0

I get what you're doing.

I am not suspicious and have already fully and repeatedly explained myself; fugitive accused criminals who have preyed on me should stop making ridiculous allegations against me of things I haven't done, and start explaining itself and apologizing for its atrocious, predatory, and illegal behavior.

I don't have to respond to more allegations. Nevertheless, I'll get the A++ anyway; I'm not suspicious, and I presented a sound mathematical argument that shows, game-theoretically, how winning every debate in this sort of situation is in my interests, even when such debates are frivolous; it strengthens my ability to show that I am "behaviorally perfect," never lie, and am even open to answering the most ridiculous accusations and smears, over and over again, to serve the truth and defend my excellent behavior, citizenship, reputation, and also intellectual property and talent. I am very logical and honorable.

So, here we go with another stupid accusation againat me:

1) It seems that there is a very high demand by bad guys for me to stop communicating. I think I know why--it's because my communications present in me in a good light and are extremely persuasive and cutting to unethical liars. Of course the unethical would like to silence me to continue perpetuating a predatory, zero-ethics culture. I refuse to be silenced by bad guys, particularly while I'm being trafficked.

2) You seem to be asking me to act on information that I do not have. Indeed, your "team" has deliberately and vehemently withheld such information, to support its goal of trying to catch me, the victim of very many crimes, in a trap, perhaps believing that your team's behavior would be excused if I made a mistake and you could try to twist reality and say I'm a "bad sort of guy" who "doesn't deserve to have his legal rights protected." It's absurd, of course; I cannot be expected to take into account information that I do not know to be true and that I am essentially unable to investigate. In one sense, I don't even want to talk about what you did to me last year clearly and openly; it's painful, and the blood that serves as bait for other sharks like you to come screeching up to me to try to hurt me again (as you yourself proved last year with your actions). The point is, my beliefs about what is going on are as investigated as they reasonably could be, and I am acting properly and not illegally. Could more, non-fake information change my behavior? Yes, of course, that is always true; I do react to things that I know.

3) My main purpose of my Facebook posts is to feel like I'm socializing while I'm being trafficked and to make me feel better after all the hurtful predatory ~crimes~ that have been committed against me. Don't like it? End your hurtful predatory crime spree.

I fault wij and Taiwan for trying to trap me into feeling like I should answer everyone who isn't as bad as wij "out of fairness," and then feeling like I'm being too open to answer arguments, and then feeling distraught. That tactic is evil, and might damage someone who doesn't tower over you, rhetorically, honor-wise, intellectually, mathematically, and scientifically. Average people would be more likely to be hurt by wij/Taiwan's predatory terrorist-attack attempts.

-Philip White (philipjwhite@yahoo.com)

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:00:13 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> 0
>
> I get what you're doing.
>
> I am not suspicious and have already fully and repeatedly explained myself; fugitive accused criminals who have preyed on me should stop making ridiculous allegations against me of things I haven't done, and start explaining itself and apologizing for its atrocious, predatory, and illegal behavior..
>
> I don't have to respond to more allegations. Nevertheless, I'll get the A++ anyway; I'm not suspicious, and I presented a sound mathematical argument that shows, game-theoretically, how winning every debate in this sort of situation is in my interests, even when such debates are frivolous; it strengthens my ability to show that I am "behaviorally perfect," never lie, and am even open to answering the most ridiculous accusations and smears, over and over again, to serve the truth and defend my excellent behavior, citizenship, reputation, and also intellectual property and talent. I am very logical and honorable.
>
> So, here we go with another stupid accusation againat me:
>
> 1) It seems that there is a very high demand by bad guys for me to stop communicating. I think I know why--it's because my communications present in me in a good light and are extremely persuasive and cutting to unethical liars. Of course the unethical would like to silence me to continue perpetuating a predatory, zero-ethics culture. I refuse to be silenced by bad guys, particularly while I'm being trafficked.
>
> 2) You seem to be asking me to act on information that I do not have. Indeed, your "team" has deliberately and vehemently withheld such information, to support its goal of trying to catch me, the victim of very many crimes, in a trap, perhaps believing that your team's behavior would be excused if I made a mistake and you could try to twist reality and say I'm a "bad sort of guy" who "doesn't deserve to have his legal rights protected." It's absurd, of course; I cannot be expected to take into account information that I do not know to be true and that I am essentially unable to investigate. In one sense, I don't even want to talk about what you did to me last year clearly and openly; it's painful, and the blood that serves as bait for other sharks like you to come screeching up to me to try to hurt me again (as you yourself proved last year with your actions). The point is, my beliefs about what is going on are as investigated as they reasonably could be, and I am acting properly and not illegally. Could more, non-fake information change my behavior? Yes, of course, that is always true; I do react to things that I know.
>
> 3) My main purpose of my Facebook posts is to feel like I'm socializing while I'm being trafficked and to make me feel better after all the hurtful predatory ~crimes~ that have been committed against me. Don't like it? End your hurtful predatory crime spree.
>
> I fault wij and Taiwan for trying to trap me into feeling like I should answer everyone who isn't as bad as wij "out of fairness," and then feeling like I'm being too open to answer arguments, and then feeling distraught. That tactic is evil, and might damage someone who doesn't tower over you, rhetorically, honor-wise, intellectually, mathematically, and scientifically. Average people would be more likely to be hurt by wij/Taiwan's predatory terrorist-attack attempts.
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)

One way to look at my econ analysis is: I essentially have a fort, with a "complaints department" that processes and responds to literally every allegation against me while I'm under attack. I don't want any serious prospective allies to have the slightest doubt that yes, I go out of my way to be morally and ethically perfect, and honest, at all times, and even to consistently respond to attacks against the credibility of my information, which is always provided as carefully as possible and never dishonestly or not in good faith. My adversaries' dishonesty and willingness to lie to their own people is a huge weakness; my 100% dedication to being honest and going all-out to prove it is one of my great strengths in this stupid conflict, particularly because my adversaries are too greedy and committed to evil and illegal deeds to ever start telling the truth, even most of the time about important things.

