Forbidden Knowledge, or Proof of Obstruction
- Safe Delivery
- Urban Survival
- The Deathless State
- The Power to Create
- Forbidden Knowledge
- Detailing a Strict Machine
My problem began in earnest with the use of media. Not only was I shown how to use media to identify a problem, I was shown what happens when we do. Providing proof to support a narrative, or testimony of any kind is frequently accomplished by the similar means online, but by use of servers, so we’re all dealing with a medium of exchange now. But, I began by working on problems that occurred during my childhood which were not. For example, I revisited the complaint of a neighbor girl, who said someone was taking pictures of her in the Gas Station bathroom.
Because my dad was involved in the design of Gas Stations, and had planned to make them a family friendly place (hot dogs and coffee as well as a coke machine, and a roof over the pumps etc) I took it personally. Film then produced fixed images that had more permanence and reliability. Though not foolproof, there were aspects of the medium that could be relied upon that don’t exist today when the delivery of the product is mediated by a server. Alterations that render some of us useless when an allegation such as this follows: “It’s not you that wrote that article, the computer that did!”.
Perhaps because some people have a problem with links, we’ll just return you to the problem of ambiguity and equivocation, but we built this platform to be clear, and we wrote CSS to warn users of the hazards of working on things like Forbidden Knowledge because it was written as deadly. That it may not be is of real concern to us because it suggests that we die due to our own interpretation of God's word, and our own accord, and not God's will.
But the permissions I've set here, and on YouTube, and on documents for the web are allowed to anyone who has them. There are no restrictions set by me on any of the publications I reference, there is traffic on my sites, and there are other members and visitors at YouTube.
I made a motion to limit access to content that was hacked, or when missing but there was no response to my initiative, so I simply return the copyrighted content of others to their rightful place, and correct edits to my own work by providing what I know to be true. But I’ve lost access to several accounts (and some have been removed completely) by sharing proof of questionable circumstances to determine which is safer, an anonymous reporter, or one that cites his work. I chose to determine what I don't know by finding out for myself. Usually, the boundaries we’ve learned to abide by have been set by others, and what they tell us about them.
To one who writes on paper, a tree may seem capable of sound judgment, but for those who are writing in thin air, to what - or whom do we turn?
Because I was caught up in a cross-cultural experience at an early age, I didn’t assume boundaries established by cultures to be fixed or true automatically, and had to learn the hard way how to apprehend the threats that manifest more carefully.
Traditional means of defense
A copyright belongs to the author, and the last draft is the working copy for that author who also has the right to return to that copy to edit again. His thoughts are kept there and when that thought needs modification or intercession it ought to be as it was when he left it so the new modifications can be built on a solid foundation.
If a copy has been compromised by someone else, by doing so, others can keep the author distracted from his or her own work. The ways by which these distractions may be accomplished are various, but one of the objections that motivates this kind of behavior, defamation, is also accomplished by errors of translation or typesetting itself. That’s not to say that a copy may not be used! Copyrighted information may be used (to develop film or another form of media), but changing a working copy of copyrighted content from its current form by any other means than by way of an author's edit to the working copy is an inefficient waste of time that results in useless information.
For example, Lenin wrote:
"Today, only a blind man could fail to see that we have nationalized, confiscated, beaten down and put down more than we have had time to count."
I found it quoted on my server copyrighted by a previous publisher as:
"Today, only a blind man could fail to see that we have nationalized, confiscated, beaten down and put down more that we have had time to count."
To challenge a copyright by rewriting it as it is more commonly found may be considered a violation of a copyright that we tend (the author of the document where this quote is found is no longer available), but the correction I've made is to the journal article that was refereed may still be open to re-evaluation. I just put down what I believe is the correct figure of speech, or idiom common to the authors Lenin followed - even if it results in a challenge to me and my effort.
The fact is that anyone's message may be put down, or misinterpreted by the way it's read due to translation, a change in emphasis, a change of tone, or simply as a result of the ambiguity of speech.
The oral tradition has the power to create by way of invocation. For more plain talk on this subject, please see: Jim Dumont's Address to the Indigenous Peoples' Assembly
Hybrid protections and proofs
In my case, the proof we needed would have to be obtained by proving a cameraman was taking pictures of my friend in her home, or in a gas station bathroom. I built a fort with heat ducts from the top of a furnace that was left in the alley to field the complaint - heat ducts that led to vents we were urinating into at our house, so when my neighbor left, we left with them.
Besides, my microscope was stolen when we identified Pigeon Mites in our beds, the camera I used to take pictures of the black smoke pouring out of the elementary school we attended got ripped off when I started writing papers about the problem, and my bike got ripped off at the park where I played T ball. I had no fear of opening up about these problems, but suffered the consequences of doing so myself. No one would believe what we were saying about our strange neighborhood because the power to destroy was winning over the power to create.
I blacked out when I was offended. I didn’t realize that behind the lack of awareness was motivation for a curse. One that results with the loss of a girl captive to someone with the power to create. And, because boys weren't able to rival the powers of men, I set about finding new ways to do so. The fact that injection molding equipment melted down while I was in church may have inspired me to get better at forming plastic, but it melted down because I wasn’t supposed to work on Sunday and I had to hide it to get my work done.
The fact that we had to spread feces from one county to another when we moved suggested that we wouldn’t solve the problem by doing so. So when my first hosting company developed a way to overcome the problem in 1979 by using electronic names rather than people and jurisdictions to problem solve, I lost my opportunity to bring a case. By 1998, when ICANN was formed, sanctions were used to restrict their use and my case was so old it couldn't be heard in a traditional court, so I had no choice but to present the developing resolutions with tools we developed and learned to use to describe articles like: Detailing a Strict Machine.
Blackouts were considered to be a denial of my own faults or behavior, but by the time of this writing, that oversight was being used to describe me as a Nazi because I failed to realize the exact nature of my wrongs. I overlooked the curse of old because it was our protestations and posturing that was offensive, not the Creator, who was written of in the beginning. invoked some kind of curse upon us. And, the curse that resulted at that time and the deaths we face are much more likely to be the result of our opinion in the matter.