all of a sudden there are multiple blogs in a single day.

(that's also why i seemed friendly and chatty all of a sudden at work. when i've used sjw, suddenly everyone talks to me. it's weird, because it seems like THEY approach ME much more when i've used it. i babble randomly much more. there are smile wrinkles next to my eyes, i think, when i'm constantly smiling. sjw is similar to marijuana in that way, because it sometimes gives you a 'permagrin.' i use very low doses, and so all i get is a twinkle in my eyes. plus, it makes my eyes literally shine, i've noticed, when i look in the mirror after using it. there is something different about their reflectivity, literally. and sjw causes photosensitivity, and your eyes can become painfully sensitive to light.)

i didn't mean to imply that the community was just pretend. it isn't. it's in the fantasy stage right now because my life is a mess and i can't do the things i need to do to make it real. but there is a very real need for a community.

the winter solstice will be here soon. i don't know which day it is, because it's not marked on my calendar, even though it's a WEATHER calendar. i can't believe that the solstice isn't marked on a weather calendar. technically, it's not really 'weather,' but it's so closely related to it that i would expect it to be on there.

anyway, i like that day, because after that, the days start to get longer and brighter. during the dim, short days of winter, people get depressed much more. it seems like every autumn, you read in the news about suicides and things all happening at once, during just a couple months, while the rest of the year is more peaceful. but some people have problems in other times of the year. it depends on the person. it's just that i myself, and a lot of others, have problems in the winter.

i officially stopped celebrating christmas a few years ago. before i read tom flynn's book, 'the trouble with christmas' (a book discovered by my old friend rachael), i was withdrawing from christmas in an unofficial way, just celebrating it very passively, never buying people any gifts, but still accepting gifts from my parents. then, i made it official, and over the next few years, i told more and more relatives that i was not celebrating, and i had to repeatedly tell them NOT to buy me gifts. you'd be surprised how many people really live by the rule 'it's better to give than to receive.' nobody cared that i was just receiving a bunch of gifts and not giving them a single thing in return. they probably liked it BETTER that way, which actually makes me kind of angrier. quitting christmas is one of the most 'real' manifestations of my beliefs that other people can see. it's the one that puts me into direct conflict with people in the real world in the most obvious ways. but it's not as much of an issue as it used to be. i mostly just ignore it now.

still, the christmas music playing on the radio for weeks and weeks bothers me. one day, they switched it to country music, and i wondered if somebody was testing me to see which music i hated more. i actually learned to like some country music when i had a roommate in college who listened to it all the time. i know a few good songs and i occasionally listen to it on the radio. but there is a lot of it that i don't like. country music is somehow not easy for me to get used to. but then again, i am picky about my music and i actually don't like much that's on the radio. if there was an underground/independent country music song, i might like it. but if it's on the radio, it's 'pop' country. maybe that's the problem. anyway, i have mixed feelings about country music. i mostly ignored it when it was on the radio at work.

well, there's one christmas song in particular that bothers me a lot. and i'm not the only person who complained about it, either. it's 'ninety-nine bottles of beer on the wall...' no, wait, it's 'i am henry the eighth i am...' no, no, umm, oh, i know what it is: 'the twelve days of christmas.' what exactly is the mathematical concept being taught by that song? i forget. something like exponentials, but that's the wrong word. you're adding up a number, plus every number below it. 12+11+10+9... or something. what is the total number of lords-a-leaping at any given moment in the song? what is the total number of golden rings at some particular iteration? if i were in the mood to fry my brain cells actually trying to think about this, i might find the formula to calculate all of those things.

a much better song is 'one bat hanging in the steeple.' it doesn't count down. it counts UPWARDS to infinity. it's sung by 'the count,' from sesame street, and it's on the sing-a-long album, which was made in the seventies or the eighties. i was very young. i think my mom and dad still have that record in the house, and i still have a record player that works. i could play it. the sing-a-long record is funny - it's not just songs, but a sort of situation comedy. bert is taking a bath, and ernie invites all of the neighbors and friends into the bathroom to have a sing-a-long.

(anyway, the bat song is: one bat hanging in the steeple, one bat flies in through the door; that makes two bats in my belfry - wonderful! but wait, there's more... two bats hanging in the steeple... and so on. i got sidetracked and kept writing too much stuff.)

it was odd, just a few months ago i reconsidered that situation, and realized that some people might not find it funny if they had been sexually abused. they might feel sorry for bert being stuck in the bathtub trying to hide behind the curtain with a bunch of people in the bathroom. i always thought it was a hilarious record until i looked at it that way. it is still funny to me, though. you can laugh at a comedy, when it might not be funny if you were in a traumatic situation where something like that really happened, because you know it's not real.

stories and shows supposedly have some signal that tells the listener 'this is just pretend.' (i mean a psychological signal. like 'once upon a time, far far away...') tom flynn mentioned that, with regard to the myth of santa claus. he said that parents don't act like 'we're just playing pretend.' they tell their kids about santa claus as though he is a literal fact of reality. later on, they claim that it was just a 'shared game of pretend,' but it wasn't. the confused kid actually believes that some guy is entering the house and secretly putting presents under the tree. this is psychologically damaging to children. the kids grow up and later on, they do the same thing to their own kids.

the idea was that when you tell a story, you signal somehow that it's just pretend. tom flynn said that if you do tell kids about santa claus, AT LEAST you should tell the kid that he's a myth or fantasy character, and NOT a physical person like the mailman. parents believe that it's FUN for children to believe in santa claus, and that this loss of belief is a sad loss of childhood, therefore, you should encourage them to believe in santa as long as possible, and sadly regret the day when the children 'stop believing.'

