Hi everyone,

I feel like talking about legal issues, and I saw this video on my YouTube just now and I decided to watch it. I like some Johnny Depp movies, am strongly opposed to abuse, including of Depp and against Amber Heard, feel some sympathy for him, particularly due to his mental health challenges, and oppose drug use. In general, I don't approve of some of Depp's past conduct, especially towards Amber Heard, but I tend to not dislike him as a public figure or a person or an artist...it is nice that he is willing to show up in court and face due process without trying to be a fugitive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awPQ0AnkNHU

I sometimes think about "unusual tricks and techniques" I see used by people, perhaps without realizing it or seeing it my way, in arguments with people who are being "cast as undesirable." I see a little of that in this brief testimony.

- Depp tries to talk about something scientific, but has to talk about in the context of a criminal act, and, if his comment about "the brain not needing to produce dopamine or serotonin" is false or figurative speech, and he seems to expect to be challenged in "unreasonable" or "angering" ways.
- More strikingly to me, there is a "compelling request to grovel" issued by the lawyer. Depp, speaking no more figuratively than Heard's attorney--are the two of them participating in a partly-agreeing joint satire of the legal system and its approach to abuse victims?--is asked to repeat his answer about drugs, after he more or less "quietly" answered the question already--yes.

Regarding the second point: I'm sure this happens all the time in court, but it is an interesting and (maybe?) understudied dynamic--maybe Heard's lawyer even agrees--but to what extent are hostile-to-the-[cross-]examiner witnesses, and victims of crimes like abuse, asked to sort of "grove" and "admit twice...louder!" that something is true? Sometimes, when I am asked to "grovel" in certain ways that don't bother me, I do it immediately, to indicate that, given my position, I am reasonable--I am the one who will get the "respect A+" when I am treated fairly well. "You want insights on hacking, Bernie Sanders? Sure, I'll offer you some free thoughts on something I've studied for years--computer science--and how will you react to this expert-like generosity that I will bestow upon you, a fugitive criminal who has repeatedly caused me to be hurt?" The response to that is, "Oh, well, *mumble* *mumble*, decision announced, it's not good enough, we're still going to traffic and abuse you." That is what the bad guys would always say--it's like the typical saying, "Dad, nothing I ever do is good enough for you," and the father responds, "Yes, son, that's exactly right!" In this case, though, it's an abuser, trying to play the role of dominant father instead of a true parent.

Anyway, my point is that sometimes it is a good idea to be *extremely clear about rules.* That is a wonderful source of problem-free self-confidence. When you know exactly what the rules are, and what the consequences are for breaking them, you can proceed confidently...economically-enforced rules that you shouldn't break, in addition to local or "club" rules with people you consensually interact with, are ones you should add to your "hard and fast rules" list. If you have to, practice and exercise at not breaking the rules; ask a friend for help or seek help from a specialist if you need extra help getting in line with all the rules you need to follow...it usually isn't that hard. In particular, if you *know* in your mind that you are following all of the real rules, and some idiot comes up to you and tells you, "Sir, you're still doing it wrong, you're a bad person," then you can confidently tell yourself, immediately, that the person is wrong and messing with you, telling you that you're not following a rule when that's false and you always follow all the rules...it would be like calling Stephen Hawking a bad physicist. Then you can react, without breaking rules, and you'll never have to go to court to waste your time to apologize for breaking a rule when you've never done it, at least not recently.

So anyway, back to the main point...my sense of it is, Heard's lawyer anticipates Depp's reaction, understanding it. I think it is a message about trying to compel people to grovel, rules, agreement, consent, abuse, and the importance of treating following rules like a skill or a job...you don't have to like every part of it, you just have to do a few exercises, if necessary, to bring your anger levels and knowledge-of-rules levels to the point where you will be able to walk into any situation and react to it perfectly and be blameless.

I just felt like writing that; in case someone thinks that this is some sort of "service act" again, no, it isn't, it is me talking about something I like talking about, since I like rules and don't like abuse. It's like a conversation except that I am essentially talking to YouTube videos.

