Ok I found an inconsistency, where I said they were targeting a readership past my time.  But when you are preventing publication, you are not trying to ruin someone in front of their audience but keep them from presenting to their audience. So people might see an issue of me wanting something both ways.  And in this case also "wanting" some persecution. So like there are three problems. 

But I think what I am saying might not be an issue.  Like I think it is consistent with a multifaceted group of people doing anything and everything to ruin any of it, so why not target all of it.  Target every possibility, target every audience real or imagined, so yes publication or not I lose. So possibly it is not that bad that I went ahead and added a phrase here and there.  I just feel like they did both things. For some people to miss out entirely and for some people to see a shell of what it could have been.

And then the conspirators are saying, no, that's the good stuff. And it has to do with the concept of "meta," too.  Like to step back and name it. To be above it.

Well that is interesting. Remember when Matthew Dickman didn't like that section of my humor paper on chicken poems?  And later I was like, no, that is good stuff.

I don't think I was able to interpret all the secret messages. 

Gice I know some people don't like that abortion post on my jokes page, but I think it is a good post and I am leaving it. It doesn't mean I have reverted. And I know how stupid it is in some ways, like people can say, gee, because we all carry so many scalpels everywhere.  But that is why I am leaving it, is because it is just a stupid post and I do care about the issue and think there are solutions that have not been accepted because people are lazy and wanted to fight instead of fix.

So anyway, that is all, have a good day everyone.