but that is not the solution to the problem. you can still encourage children to use their imaginations, to pretend things, without necessarily believing them to be literally true. on the internet, there are thousands of people in role-playing games, MUDs, video games, second life, etc. so kids don't just 'grow up' and 'stop believing' when they find out that santa claus isn't real. they still have imaginations.

and if there is something in particular about santa claus which is so amazingly wonderful that we MUST have it in reality, then they should do something about it. if we want to encourage people to believe that their imaginary fantasies can be made into reality, there's nothing wrong with that. but you should actually teach them that 'out loud,' explicitly, not just by making them believe in santa claus.

for instance, santa's flying sleigh. i want: individual recreational flight. flying machines are something that can be attempted in reality. i would be happy with a mere glider that only went a few feet above the ground. i would hold onto it and run through an empty field. if you only glided a little, it would still be worth doing. it doesn't require a heavy, noisy engine. this is actually very important to me and it's something i've wanted all my life.

('individual flight' and 'a certain kind of music' are two of the deepest, most real things i've wanted since i was a child, the things that feel like part of my soul and spirit. another is 'a community of people who feel the same way i do about things.')

when THEY first started attacking me, years ago, FLYING DREAMS were one of the worst attacks that they did to me. when i found out that all of my dreams were fake dreams, that i never dreamed a single real dream without being hypnotized anymore - if i ever dreamed a natural dream in my whole life - then i noticed that they gave me certain dreams as 'rewards' or 'punishments' for trivial events that had happened in my life. they gave me flying dreams, which i was supposed to enjoy, as a 'reward' for making progress in some area of my life. they also gave me abusive flying dreams, in which i would try to fly, but then i would fly up underneath a bunch of electrical wires that were crisscrossing the sky a hundred feet up or so. for some reason, i wasn't able to see the power lines. i would always fly upwards underneath them accidentally, and i was supposedly 'stupid' for 'not being able to see them.' and my back would press against them, and i would get electrically zapped in the back.

now that i know about their way of using language and their symbolism, i suspect that 'power lines' are just a symbol for 'power structures in society,' or something like that. 'you can't rise above the power structures holding you down.' some idiotic, insane, stupid message like that.

later on, the meaning of the insane message was changed to something else entirely. this is one of those things where, if you're a target, or if you're me, then you don't laugh at it, because i don't think it's funny. i don't feel amused - i feel hatred and loathing. the new message, later on, was that body odor was represented by 'wings,' and that flying birds were spreading body odor everywhere they went ('birds' also refers to females - it's slang in the UK, i think), so that if you would see the image of a flying hawk you would immediately imagine that it had body odor and was shameless about it. being 'oblivious' or 'shameless' about something was one of their themes.

these are ideas that they were putting into my head, with dreams, with voices, mental conversations and images. there were tv commercials that i remember from childhood - 'raise your hand if you're sure.' the commercial showed the statue of liberty raising its arm, and it showed insecure, anxious people tightly holding their arms down at their sides because they were terrified about odor and wetness. in the dream images they were degrading me, insulting me, sexually violating me, and being disgusting, and, as i said, i hated them and loathed them. and this was because i had questioned the need for deodorant, years ago, and had gone through periods of time when i didn't use it. but i still took showers every day. i found out that in the wintertime, there is no smell at all. it's only when it's very hot and humid outside. the dreams were insulting and degrading me for having questioned those things; they made fun of me for 'not having any shame,' and tried to make me ashamed; while on the other hand, there were other people simultaneously telling me to do the exact opposite, and avoid showering, and to deliberately have a smell. anyway, the new insulting/degrading/hatred message was now 'she's flying,' and they would put flying bird images into my head.

the other thing they started doing was triggering imaginary smells. i'm not the only target who has experienced this. i read about it on other people's blogs. they experience forced smell perception. you might be in an empty room with nothing around you at all, and suddenly you smell things that are nowhere nearby, things you could not possibly smell.

they started doing that to me, except they started trying to make it seem realistic and believable. but whenever they would do it, they would immediately either talk to me with a voice, or trigger fake emotions of anger and rage, so that i would know that it was a fake incident.

it turns out that, in reality, you can hardly smell people at all unless you are standing right next to them, or if you are in a small enclosed area with little air ventilation. you cannot smell people at a distance, or not much. so during the time when they were simultaneously encouraging/degrading me about the way that i smelled, while telling me to deliberately not take a shower, they were also triggering forced imaginary smells and then triggering emotions of rage and fake nausea. and they made me smell body odor on people who i was absolutely certain COULD NOT have it in reality - well-groomed mainstream people, non-hippies, ordinary people, co-workers, 'clean-cut' men and women.

people would walk up to me and start talking about ordinary things at work, and all of a sudden, i would smell fake body odor, and i would feel fake nausea, as though the smell was sickening me. and they simultaneously portrayed those people as 'oblivious' about their own 'humiliating if they only knew' odor.

all of these things were sending conflicting messages, as though the attackers both encouraged me, and hated me, for being a questioner and nonconformist. they made fun of me, and made fun of all the 'clean' people, and their messages were contradictory. sometimes, they've told me that they're NOT ALLOWED to say what they really mean, because their lives are in danger.

i've heard that if people try to leave the organized crime gangs and/or government agencies responsible for giving people the forced dreams and the voices, i've heard that they kill you, or they force you to kill yourself, or they make you have an accident. they don't let people leave and betray the gang/agency.

