0

My former UMW attendee, now a lawyer, has posted some cryptic comments on her Facebook that a neighbor hinted I should read. I won't identify the UMW attendee.

Here are the "codes":

1. PPQDI
2. PQDH
3. VAEG
4. FAEGA

I won't include the original quotes for context, but here are my responses to this steganographic defamation of me:

1. If you're saying what I think you're saying, you might not understand the situation.
2. Page 84, of an econ textbook. Well, yes, there's more to economics than supply and demand. My idea might be based on it, but by citing the fact that you have heard of one simple econ concept, perhaps to cast doubt on the effectiveness of my very good idea, you are not presenting a genuinely valid argument.
3. Virginia is enraged with the genius--me. Um, why? I do not see why anyone should be enraged at me, I have done nothing wrong. What is the allegation?? Once again, by shunning me based on lies, you have deprived yourselves of the ability to present your POSSIBLY INCORRECT argument (like #2) for why you think I deserve to be despised. What are you claiming that I did, complain a lot? Use the first amendment? Do you think I said something false, I was very careful? My idea wouldn't work if my claims were untrue; I assert almost all of them are 100% true, maybe I made a few mistakes--I would correct mistakes if they were pointed out to me. Are you sure you don't believe that UMW = Virginia? THAT would be a mistake, thankfully!
4. F--- off with grand agent. What, now I'm no longer accused of "being like Adam Levine" or "thinking that I'm Brandon Flowers," I now stand accused of "trying to being like Grand Agent" ?? What exactly is your criticism of me posting Grand Agent? I am not a creep and I have never engaged in any sort of stalking behavior or sexually predatory behavior. I know whom you might want to refer to--the recipient of my weird message in 2007. If you defame me about that, you will not like it. I was baited into sending a weird message to someone I had a crush on back then, when I wasn't on any medications. It was MINIMALLY SEXUAL, ZERO PERCENT STALKING, ZERO PERCENT THREATENING. You're welcome to post an unaltered exact copy of the message I wrote on the internet--it was harmless, I was the one being stalked, it felt like I was going to be lynched. You should scare yourself a little more, ensuring you are in compliance with US law, which you've now studied, before you present lies about me. And do not publish a fake message...I don't have the copy of the message, but I thought about it a lot--I wrote a whole diary about the events of that year, while I was with the bot without knowing it, actually, for years--and I would recognize a fake message if you tried to present a fake. Don't lie about me! You're a lawyer, you definitely know better! So, have you even read the message of yesteryear? I remember it well enough to know it was harmless and not illegal--no worse than a calm drunk dial from a homeless guy you met on the street who knew your email address. My ethics and rule-following were perfect that day.

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 4:40:34 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> 0
>
> My former UMW attendee, now a lawyer, has posted some cryptic comments on her Facebook that a neighbor hinted I should read. I won't identify the UMW attendee.
>
> Here are the "codes":
>
> 1. PPQDI
> 2. PQDH
> 3. VAEG
> 4. FAEGA
>
> I won't include the original quotes for context, but here are my responses to this steganographic defamation of me:
>
> 1. If you're saying what I think you're saying, you might not understand the situation.
> 2. Page 84, of an econ textbook. Well, yes, there's more to economics than supply and demand. My idea might be based on it, but by citing the fact that you have heard of one simple econ concept, perhaps to cast doubt on the effectiveness of my very good idea, you are not presenting a genuinely valid argument.
> 3. Virginia is enraged with the genius--me. Um, why? I do not see why anyone should be enraged at me, I have done nothing wrong. What is the allegation?? Once again, by shunning me based on lies, you have deprived yourselves of the ability to present your POSSIBLY INCORRECT argument (like #2) for why you think I deserve to be despised. What are you claiming that I did, complain a lot? Use the first amendment? Do you think I said something false, I was very careful? My idea wouldn't work if my claims were untrue; I assert almost all of them are 100% true, maybe I made a few mistakes--I would correct mistakes if they were pointed out to me. Are you sure you don't believe that UMW = Virginia? THAT would be a mistake, thankfully!
> 4. F--- off with grand agent. What, now I'm no longer accused of "being like Adam Levine" or "thinking that I'm Brandon Flowers," I now stand accused of "trying to being like Grand Agent" ?? What exactly is your criticism of me posting Grand Agent? I am not a creep and I have never engaged in any sort of stalking behavior or sexually predatory behavior. I know whom you might want to refer to--the recipient of my weird message in 2007. If you defame me about that, you will not like it. I was baited into sending a weird message to someone I had a crush on back then, when I wasn't on any medications. It was MINIMALLY SEXUAL, ZERO PERCENT STALKING, ZERO PERCENT THREATENING. You're welcome to post an unaltered exact copy of the message I wrote on the internet--it was harmless, I was the one being stalked, it felt like I was going to be lynched. You should scare yourself a little more, ensuring you are in compliance with US law, which you've now studied, before you present lies about me. And do not publish a fake message...I don't have the copy of the message, but I thought about it a lot--I wrote a whole diary about the events of that year, while I was with the bot without knowing it, actually, for years--and I would recognize a fake message if you tried to present a fake. Don't lie about me! You're a lawyer, you definitely know better! So, have you even read the message of yesteryear? I remember it well enough to know it was harmless and not illegal--no worse than a calm drunk dial from a homeless guy you met on the street who knew your email address. My ethics and rule-following were perfect that day.