-Philip White (philipjwhite@yahoo.com)

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 10:13:19 AM UTC-7, B.H. wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I feel like talking about legal issues, and I saw this video on my YouTube just now and I decided to watch it. I like some Johnny Depp movies, am strongly opposed to abuse, including of Depp and against Amber Heard, feel some sympathy for him, particularly due to his mental health challenges, and oppose drug use. In general, I don't approve of some of Depp's past conduct, especially towards Amber Heard, but I tend to not dislike him as a public figure or a person or an artist...it is nice that he is willing to show up in court and face due process without trying to be a fugitive.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awPQ0AnkNHU
>
> I sometimes think about "unusual tricks and techniques" I see used by people, perhaps without realizing it or seeing it my way, in arguments with people who are being "cast as undesirable." I see a little of that in this brief testimony.
>
> - Depp tries to talk about something scientific, but has to talk about in the context of a criminal act, and, if his comment about "the brain not needing to produce dopamine or serotonin" is false or figurative speech, and he seems to expect to be challenged in "unreasonable" or "angering" ways.
> - More strikingly to me, there is a "compelling request to grovel" issued by the lawyer. Depp, speaking no more figuratively than Heard's attorney--are the two of them participating in a partly-agreeing joint satire of the legal system and its approach to abuse victims?--is asked to repeat his answer about drugs, after he more or less "quietly" answered the question already--yes.
>
> Regarding the second point: I'm sure this happens all the time in court, but it is an interesting and (maybe?) understudied dynamic--maybe Heard's lawyer even agrees--but to what extent are hostile-to-the-[cross-]examiner witnesses, and victims of crimes like abuse, asked to sort of "grove" and "admit twice...louder!" that something is true? Sometimes, when I am asked to "grovel" in certain ways that don't bother me, I do it immediately, to indicate that, given my position, I am reasonable--I am the one who will get the "respect A+" when I am treated fairly well. "You want insights on hacking, Bernie Sanders? Sure, I'll offer you some free thoughts on something I've studied for years--computer science--and how will you react to this expert-like generosity that I will bestow upon you, a fugitive criminal who has repeatedly caused me to be hurt?" The response to that is, "Oh, well, *mumble* *mumble*, decision announced, it's not good enough, we're still going to traffic and abuse you." That is what the bad guys would always say--it's like the typical saying, "Dad, nothing I ever do is good enough for you," and the father responds, "Yes, son, that's exactly right!" In this case, though, it's an abuser, trying to play the role of dominant father instead of a true parent.
>
> Anyway, my point is that sometimes it is a good idea to be *extremely clear about rules.* That is a wonderful source of problem-free self-confidence.. When you know exactly what the rules are, and what the consequences are for breaking them, you can proceed confidently...economically-enforced rules that you shouldn't break, in addition to local or "club" rules with people you consensually interact with, are ones you should add to your "hard and fast rules" list. If you have to, practice and exercise at not breaking the rules; ask a friend for help or seek help from a specialist if you need extra help getting in line with all the rules you need to follow...it usually isn't that hard. In particular, if you *know* in your mind that you are following all of the real rules, and some idiot comes up to you and tells you, "Sir, you're still doing it wrong, you're a bad person," then you can confidently tell yourself, immediately, that the person is wrong and messing with you, telling you that you're not following a rule when that's false and you always follow all the rules...it would be like calling Stephen Hawking a bad physicist. Then you can react, without breaking rules, and you'll never have to go to court to waste your time to apologize for breaking a rule when you've never done it, at least not recently.
>
> So anyway, back to the main point...my sense of it is, Heard's lawyer anticipates Depp's reaction, understanding it. I think it is a message about trying to compel people to grovel, rules, agreement, consent, abuse, and the importance of treating following rules like a skill or a job...you don't have to like every part of it, you just have to do a few exercises, if necessary, to bring your anger levels and knowledge-of-rules levels to the point where you will be able to walk into any situation and react to it perfectly and be blameless.
>
> I just felt like writing that; in case someone thinks that this is some sort of "service act" again, no, it isn't, it is me talking about something I like talking about, since I like rules and don't like abuse. It's like a conversation except that I am essentially talking to YouTube videos.
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)

This is comp.theory?