it happened to me during the court case in 2003. during the court case, all of a sudden, cars in the oncoming lane would cross the yellow line and drive towards me in my lane. it would happen every time i researched a particular person on the internet. it happened more than the usual number of times. those things happen occasionally, but i had an unusually large number of those incidents. you can put someone to sleep, hypnotize them while they're driving, i think. i think that's what happened. i think that some people have also had plane crashes for that reason.

a voice was talking to me about this just today, talking about my hatred towards the people who do these things. i call them names to protect myself psychologically, but it's very hard for them to tolerate. there is psychological stress on the people who are operating the equipment and following orders. i call them 'criminals' and they were saying 'i'm not a criminal.' and they don't like being called psychopaths either. some of them sympathize with the targets.

i don't know how they can leave the gang without getting hurt. i've never been in a gang like that, nor have i ever worked for the government, so i don't have any suggestions. being a target, i don't always have much sympathy for them. but i think that's one thing they want me to do, to find countermeasures and fight back, so that i can help the people who are attempting to leave the gang, people who really wish they could escape from it and have a peaceful life elsewhere without becoming targets themselves.

last spring, i cried and cried a lot, one day, because i was afraid that if i met new people, if i made new friends, those people would become targets and would experience the same things that were happening to me. i think i was being drugged at the time, because all of my emotions were strange and exaggerated. but still, i didn't want anyone else to go through what i went through. that was one reason why i avoided meeting new people.

i think that happens, but i am not thinking about it much. there's nothing i can do to prevent it. i don't even feel as worried about it as i used to. i have to make friends in order to get anything done at all, and to get any social support. i still plan to continue meeting people.

thoughts not mentioned

for some reason, there are often a few 'extra thoughts' that i hesitate to include in my blogs. the thoughts are sometimes 'too risky' or 'taboo' or 'not realistic,' but they are often the most interesting ideas.

in the previous blog, about adoption, i left out the main idea that was in the back of my mind all along: adults informally adopting adults. i then imagined whole groups of people adopting each other, and wondered what would happen if 'children' adopted their 'grandparents' and had circular relationships like that.

who is responsible for what, in the adopted relationships?

similarly, on the blog i wrote just now about loss of community, i left out the main idea in the back of my mind, which was: develop a concept of a school that continues throughout your whole life, without ever ending.

i think that this happens a lot, that there is some idea in the back of my mind, but i don't write it in the blog. the ideas are always the ones that seem too challenging, too non-mainstream, too impossible, or fantasy.

i've got a book in my google books library called 'the house of make believe.' it talks about children pretending. i guess those 'pretend' thoughts in the back of my mind are the ones that i hesitate to write down, but again, they're the most interesting ones.

also, those thoughts are shaping all of my long-term goals and plans. they're forming a structure, a concept of what i think a community needs to be, a concept of what should be done about the problems in society.

graduation from school is a loss of community

how do i describe this?

this is a quick note, so it's not going to be very thorough. i'm just jotting down thoughts.

whole communities, hundreds of people, vanish in a single day, never to be seen again. they're still alive, but you no longer see them on a day-to-day basis. this is: graduation from school. it happens at the end of high school and again at the end of college. it also happens if you drop out of school.

it happens if an employer lays off hundreds or thousands of people when a business is going bankrupt. it happens when you quit a job or get fired.

it happened to me when i was a kid, because my dad had to get a new job someplace else and we moved from greensburg pa to scott depot wv. i eventually loved scott depot and i still do, but in the beginning i hated it and i hated losing all of my friends.

in the group you all had the same shared culture, the shared jokes, you watched the same movies, you hung out in the same places. it's true, there are always smaller groups within the large one. but at least you see the same people in the same building every day.

loss of community is devastating.

i am interested in the amish because their culture has continued for a long time. i don't necessarily want to build a community that directly copies the amish. but there are a few things they do that i would like to see happen more in the 'mainstream' world.

the amish community is designed to keep the community together. when the elders make a decision, they ask whether some new technology (like cars) will tear apart their community.

in the amish community, you don't have hundreds of people leaving all at once. they tend to stay in the same area for a long time. although, i did read a story about a girl who 'escaped' from the amish - torah bontrager - who said that she cried when school ended in eighth grade. she said she enjoyed school and wanted it to continue. so even though the amish community is intended to stay together in the same place, the children still feel a loss of their school community.

i'm thinking about colleges. at the end of high school, everybody goes to a different college of their own choice. colleges are far away from the students' original homes. sometimes large groups of people go to the same college, but not everyone.

(i've become very cynical about the college education system and don't feel like getting into that discussion right now - it's too long.)

colleges are supposedly 'specialized.' but you're supposed to 'choose' your college because it offers some specialized degree that other colleges don't offer, and because supposedly it's 'respected' more than other colleges. but i am questioning that idea, especially because people get a degree in one particular specialized subject, but then might never get a job in that field, and instead get an unrelated job, but they get paid more just because they have a degree.