-Philip White

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:00:13 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> 0
>
> I get what you're doing.
>
> I am not suspicious and have already fully and repeatedly explained myself; fugitive accused criminals who have preyed on me should stop making ridiculous allegations against me of things I haven't done, and start explaining itself and apologizing for its atrocious, predatory, and illegal behavior..
>
> I don't have to respond to more allegations. Nevertheless, I'll get the A++ anyway; I'm not suspicious, and I presented a sound mathematical argument that shows, game-theoretically, how winning every debate in this sort of situation is in my interests, even when such debates are frivolous; it strengthens my ability to show that I am "behaviorally perfect," never lie, and am even open to answering the most ridiculous accusations and smears, over and over again, to serve the truth and defend my excellent behavior, citizenship, reputation, and also intellectual property and talent. I am very logical and honorable.
>
> So, here we go with another stupid accusation againat me:
>
> 1) It seems that there is a very high demand by bad guys for me to stop communicating. I think I know why--it's because my communications present in me in a good light and are extremely persuasive and cutting to unethical liars. Of course the unethical would like to silence me to continue perpetuating a predatory, zero-ethics culture. I refuse to be silenced by bad guys, particularly while I'm being trafficked.
>
> 2) You seem to be asking me to act on information that I do not have. Indeed, your "team" has deliberately and vehemently withheld such information, to support its goal of trying to catch me, the victim of very many crimes, in a trap, perhaps believing that your team's behavior would be excused if I made a mistake and you could try to twist reality and say I'm a "bad sort of guy" who "doesn't deserve to have his legal rights protected." It's absurd, of course; I cannot be expected to take into account information that I do not know to be true and that I am essentially unable to investigate. In one sense, I don't even want to talk about what you did to me last year clearly and openly; it's painful, and the blood that serves as bait for other sharks like you to come screeching up to me to try to hurt me again (as you yourself proved last year with your actions). The point is, my beliefs about what is going on are as investigated as they reasonably could be, and I am acting properly and not illegally. Could more, non-fake information change my behavior? Yes, of course, that is always true; I do react to things that I know.
>
> 3) My main purpose of my Facebook posts is to feel like I'm socializing while I'm being trafficked and to make me feel better after all the hurtful predatory ~crimes~ that have been committed against me. Don't like it? End your hurtful predatory crime spree.
>
> I fault wij and Taiwan for trying to trap me into feeling like I should answer everyone who isn't as bad as wij "out of fairness," and then feeling like I'm being too open to answer arguments, and then feeling distraught. That tactic is evil, and might damage someone who doesn't tower over you, rhetorically, honor-wise, intellectually, mathematically, and scientifically. Average people would be more likely to be hurt by wij/Taiwan's predatory terrorist-attack attempts.
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)

By the way, in response to a possible effort to use my own "argument pattern" to argue against me:

Opponent: "Mr. White, by your admission, it is legitimate to not act on something without knowing the information behind the reason for the action. Isn't it a fact that therefore no one should act on their lack of knowledge regarding your secret process or on their lack of knowledge regarding how your secret ideas work?"
Me: "I have a track record of not lying or being misleading about my ethics posture; I've never lied about how ethical I am. Thus, I am more trustworthy than, e.g., Warren Buffett, who has mis-represented himself as 'Mr. Ethics' when he is not really so ethical and law-abiding. In answer to the protestation, 'We didn't know your secret process!' is, 'Indeed you didn't, but you knew the law, hoped not to be caught or held responsible economically or in any other way, and maneuvered to escape the various legal and ethical means to inflict justice-related harm on law-breakers, whether they're arrested and the case against them is proved, or they're merely held to be very suspicious and refusing to discuss their behavior, and thus 'extremely suspicious and unwilling to explain what looks like highly illegal, predatory, and justice-obstructing behavior, designed to help an organized crime group get away with illegal activity.'

That is the rebuttal, not that I should have to guess every flawed argument of opponents and present the response to it.

In general, putting me, a very brilliant and ethical/law-abiding STEM whiz into a situation where it's "you or me"--I must ruin your business legally with criticisms and aggressive strategic against you, or face death via illegal imprisonment and flying robot, is not a recipe for getting me to lighten up on you. I literally have to tear Warren Buffett's business and reputation apart, in accordance with laws and using my best understanding of what's going on, or face death, just as Mr. Buffett apparently intended--I've heard no explanation to the contrary and of course he can afford to have his investing firm or Kroger get in touch via email. So that's what I'm doing; I have no choice other than dying like this.

Some doctors knew I was brilliant when I was a teenager, reacting to mental illness; who advised you to go after me this aggressively? Why don't you (ethically/legally) mess with them and leave me alone, I am scarier and more blameless?

-Philip White (philipjwhite@yahoo.com)