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 6:44:31 PM UTC-4, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 10:13:19 AM UTC-7, B.H. wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I feel like talking about legal issues, and I saw this video on my YouTube just now and I decided to watch it. I like some Johnny Depp movies, am strongly opposed to abuse, including of Depp and against Amber Heard, feel some sympathy for him, particularly due to his mental health challenges, and oppose drug use. In general, I don't approve of some of Depp's past conduct, especially towards Amber Heard, but I tend to not dislike him as a public figure or a person or an artist...it is nice that he is willing to show up in court and face due process without trying to be a fugitive.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awPQ0AnkNHU
> >
> > I sometimes think about "unusual tricks and techniques" I see used by people, perhaps without realizing it or seeing it my way, in arguments with people who are being "cast as undesirable." I see a little of that in this brief testimony.
> >
> > - Depp tries to talk about something scientific, but has to talk about in the context of a criminal act, and, if his comment about "the brain not needing to produce dopamine or serotonin" is false or figurative speech, and he seems to expect to be challenged in "unreasonable" or "angering" ways.
> > - More strikingly to me, there is a "compelling request to grovel" issued by the lawyer. Depp, speaking no more figuratively than Heard's attorney--are the two of them participating in a partly-agreeing joint satire of the legal system and its approach to abuse victims?--is asked to repeat his answer about drugs, after he more or less "quietly" answered the question already--yes.
> >
> > Regarding the second point: I'm sure this happens all the time in court, but it is an interesting and (maybe?) understudied dynamic--maybe Heard's lawyer even agrees--but to what extent are hostile-to-the-[cross-]examiner witnesses, and victims of crimes like abuse, asked to sort of "grove" and "admit twice...louder!" that something is true? Sometimes, when I am asked to "grovel" in certain ways that don't bother me, I do it immediately, to indicate that, given my position, I am reasonable--I am the one who will get the "respect A+" when I am treated fairly well. "You want insights on hacking, Bernie Sanders? Sure, I'll offer you some free thoughts on something I've studied for years--computer science--and how will you react to this expert-like generosity that I will bestow upon you, a fugitive criminal who has repeatedly caused me to be hurt?" The response to that is, "Oh, well, *mumble* *mumble*, decision announced, it's not good enough, we're still going to traffic and abuse you." That is what the bad guys would always say--it's like the typical saying, "Dad, nothing I ever do is good enough for you," and the father responds, "Yes, son, that's exactly right!" In this case, though, it's an abuser, trying to play the role of dominant father instead of a true parent.
> >
> > Anyway, my point is that sometimes it is a good idea to be *extremely clear about rules.* That is a wonderful source of problem-free self-confidence. When you know exactly what the rules are, and what the consequences are for breaking them, you can proceed confidently...economically-enforced rules that you shouldn't break, in addition to local or "club" rules with people you consensually interact with, are ones you should add to your "hard and fast rules" list. If you have to, practice and exercise at not breaking the rules; ask a friend for help or seek help from a specialist if you need extra help getting in line with all the rules you need to follow...it usually isn't that hard. In particular, if you *know* in your mind that you are following all of the real rules, and some idiot comes up to you and tells you, "Sir, you're still doing it wrong, you're a bad person," then you can confidently tell yourself, immediately, that the person is wrong and messing with you, telling you that you're not following a rule when that's false and you always follow all the rules...it would be like calling Stephen Hawking a bad physicist. Then you can react, without breaking rules, and you'll never have to go to court to waste your time to apologize for breaking a rule when you've never done it, at least not recently.
> >
> > So anyway, back to the main point...my sense of it is, Heard's lawyer anticipates Depp's reaction, understanding it. I think it is a message about trying to compel people to grovel, rules, agreement, consent, abuse, and the importance of treating following rules like a skill or a job...you don't have to like every part of it, you just have to do a few exercises, if necessary, to bring your anger levels and knowledge-of-rules levels to the point where you will be able to walk into any situation and react to it perfectly and be blameless.
> >
> > I just felt like writing that; in case someone thinks that this is some sort of "service act" again, no, it isn't, it is me talking about something I like talking about, since I like rules and don't like abuse. It's like a conversation except that I am essentially talking to YouTube videos.
> >
> > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> This is comp.theory?