(i still always urge people to finish school anyway. i would have at least wanted to get a degree but i had too many personal problems and could not do it. i had severe ADHD caused by eating particular foods, and i could not do my work.)

anyway, if it's true that your specific degree doesn't necessarily lead to a job in that field, then there's no reason to choose a specific college or 'specialize.' but this gets into the complicated topic of all the things i don't like about the whole education system and that's too much for me to think about right now.

the basic idea was: the end of school is a loss of community, with hundreds of people vanishing from your life all at once. it's a big deal and i take it seriously. it causes a lot of pain for people.


i went to peter's house, and he has a cat. anybody with cats has mange in the house. it doesn't show symptoms in everybody, but i am highly sensitive to it. the mange occurs on both people and animals. for me it began in about 2002, i think, but i forget. anyway i am now covered with itch mites and scratches, which happens every time i go over there. that's another medical thing that i would like to talk about more, but don't want to on my other blog.

Thursday, December 18, 2008


I read about adoption yesterday at The articles were very well written. They were not written by 'experts' or 'authorities,' but by people who had actually adopted.

I would like to have a large family with a mix of adopted children and my own biological children. I've been thinking about this for a long time now.

I have a lot of beliefs about things I think people should do when they're pregnant, giving birth, and raising their kids. I have beliefs about community and religion and education. I have beliefs about health and nutrition. I have beliefs about money and employment. There are all these topics relevant to raising a family, and I have something to say about all of them, but I'm not using any of that knowledge. Someday, I would like to apply the knowledge and beliefs to the real world. I've spent a long time just thinking things and saying 'People should...' or 'I wish somebody would...' Eventually I would like myself to be the 'somebody' in that sentence.

I have only one small goal right now. That's to get through the next week or two, when I know my work schedule is going to be awful. This whole month, I've been working on irregular days instead of getting my two days off in a row. The next goal after that is to continue trying to get a second job, then working three long days, with four days off. I did it before - it will be a little different this time - but I know for certain that it can be done.

grooming experiments, continued

i also had to mention that i am doing more grooming experiments, and the voices are always nagging me to talk about that. they particularly want me to talk about body odor, and i will get to it on a day when i have more time, but i'm not going to write about it again on my 'real world' blog.

i think my hair has grown to its fullest length. it is 'classic length,' where the longest tip of it reaches to almost my knee, but that's only a very thin little bit, as it narrows more and more towards the end. i am not trimming split ends at all anymore, so it is gradually growing as long as possible.

since that goal is accomplished, if it's true my hair won't get any longer, then i would get bored and want a new goal. in order to prevent me from changing my hair or cutting it, the new grooming goals are to go further in the direction i was already going.

so i am doing more experiments. i haven't been using toothpaste, because fluoride is a myth (read weston price - i have to talk more about weston price one of these days). on the internet, they're calling it "no 'poo," as in no shampoo, and poo is a play on words, that shampoo is a chemical that goes through the skin, and like a lot of chemicals, it's bad for you, so they're calling it 'poo.' so i'm not using any shampoo, and i'm also not using soap. i used to use shampoo all over my body, after dating eric, as he washed himself that way since it doesn't leave soap scum and leaves you feeling very smooth. it also prevents pimples, if you don't use soap on your face and clog your pores with soap. anyway, no shampoo, no soap, and no toothpaste. i don't know how long i've been doing this, but it's at least been a week now, i think. i've been taking baths and showers, but not necessarily every day, and i'm just using a cloth, but not cleaning agents of any kind.

to brush my teeth, i'm chewing on raw cabbage, with the goal being to deactivate the acids in the coffee that i drink, to make my mouth alkaline. the cabbage really freshens my mouth surprisingly well. i was using sea salt at first, but it dried out my lips really badly, and it was uncomfortable and gave me strange feelings in my head. so i switched, and the cabbage is what i'm using currently. i still use a toothbrush, with nothing on it, and i run the faucet while brushing, and just rinse out the brush with water. i floss a little bit as needed.

this serves the purpose of giving me a new set of goals and grooming obsessions. i read in someone else's blog, on wordpress somewhere, that she too had a 'grooming obsession' or 'hair obsession.' they would love it if they learned how to obsess about achieving the goal of the longest possible hair length that your DNA allows you to grow. anyway, i've achieved the fullest hair length goal, and i always wondered, all these years, what goal i would set for myself after that. for a while i considered that maybe i would do something drastic to it, like perm it or color it and then chop it all off and start over. but i don't want to do that. i want to keep it, and also, convince others to participate.

about 'wanting others to participate,' this is especially true with respect to men, because there is no religion and no culture on earth that requires/encourages/allows men to grow all of their hair and all of their beards to full length. some cultures TOLERATE hair growth in men, and the result is that we have almost everybody chopping off all of their hair, and irregular, inconsistent beard growth, or people who grow long beards but keep their head hair short, or people who are phobic/terrified about growing long hair while the rest of the head has gone bald. also, black men have problems with it because of the kinky afro hair textures, and i want to work with that to develop a set of natural grooming standards for afro-textured hair. the afro textures, the bald-with-long-back style, and the growing to full length instead of keeping it at some arbitrary length, and also, not worrying about split ends anymore at all - all of those challenges need to be taught to people and implemented.

the men need ways to pin up their beards, like a braid, or a clip of some kind, so that they can work in situations where society is beard-phobic.

the image we're getting at is 'old dumbledore.' the first dumbledore, with his very long hair and very long beard.

but that shouldn't be the ONLY 'ideal' image, because we want to have bald men growing their remaining hair also, and we want black men with afro-textured hair to grow theirs. they can leave it loose, or use dreadlocks or braids, and i want to work with some afro hair to find out the reality of how it looks and how it handles. i've thought that i would probably advertise a request on craigslist in order to find people with long afro hair for me to braid, brush, etc, to find out what it can realistically do. i've read that their hair grows only about two years' length, instead of growing for several decades the way straight-haired people's does. straight hair or wavy hair can grow to floor length and beyond, but afro hair cannot, unless it's in dreadlocks.