I did think people reacted *very* strangely to me after I returned to school in Fall 2007! Almost like, that was the exact smear that was used to marginalize at my UMW! Wow, I'm so glad I kept that diary and talked to my psychologist, who told me to stay far away from her, which I did and she didn't--she would always show up at the grocery store right when I was there, I never tried to talk to that woman again, at all, until I was captured by the CIA in 2011.

I was never certain that was the strategic smear, but I suspected it a lot, for years. Oh, and now you want to talk about it suddenly, now you want to admit that was your "big fake concern," perhaps, now that I put on you on defense because you're all so incredibly dumb and "subtle and quiet" and unable to do basic critical thinking, or you would have been disabled like me or you would have transferred?

Hmmm, what will you say next? I predict: You'll realize I'm right, I was perfectly innocent, you have no "case," I behaved better than almost anyone could have, off meds and apparently being stalked by wildly crazy homegrown UMW vigilante stalkers who wanted to intimidate me and get rid of me--students, I think my psychiatrist knew about the plot, if it was that, in advance and took me off meds for related reasons--and maybe then you'll stop defaming my character.

Maybe you weren't though, maybe I mis-read it. It is hard to communicate with only codes.

-Philip White

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 4:46:27 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 4:40:34 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > 0
> >
> > My former UMW attendee, now a lawyer, has posted some cryptic comments on her Facebook that a neighbor hinted I should read. I won't identify the UMW attendee.
> >
> > Here are the "codes":
> >
> > 1. PPQDI
> > 2. PQDH
> > 3. VAEG
> > 4. FAEGA
> >
> > I won't include the original quotes for context, but here are my responses to this steganographic defamation of me:
> >
> > 1. If you're saying what I think you're saying, you might not understand the situation.
> > 2. Page 84, of an econ textbook. Well, yes, there's more to economics than supply and demand. My idea might be based on it, but by citing the fact that you have heard of one simple econ concept, perhaps to cast doubt on the effectiveness of my very good idea, you are not presenting a genuinely valid argument.
> > 3. Virginia is enraged with the genius--me. Um, why? I do not see why anyone should be enraged at me, I have done nothing wrong. What is the allegation?? Once again, by shunning me based on lies, you have deprived yourselves of the ability to present your POSSIBLY INCORRECT argument (like #2) for why you think I deserve to be despised. What are you claiming that I did, complain a lot? Use the first amendment? Do you think I said something false, I was very careful? My idea wouldn't work if my claims were untrue; I assert almost all of them are 100% true, maybe I made a few mistakes--I would correct mistakes if they were pointed out to me. Are you sure you don't believe that UMW = Virginia? THAT would be a mistake, thankfully!
> > 4. F--- off with grand agent. What, now I'm no longer accused of "being like Adam Levine" or "thinking that I'm Brandon Flowers," I now stand accused of "trying to being like Grand Agent" ?? What exactly is your criticism of me posting Grand Agent? I am not a creep and I have never engaged in any sort of stalking behavior or sexually predatory behavior. I know whom you might want to refer to--the recipient of my weird message in 2007. If you defame me about that, you will not like it. I was baited into sending a weird message to someone I had a crush on back then, when I wasn't on any medications. It was MINIMALLY SEXUAL, ZERO PERCENT STALKING, ZERO PERCENT THREATENING. You're welcome to post an unaltered exact copy of the message I wrote on the internet--it was harmless, I was the one being stalked, it felt like I was going to be lynched. You should scare yourself a little more, ensuring you are in compliance with US law, which you've now studied, before you present lies about me. And do not publish a fake message...I don't have the copy of the message, but I thought about it a lot--I wrote a whole diary about the events of that year, while I was with the bot without knowing it, actually, for years--and I would recognize a fake message if you tried to present a fake. Don't lie about me! You're a lawyer, you definitely know better! So, have you even read the message of yesteryear? I remember it well enough to know it was harmless and not illegal--no worse than a calm drunk dial from a homeless guy you met on the street who knew your email address. My ethics and rule-following were perfect that day.
> I did think people reacted *very* strangely to me after I returned to school in Fall 2007! Almost like, that was the exact smear that was used to marginalize at my UMW! Wow, I'm so glad I kept that diary and talked to my psychologist, who told me to stay far away from her, which I did and she didn't--she would always show up at the grocery store right when I was there, I never tried to talk to that woman again, at all, until I was captured by the CIA in 2011.
>
> I was never certain that was the strategic smear, but I suspected it a lot, for years. Oh, and now you want to talk about it suddenly, now you want to admit that was your "big fake concern," perhaps, now that I put on you on defense because you're all so incredibly dumb and "subtle and quiet" and unable to do basic critical thinking, or you would have been disabled like me or you would have transferred?
>
> Hmmm, what will you say next? I predict: You'll realize I'm right, I was perfectly innocent, you have no "case," I behaved better than almost anyone could have, off meds and apparently being stalked by wildly crazy homegrown UMW vigilante stalkers who wanted to intimidate me and get rid of me--students, I think my psychiatrist knew about the plot, if it was that, in advance and took me off meds for related reasons--and maybe then you'll stop defaming my character.
>
> Maybe you weren't though, maybe I mis-read it. It is hard to communicate with only codes.
>
> -Philip White

Or maybe you'll stego-mumble something to avoid *explicitly* conceding that I'm right.