Yes, it's technically a little off topic, just like almost all of your posts. I am writing about human rights and plan to leave comp.theory completely if I'm released.

I would just post innocuous stuff on my Facebook page and be calm and lead a normal life, but some crooked political idiots don't want that, so here I am instead.

-Philip White (philipjwhite@yahoo.com)

Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreydanielrubard@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 10:13:19 AM UTC-7, B.H. wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I feel like talking about legal issues, and I saw this video on my
[85 lines deleted]
>>
>> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
>
> This is comp.theory?

You didn't need to quote that entire article to add a one-line comment.

Certainly B.H.'s post was off-topic. That's (part of) why he's in my
killfile, and I wouldn't have seen that post if you hadn't quoted it.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 8:06:56 PM UTC-4, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreyda...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 10:13:19 AM UTC-7, B.H. wrote:
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> I feel like talking about legal issues, and I saw this video on my
> [85 lines deleted]
> >>
> >> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> >
> > This is comp.theory?
> You didn't need to quote that entire article to add a one-line comment.
>
> Certainly B.H.'s post was off-topic. That's (part of) why he's in my
> killfile, and I wouldn't have seen that post if you hadn't quoted it.
>
> --
> Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.T...@gmail.com
> Working, but not speaking, for Philips
> void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

It's not a one-line comment...also I didn't quote the article, that's a link. I don't get the point.

That one post of mine was off-topic but many of my posts are on-topic, though more like "monologues" than conversational/discussion posts. You are quite welcome to kill file my posts, i.e., block yourself from seeing them if you please...I don't mind that at all, it's your time.

-Philip White (philipjwhite@yahoo.com)

"B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 8:06:56 PM UTC-4, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreyda...@gmail.com> writes:
>> > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 10:13:19 AM UTC-7, B.H. wrote:
>> >> Hi everyone,
>> >>
>> >> I feel like talking about legal issues, and I saw this video on my
>> [85 lines deleted]
>> >>
>> >> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
>> >
>> > This is comp.theory?
>> You didn't need to quote that entire article to add a one-line comment.
>>
>> Certainly B.H.'s post was off-topic. That's (part of) why he's in my
>> killfile, and I wouldn't have seen that post if you hadn't quoted it.
>>
>> --
>> Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.T...@gmail.com
>> Working, but not speaking, for Philips
>> void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
>
> It's not a one-line comment...also I didn't quote the article, that's
> a link. I don't get the point.

Keith Thompson was replying to Jeffrey Rubard. It was he (JR) who
quoted your whole article ("article" is the technical term for a Usenet
message) in order to add one line.

--
Ben.