so that is the hair obsession - one of the other topics i don't like writing in my non-anonymous blog. already, one of the guys at work shaved his nose bridge eyebrow hair because i wrote a blog about monobrows and how i want all types and shapes of eyebrows to be left natural and appreciated for their variety, beauty, and touchability. (when i've written about this or thought about it, one of the voices quoted the prisoner of azkaban movie, and the monster book of monsters: 'you're supposed to STROKE it!' i love stroking eyebrows.) i don't know whether he actually read my blog, or whether he shaved his nose bridge on impulse because he was a 'puppet' and just had a sudden urge to do that, or if it was a totally meaningless random coincidence. who knows. i don't want all the guys becoming as idiotic about their eyebrows as the women are, and if i even talk about the subject AT ALL on my other blog, they will do things like that as a test. believe me, plucked eyebrows look HORRIBLE. i really mean it. i looked at a photo of my own, from years ago, and i've looked at other women's, and every time i see them, i feel this intense desire to force them to let their eyebrow hair grow back. it looks disgusting, it looks like they're cancer patients on chemotherapy and all the hair has fallen off. there's some disease, something with the thyroid, where it makes your eyebrow hair fall off.

okay, now i really do have to go to work.

the idea behind the retmeishka blog is that if somebody ever decides that they want to know more about me, about my slightly-more-private thoughts or sexual thoughts, or about my grooming obsessions, i can give them this secret glossolalia word and send them here.

adopting adults; virtues and countervirtues

there's more to the adoption concept than i wrote in my other blog. i just don't like writing things there that seem kinky or weird or sexual in that blog, because i go to work the next day and see people 'leering' at me with strange looks.

the rest of the adoption concept was that i would adopt older people, perhaps adults, and that the adoption would be informal, without paperwork. this would be a non-sexual relationship resembling a child-parent relationship, and it could be with males and females. but they would agree to certain rules in order to receive the benefits of this relationship.

the benefits are that they get to stay home if they want to, and work at home, and i pay for their food and rent. in that respect, they are like dependent children. but they will have to help with either household chores or projects of mine. and those would be the people who choose how much they want to participate in the long hair community, because i want to give people the opportunity to do that. the interrogations during summertime made it clear to me that yes, this is something i want, i just wasn't admitting it, and had given up on it. but it's important to me. and other anarchists and hippies, in the past, they say they DID view the long hair as very important to them, not just trivial. it's just hard to explain WHY it's so important, when you can live without it.

part of the concept was that there would be a large number of adults in the house, instead of just the mother and father with a bunch of young kids. the adults would be in various types of non-sexual relationships with me, but they would all be dependent in some way, at least by living in the same house without paying rent, or paying a minimal rent. as adults, they would be productive workers, and relatively independent, and i could let them go if there was a problem or severe irreconcilable conflict. with young kids, you MUST keep them unless something SO TERRIBLE happens that you can't keep your own kid anymore. the relationship is more permanent with very young dependent kids. you have to be ready for that. i don't feel quite ready yet, but i can imagine adopting platonic-relationship adults.

writing in retmeishka is to an invisible audience. i could do something to get more traffic to the site, real people instead of spam-commenters. i just don't feel comfortable in my real-name blog when i have to look at my coworkers the next day and sense that 'leering' feeling from the men. i don't know which people read my blog or not, but sometimes i just feel uncomfortable.

anyway, this is similar to the polyandry concept, except that there would be females involved as well. and those females would be connected directly to me. in the polyandry concept, i imagined that there would be other females, but they might be wives of some of the men. but in this new concept, these women would connect directly to me and might or might not marry other men in the group.

the model for the relationship is 'adopting adults.' you can adopt someone informally at any age, and put them into a childlike relationship to you, with a certain amount of dependence and agreement to do things you want them to do. it would be a barter relationship, not necessarily with money. they might not even pay rent, but there would be mutually helpful things that they gain and that they give to you. they would be closer to you than just a stranger, closer to you than a mere community member.

'community members' are like neighbors. they do what they want, and they obey the community's rules, but they don't report directly to you, and you're not responsible for them.

the other thing i don't want to write in my other blog is about nudism. before the house got contaminated, i was practically a nudist. now, i can't touch anything, and i have to keep clothes on all the time.

i was thinking about the virtue of modesty. i was reading about the virtues, the virtue of humility in particular, because the voices are always flattering my ego with extreme things that are not true and not realistic. i am somewhat plain, maybe 'rugged looking.' men have found me attractive sometimes, and i DO get boyfriends, and i'm not blatantly hideous, and people don't scream and run away when they look at me. peter described me as 'pleasant to look at, and curved in the right places.' but i am not going to win any beauty contests, and my face won't appear on a fashion magazine (unless it's 'Hair To Stay' or something, though i guess that isn't a printed magazine anymore. i never saw the printed magazine, i just saw it on the web). i'm somebody about whom you say 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder.' but every time i even MENTION my plainness, the voices FREAK OUT and they can't even let me CONCEIVE for even an instant that i am plain, or average looking. instead they protest loudly if i even mention that topic, and they say unrealistic things like 'YOU ARE THE MOST BEAUTIFUL PERSON I HAVE EVER SEEN IN MY ENTIRE LIFE!!!' for some reason, they think it's very threatening that i would downplay my physical beauty and try to see myself in a realistic way, without insulting myself or calling myself ugly or saying there's anything wrong with me.

anyway, about the virtues. i read about them, and they described a virtue as 'opposing' another 'vice.' so i extended this idea, and came up with additional virtues, which SEEM to contradict or be in conflict with the other virtues, but aren't. here's an example of what i called a 'countervirtue.'

the virtue of modesty: whenever you're talking to somebody who's sexually repressed, or someone who's been humiliated, degraded, raped, sexually violated, etc, or talking in mainstream society, or doing business in an everyday, normal situation, it's better to keep your body covered and not have the person distracted by looking into your cleavage and things like that, or trying to look up your miniskirt. there is 'appropriate office attire,' for instance. serious, classic, reserved outfits that are not sexually revealing or seductive, but instead businesslike.

the virtue of openness, a countervirtue to modesty (it doesn't have to be called 'openness' - there might be a better word for it, but that's all i could think of): this goes with nudism. openness means acceptance of sexuality, acceptance of the fact that humans are animals, accepting that nudity and sex are NOT necessarily connected, but that instead, we animals were naked for millions of years before clothing was invented. and just merely being naked does not CAUSE sexual activity to happen, but that instead, people can be platonic and friendly and get used to each other's nakedness. nudism is unacceptable to strict, repressed religious societies, because they believe that it contradicts or clashes with or opposes modesty and other religious virtues. but it is a virtue of its own, and it opposes other vices. if it opposes some kind of a vice, then it's a virtue.

the virtue of openness opposes the vice of: being too repressed. sexual abuse, not being 'allowed' to have sex freely, not being allowed to choose. sex being unsafe, dangerous, risky. sex being taboo, forbidden, a crime. sex being dirty or disgusting.

i don't have time to finish this. i haven't had any time to write, haven't used my sjw much - but i did use it yesterday - and so i haven't been inspired to write. retmeishka is a lonely blog, when my audience is only an invisible one, on the days when i don't believe that martin is hacking my computer, but i believe instead that he's 'clueless and innocent.' i don't know how to interpret him and they tried to convince me he was hacking, but i'm sure they tried to convince HIM that i knew everything about HIM, too, and i don't.

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

throwing shoes

Some guy in Iraq threw his shoes at George Bush. He then got arrested and beaten and attacked while in prison. But the people there see him as a hero, and there are some people bidding thousands of dollars to buy the shoes that he threw. They said someone in Saudi Arabia bid a million dollars.

If I ever see George Bush in person, I won't throw my shoes at him, but I might wad up my dirty socks into a ball, and throw them. They would probably freak out about that 'assault' just as badly as they freaked out about the shoes, though.

Sunday, December 14, 2008

religious conflict: a theory of why i am being shunned

i got a note back from him. i have mixed responses to it.

first, i'm glad to receive real information from a real person, because all this time, i haven't been told anything at all about what the problem is. that gratitude is real. it's not just something that i say because i have to. i am grateful that he communicated.

when i got the note, i refused to read it until after i had left work, because i knew that i would be upset no matter what it said. this was probably because i have seen his facial expressions a couple of times recently, and when he looked at me, he looked sad and apologetic. he didn't say these words, but i interpreted it as 'i'm sorry, i can't.' so i anticipated that his response would be something negative or disappointing.

i'm not going to quote it directly, but i will summarize it and paraphrase it. he says that he has been avoiding me because i wrote him something that suggested that i wanted to be more than just friends, that he was only open to friendship, and that he has a good relationship with somebody else.

here is a theory that i have based on the overall situation and the history of my interactions with him, and my observations of his emotions.

i think that i'm being 'shunned' because of a difference in religious beliefs. it is probably because he is christian and his religion forbids premarital sex. they would forbid all contact with me, and they would classify me as the 'inhuman evil entity,' because i am an atheist and i question a lot of christian beliefs. it seemed throughout this time period that i represented the evil entity, someone without feelings, someone to be treated as inhuman, not even given the courtesy of communicating or explaining what the problem was, even though i expressed feelings of distress and suffering. i was not willing to marry him (no, he didn't ever ask me to) - that was something that 'the voices' were saying for months, that i had to marry him. the 'shunning' began early in the summer, and then i was severely attacked by voices, for weeks and weeks, interrogating me about many things, including whether or not i would marry him.

(i have to mention that i did not know anything about his religion until i read his blog, many months after the 'shunning' began. nobody ever said anything to me about it. he came from a christian family and they went to church. i came from an agnostic family. officially, my family is episcopalian. and we didn't go to church, and my parents did not push any particular religious beliefs on me, and they didn't mind that my brother and i became atheists.)

it was this approach: cut off all contact immediately, do not acknowledge this person, do not communicate with this person at all, this person is inhuman and has no feelings and deserves no respect or courtesy. it was a cruel and ruthless response, and it did not even allow any negotiating or compromise. it was a 'no contact whatsoever under any circumstances, period' response. as in, don't even be 'friends' with this person (even though he says in the note that he was open to friendship only, what has actually happened is not what i call 'friendship,' but rather, two total strangers who don't speak to each other at all, and that's not friendship). it was the assumption that i would corrupt him or persuade him merely by talking with him. they assumed that i was so evil and so untrustworthy that i would not even listen or have respect for his wishes and his beliefs. it was enough that he could not even communicate through email or the telephone - not just in person - because i would corrupt him with my beliefs. (when i say 'they assumed,' i have a mental image of his family - mostly his mother - or the representatives of his church.) i could not even know whether or not he received any letters, and spent all this time wondering if our email was being hacked, or what.