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 1:13:19 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I feel like talking about legal issues, and I saw this video on my YouTube just now and I decided to watch it. I like some Johnny Depp movies, am strongly opposed to abuse, including of Depp and against Amber Heard, feel some sympathy for him, particularly due to his mental health challenges, and oppose drug use. In general, I don't approve of some of Depp's past conduct, especially towards Amber Heard, but I tend to not dislike him as a public figure or a person or an artist...it is nice that he is willing to show up in court and face due process without trying to be a fugitive.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awPQ0AnkNHU
>
> I sometimes think about "unusual tricks and techniques" I see used by people, perhaps without realizing it or seeing it my way, in arguments with people who are being "cast as undesirable." I see a little of that in this brief testimony.
>
> - Depp tries to talk about something scientific, but has to talk about in the context of a criminal act, and, if his comment about "the brain not needing to produce dopamine or serotonin" is false or figurative speech, and he seems to expect to be challenged in "unreasonable" or "angering" ways.
> - More strikingly to me, there is a "compelling request to grovel" issued by the lawyer. Depp, speaking no more figuratively than Heard's attorney--are the two of them participating in a partly-agreeing joint satire of the legal system and its approach to abuse victims?--is asked to repeat his answer about drugs, after he more or less "quietly" answered the question already--yes.
>
> Regarding the second point: I'm sure this happens all the time in court, but it is an interesting and (maybe?) understudied dynamic--maybe Heard's lawyer even agrees--but to what extent are hostile-to-the-[cross-]examiner witnesses, and victims of crimes like abuse, asked to sort of "grove" and "admit twice...louder!" that something is true? Sometimes, when I am asked to "grovel" in certain ways that don't bother me, I do it immediately, to indicate that, given my position, I am reasonable--I am the one who will get the "respect A+" when I am treated fairly well. "You want insights on hacking, Bernie Sanders? Sure, I'll offer you some free thoughts on something I've studied for years--computer science--and how will you react to this expert-like generosity that I will bestow upon you, a fugitive criminal who has repeatedly caused me to be hurt?" The response to that is, "Oh, well, *mumble* *mumble*, decision announced, it's not good enough, we're still going to traffic and abuse you." That is what the bad guys would always say--it's like the typical saying, "Dad, nothing I ever do is good enough for you," and the father responds, "Yes, son, that's exactly right!" In this case, though, it's an abuser, trying to play the role of dominant father instead of a true parent.
>
> Anyway, my point is that sometimes it is a good idea to be *extremely clear about rules.* That is a wonderful source of problem-free self-confidence.. When you know exactly what the rules are, and what the consequences are for breaking them, you can proceed confidently...economically-enforced rules that you shouldn't break, in addition to local or "club" rules with people you consensually interact with, are ones you should add to your "hard and fast rules" list. If you have to, practice and exercise at not breaking the rules; ask a friend for help or seek help from a specialist if you need extra help getting in line with all the rules you need to follow...it usually isn't that hard. In particular, if you *know* in your mind that you are following all of the real rules, and some idiot comes up to you and tells you, "Sir, you're still doing it wrong, you're a bad person," then you can confidently tell yourself, immediately, that the person is wrong and messing with you, telling you that you're not following a rule when that's false and you always follow all the rules...it would be like calling Stephen Hawking a bad physicist. Then you can react, without breaking rules, and you'll never have to go to court to waste your time to apologize for breaking a rule when you've never done it, at least not recently.
>
> So anyway, back to the main point...my sense of it is, Heard's lawyer anticipates Depp's reaction, understanding it. I think it is a message about trying to compel people to grovel, rules, agreement, consent, abuse, and the importance of treating following rules like a skill or a job...you don't have to like every part of it, you just have to do a few exercises, if necessary, to bring your anger levels and knowledge-of-rules levels to the point where you will be able to walk into any situation and react to it perfectly and be blameless.
>
> I just felt like writing that; in case someone thinks that this is some sort of "service act" again, no, it isn't, it is me talking about something I like talking about, since I like rules and don't like abuse. It's like a conversation except that I am essentially talking to YouTube videos.
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)

Another sort of interesting YouTube video about Johnny Depp in court showed up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO-XgC2Dr6E

I'm definitely allowed to talk about it, but I'm trying to influence the trial...the jury being sequestered or whatever or not doesn't affect my free speech right to comment on YouTube videos, but it occurred to me that Ms. Heard's lawyer might be trying to influence YouTube by making certain gestures.

It sounds like she essentially said, in the question, "Isn't it a fact [1] that if you had found information supporting a different person in the case, that you wouldn't have been called as a witness?"

The objection is, "Speculation." From my law-enthusiast reading a child, I heard about that one, and also, in response to, "Isn't it possible that...?" the objection, "Anything's possible."

I haven't followed the case about Depp vs. Heard or what the two parties are saying or suing about; my comments were intended as helpful commentary for anyone who is interested in dealing with "trying to improve your conduct and following rules." I will probably have to work on "following social customs" a little when I return to "the real world" myself.

I think I agree with the sustainment of the objection...maybe it would also count as "Beyond her expertise," which I've also heard...as a forensic psychologist, she knows certain things based on science, not all aspects of human nature and the exact reason why witnesses might be called in court.

I think I don't really get the gesture...Amber Heard's lawyer looks unprepared for the response, but she is probably actually very prepared for it. Is it a cryptic satire or other commentary about something?

I decided to search Yahoo for the case...and found this:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/amber-heard-switches-pr-reps-233548133.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

I didn't know that Depp was suing her for defamation. My opinions about what happened are irrelevant and I don't know anything about the facts; my intent was to be helpful to people who have been abused and maybe had self-control or other emotional issues. I'm not saying that anyone is guilty; I like typing when I'm alone. I don't know if Johnny Depp did anything bad, but I would surely approve of him if he was working to improve his life and health, and I don't really know much about who Amber Heard is, but I assume I would likely approve of her too.