these past few months of being ignored was a 'total nonexistence' response. it was not merely a 'let's just be friends' response. for instance, i know that i myself have occasionally had people who were attracted to me, while i wanted to have a 'platonic' relationship only. i did not shun them and refuse to speak to them for six months. (almost six months: the total silence began in early summer. during that time we have only spoken a few words, just about things having to do with work - sentences like 'here,' if i give him something, or 'can you help me with this?', that kind of thing.) i usually continued to have a friendship with them, and continued speaking, writing, and talking on the telephone, but i simply did not have sex with them. that is what it means to have a platonic friendship-only with somebody who expresses an attraction to you. i would point out that he has other platonic female friends.

i agree about one particular thing, which is that the words that i say cannot be trusted. i really do experience alternate personalities jumping in and saying things that i do not agree with. (note, once again, i believe those are caused by an external attacker, and that they do not come from within, and that they are not merely a 'persona' or a 'multiple personality.' but it's easier to call them a 'persona.') i would agree with him that in that way, i can't be trusted. but the external personas corrupt my behavior, not in the area of religion, but in my whole approach to human relationships and interactions. i don't agree with their way of doing things. their attack is so severe that, much of the time, it totally suppresses my personality, so completely that i do not even exist.

so anyway, by the 'no premarital sex, no friendships with untrustworthy evil inhuman atheists, cut off all communication immediately' theory: i find him attractive and i did tell him that i wanted some kind of dating relationship; and, in the beginning at least, it seemed like he was attracted to me. if two people are attracted to each other, and then suddenly somebody cuts off all communication completely - not even by email - it doesn't seem like a 'let's just be friends' approach. it seems like there must be some other reason.

there is one thing that happened which involved my writing something that was not from my own personality, and it has bothered me a lot, because it seems to have had harmful consequences. when he told me that he had a serious relationship with somebody else, i wrote something back to him in reply. i myself believed him and took his word for it, but the reply was something sarcastic which was created by another voice in my head. i don't know if he'd ever believe me if i told him that - i don't know if he believes me about my experiences of alternate personalities that i do not control.

well, a few things happened with the sarcastic reply. it seemed to trigger a 'you don't believe me, you don't take me seriously, you don't respect me' feeling from him. again, that wasn't something he said or wrote. it was something i observed in his behavior afterwards. it was an impression i had.

and there was the same feeling in me, in the persona that had given the sarcastic response. it came out later because i did something that was helpful for him at work one day, and afterwards, that persona said 'see? i'm useful after all.' it was someone rejected as useless and worthless. i know which persona it was - i've called him 'severus snape' because his way of speaking sounds a lot like him, and he portrayed himself as similar to that character. his image was a man in a wheelchair.

the other thing, which i only found out much later, was that some of the information in my letter's sarcastic reply was actually based on something he said in his blog. as in, i accidentally made a reference to something in his blog, as though i had read it. but i had not read his blog yet, back then. when i read it, months later, i saw something which seemed related to what i had said in the sarcastic reply. i also saw a couple of other things that 'they' had been telling me. much of what 'they' told me had come from his blog.

my experience of the voices is that they occasionally tell me things which i later verify to be true. but they also tell me a huge amount of things which are lies, or confusing, or impossible to interpret, or meaningless disruptive noise and garbage that just interferes with thinking. or i find out what it means, much later, and it is totally different from what i thought it meant.

if i were physically able to stop it, i would be happy to do without any external mental 'voices' at all, even if they sometimes give information that turns out to be true. i believe that my own brain's way of functioning is good enough by itself and i would rather not be disrupted by noise. this is an understatement. to be more accurate, i would say this: using an electronic device or system to 'communicate' or control or interfere with someone's mental functioning in any way at all, without their consent, without their being able to stop it, is a crime and a violation of human rights, and it has a severely destructive impact on people and society. to interfere with someone's functioning, so severely, so destructively, that they feel like their own personality is totally suppressed and nonexistent, is the same as murder, except the person's body is still alive. so it is an understatement to say that i merely would 'rather do without the voices.'

anyway, the other harmful consequence of my sarcastic letter was that it seemed like he became more distrusting afterwards, like he thought that i 'knew' things about him, when i don't. meanwhile, i myself knew nothing, and i still know hardly anything about him - he is almost a total stranger.


so, when i came home this evening, i sat for a while thinking about the rule against premarital sex. and i wanted to say that rule myself, to paraphrase it, to agree with it, as though i had thought of it myself for the first time, and nobody had ever thought of it before. i was badly disrupted by voices who put other people's words and phrases into my mind, and i could not make my own observations, and i got very angry. the result was that i still don't know what the real nicole j. binns would have said, but i can at least tell you the things that other people have said about it.

why is premarital sex forbidden?
1. pregnancy
2. diseases

...even if you use birth control?
3. bitter breakups
4. losing opportunity
5. wrong kind of people / bad crowd / bad lifestyle overall
6. fails to produce a LARGE family with many children and with a religious upbringing, because it postpones (at least) the beginning of the marriage

i had a couple other vague ideas, but that was most of them.

#1 means a child needs material and financial support, and social and family support, and doesn't get it, because of the difficulties of being a single parent. that's assuming that they don't get married after discovering that the woman is pregnant, and she has a baby out of wedlock. either that, or it leads to abortion. giving a child up for adoption is also not as good as keeping the child in a secure family. and in the modern united states, and probably other countries as well, there are government agencies that enslave people for years to something called 'child support payments.' every person who i have ever talked to about the subject of child support has been bitter about it. i have never heard anyone say 'i'm happy with my experiences of dealing with the government and paying my child support.' there is always a problem, where somebody thinks the amount of money is too much, or too little, or they're spending the money for frivolous things that have nothing to do with the children, or it's too hard to collect the money and enforce the law, or you'd rather not communicate with that former partner at all because they're crazy and impossible to talk to. there is always something. child support payments can be a great way to get rich quick, to take your former partner's money and spend it in a way that they wouldn't have wanted. get pregnant, then break up with your (wealthy, high-income) partner, keep the child, and then demand payments, which are based on his income (instead of being based on an estimate of minimal, frugal supplies for the child). spend the money on clothing, television sets, a nice car, whatever you want, and live a life of luxury. i have seen people do this, and i have seen people who seem to have not the slightest guilt, not the slightest remorse about doing it - they think that it is RIGHT, and they're ENTITLED to get rich quick this way, that there is nothing wrong with it.

#2 means, the more partners you have, the more likely you are to pass or receive STDs. this is a problem for me personally, because i get cold sores, which are caused by a common contagious virus, and i don't want to pass that to other people.

#3 means that if you have short-term or medium-term relationships, eventually you will break up with somebody sooner or later. that is the sort of relationship that i have always had: medium-term relationships that do not lead to marriage. and imagine that you had a PREmarital relationship with somebody, but then broke up with that person, and married somebody else. that person you broke up with might get angry and jealous. they might retaliate or interfere with your current relationship after they've been rejected. dating relationships would need to be non-sexual, to avoid getting too involved, so that breakups would be less damaging.

#4. loss of opportunity means that you might casually date different people over a period of years, and then you would be older and less able to find a spouse and produce a family. a woman would be closer to menopause. a man would be older and might be less able to compete against young men, although that's not necessarily true, because an older man is more likely to have acquired wealth. but even so, being older might make a man less able to find a wife. it probably depends on how old he is and how physically healthy/attractive he still is. so, during those years when you were dating people without marrying them, you missed an opportunity to find your spouse. if you had 'held out for something better,' instead of casually dating people without intending to marry them, you might have found your spouse earlier, or been more serious about searching for that person.

#5. people living a lifestyle with nonmarital sex, nonmarital relationships, casual sex, or whatever you call it, might tend to be irresponsible, unreliable, immoral, etc. they might tend to be less religious, less likely to put a high value on passing religion on to children, less serious overall. they might tend to have more personal problems and financial problems.

#6. if you have premarital sex, with birth control, and you don't get any diseases or have bitter breakups, and you have a stable, medium-term or long-term informal nonmarital relationship, and it's a decent, responsible person without any financial problems or personal problems - assuming this isn't a 'common law' marriage where the two of you live in the same house and spend your lives together for all practical purposes... then, you're still failing to produce a large family with lots of children who have all been taught your religious beliefs. modern mainstream christians usually DO NOT try to produce large families, and i've wanted to write about this topic but haven't had a chance yet. but in the past, before we had this type of economic/slavery system that we have now, people did produce large families, and this was important. i'll have to write some other time about how the modern economy/slavery system destroys families and prevents people from marrying and having children.

so those were my thoughts about why premarital sex is forbidden. it was the only explanation i could think of for why someone would totally shun me for six months merely because i asked for a more-than-friends relationship. (the particular words and sentences that i said and wrote were controlled by the external personas, but they were based on real feelings. i might have written or said it differently, or at some later time.) again, this wasn't just a 'let's be friends' response. it was six months of total silence, no response to dozens of emails (although again, if i'd had my way, i WOULD NOT have continued writing emails after he stopped answering. many of the emails were triggered by incidents where i woke up in the morning, or woke up after a nap, and had some 'idea' in my head and an inexplicable 'urge' to write him a letter about it, which indicates a puppeteering incident, especially since i was usually using sjw when this happened), no return phone calls (although i didn't make very many calls, because on MY end of this disaster, i was terrified of being accused of harassment, and i was constantly fighting against those urges to call him or write to him), no talking at work, and a rejected facebook friends request after i found out he was on facebook and i tried to contact him there. this was a 'you are evil, you are inhuman, you do not exist' response, not merely a 'why don't we just be friends' response.

as i said above, i am grateful for his response in the note. i mean that. it was a negative response, but it gave me enough information to at least suggest some kind of a theory, some explanation of why i am being shunned.

i still feel anxiety, because i can't control the fact that i have voices and personas that make me say things i don't want to say, and write things i don't want to write. and i still need to use my st. john's wort, because i have a lot of things to do, and they're very important, and this antidepressant helps me to do them. if i could, i would stop the attackers from giving me those 'ideas' and 'urges' to write him more emails, when he would rather not communicate with me. and i can't control that or prevent that. so i am still not completely at peace, i am not without anxiety, and i still fear that i could be accused of harassment at some time.

i wish i could know when he will graduate. whenever he leaves town, i won't see him at work anymore, and i will feel less connected with him, less reminded of him. that means the no-response, one-way emails will sooner or later seem pointless and i will stop writing. now that i understand that the 'urges' to write emails are actually caused by electronic harassment, i have a slightly better ability to fight against them than i used to. in the past, the first time this happened, i did not know that i was being forced to keep sending emails. i thought they were my own internal urges instead of an attack.

this situation is not really resolved, but i have slightly more information than i had before.