I'm assuming there's some rhyme or reason to YouTube videos showing up on my list...it's probably some AI based on collaborative filtering.

It sounds like the comment is about precise analysis of law. I.e., maybe it's really speculation and not "beyond expertise," but maybe the challenge from the lawyer is for the court and all participants in it to choose to be either precise and non-figurative in the discussions, or allowing figurative and "subtle mistakes" to be interpreted in certain ways and admitted as legitimate court speech.

As a politically idealistic citizen, my opinion is that supporting precision--letter of the law, no spirit of the law, debate the words written and words spoken literally, and do not allow for subtle or "satirical" interpretations of courtroom speech to be taken seriously in the deliberative context of the hearings.

Of course I'm opinionated about law and abuse...I view one big purpose of the law as being to help victims of crime and help people who have done illegal things to turn things around, be happy and healthy, and push for a pleasant, law-abiding, happy and responsible life.

-Philip White

On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 10:26:09 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 1:13:19 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I feel like talking about legal issues, and I saw this video on my YouTube just now and I decided to watch it. I like some Johnny Depp movies, am strongly opposed to abuse, including of Depp and against Amber Heard, feel some sympathy for him, particularly due to his mental health challenges, and oppose drug use. In general, I don't approve of some of Depp's past conduct, especially towards Amber Heard, but I tend to not dislike him as a public figure or a person or an artist...it is nice that he is willing to show up in court and face due process without trying to be a fugitive.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awPQ0AnkNHU
> >
> > I sometimes think about "unusual tricks and techniques" I see used by people, perhaps without realizing it or seeing it my way, in arguments with people who are being "cast as undesirable." I see a little of that in this brief testimony.
> >
> > - Depp tries to talk about something scientific, but has to talk about in the context of a criminal act, and, if his comment about "the brain not needing to produce dopamine or serotonin" is false or figurative speech, and he seems to expect to be challenged in "unreasonable" or "angering" ways.
> > - More strikingly to me, there is a "compelling request to grovel" issued by the lawyer. Depp, speaking no more figuratively than Heard's attorney--are the two of them participating in a partly-agreeing joint satire of the legal system and its approach to abuse victims?--is asked to repeat his answer about drugs, after he more or less "quietly" answered the question already--yes.
> >
> > Regarding the second point: I'm sure this happens all the time in court, but it is an interesting and (maybe?) understudied dynamic--maybe Heard's lawyer even agrees--but to what extent are hostile-to-the-[cross-]examiner witnesses, and victims of crimes like abuse, asked to sort of "grove" and "admit twice...louder!" that something is true? Sometimes, when I am asked to "grovel" in certain ways that don't bother me, I do it immediately, to indicate that, given my position, I am reasonable--I am the one who will get the "respect A+" when I am treated fairly well. "You want insights on hacking, Bernie Sanders? Sure, I'll offer you some free thoughts on something I've studied for years--computer science--and how will you react to this expert-like generosity that I will bestow upon you, a fugitive criminal who has repeatedly caused me to be hurt?" The response to that is, "Oh, well, *mumble* *mumble*, decision announced, it's not good enough, we're still going to traffic and abuse you." That is what the bad guys would always say--it's like the typical saying, "Dad, nothing I ever do is good enough for you," and the father responds, "Yes, son, that's exactly right!" In this case, though, it's an abuser, trying to play the role of dominant father instead of a true parent.
> >
> > Anyway, my point is that sometimes it is a good idea to be *extremely clear about rules.* That is a wonderful source of problem-free self-confidence. When you know exactly what the rules are, and what the consequences are for breaking them, you can proceed confidently...economically-enforced rules that you shouldn't break, in addition to local or "club" rules with people you consensually interact with, are ones you should add to your "hard and fast rules" list. If you have to, practice and exercise at not breaking the rules; ask a friend for help or seek help from a specialist if you need extra help getting in line with all the rules you need to follow...it usually isn't that hard. In particular, if you *know* in your mind that you are following all of the real rules, and some idiot comes up to you and tells you, "Sir, you're still doing it wrong, you're a bad person," then you can confidently tell yourself, immediately, that the person is wrong and messing with you, telling you that you're not following a rule when that's false and you always follow all the rules...it would be like calling Stephen Hawking a bad physicist. Then you can react, without breaking rules, and you'll never have to go to court to waste your time to apologize for breaking a rule when you've never done it, at least not recently.
> >
> > So anyway, back to the main point...my sense of it is, Heard's lawyer anticipates Depp's reaction, understanding it. I think it is a message about trying to compel people to grovel, rules, agreement, consent, abuse, and the importance of treating following rules like a skill or a job...you don't have to like every part of it, you just have to do a few exercises, if necessary, to bring your anger levels and knowledge-of-rules levels to the point where you will be able to walk into any situation and react to it perfectly and be blameless.
> >
> > I just felt like writing that; in case someone thinks that this is some sort of "service act" again, no, it isn't, it is me talking about something I like talking about, since I like rules and don't like abuse. It's like a conversation except that I am essentially talking to YouTube videos.
> >
> > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> Another sort of interesting YouTube video about Johnny Depp in court showed up:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO-XgC2Dr6E
>
> I'm definitely allowed to talk about it, but I'm trying to influence the trial...the jury being sequestered or whatever or not doesn't affect my free speech right to comment on YouTube videos, but it occurred to me that Ms. Heard's lawyer might be trying to influence YouTube by making certain gestures.
>
> It sounds like she essentially said, in the question, "Isn't it a fact [1] that if you had found information supporting a different person in the case, that you wouldn't have been called as a witness?"
>
> The objection is, "Speculation." From my law-enthusiast reading a child, I heard about that one, and also, in response to, "Isn't it possible that....?" the objection, "Anything's possible."
>
> I haven't followed the case about Depp vs. Heard or what the two parties are saying or suing about; my comments were intended as helpful commentary for anyone who is interested in dealing with "trying to improve your conduct and following rules." I will probably have to work on "following social customs" a little when I return to "the real world" myself.
>
> I think I agree with the sustainment of the objection...maybe it would also count as "Beyond her expertise," which I've also heard...as a forensic psychologist, she knows certain things based on science, not all aspects of human nature and the exact reason why witnesses might be called in court.
>
> I think I don't really get the gesture...Amber Heard's lawyer looks unprepared for the response, but she is probably actually very prepared for it. Is it a cryptic satire or other commentary about something?
>
> I decided to search Yahoo for the case...and found this:
>
> https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/amber-heard-switches-pr-reps-233548133.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall
>
> I didn't know that Depp was suing her for defamation. My opinions about what happened are irrelevant and I don't know anything about the facts; my intent was to be helpful to people who have been abused and maybe had self-control or other emotional issues. I'm not saying that anyone is guilty; I like typing when I'm alone. I don't know if Johnny Depp did anything bad, but I would surely approve of him if he was working to improve his life and health, and I don't really know much about who Amber Heard is, but I assume I would likely approve of her too.
>
> I'm assuming there's some rhyme or reason to YouTube videos showing up on my list...it's probably some AI based on collaborative filtering.
>
> It sounds like the comment is about precise analysis of law. I.e., maybe it's really speculation and not "beyond expertise," but maybe the challenge from the lawyer is for the court and all participants in it to choose to be either precise and non-figurative in the discussions, or allowing figurative and "subtle mistakes" to be interpreted in certain ways and admitted as legitimate court speech.
>
> As a politically idealistic citizen, my opinion is that supporting precision--letter of the law, no spirit of the law, debate the words written and words spoken literally, and do not allow for subtle or "satirical" interpretations of courtroom speech to be taken seriously in the deliberative context of the hearings.
>
> Of course I'm opinionated about law and abuse...I view one big purpose of the law as being to help victims of crime and help people who have done illegal things to turn things around, be happy and healthy, and push for a pleasant, law-abiding, happy and responsible life.
>
> -Philip White

I typed, "I'm *not* trying to influence the trial," without the stars. I am sick of CIA typos.