Evaporating Ink

Letterman Glances To His Left
Contextualize is going to be my word from now on. People always talk about context, yet half the time the context in which they look at things has more to do with a convenient perspective, and less to do with a perspective where they have to put in time and/or energy to properly take into account what a particular matter warrants. Humor is often derived from underscoring the absurdity of the kinds of conclusions such an inclination can result in. Humor can be a momentary mutual forgiveness that sometimes we just don't have that kind of time or energy.

And now on to specifics: Something just happened regarding something I stated in my immediately preceding blog of Sunday, October 11, 2009, and although I shall be lifting my own phrase from its context, you are encouraged to read it in the context I provided in that blog.

Under a (wordy) heading contained in that blog, "Letterman, Regis, And Why Steinhoff, Jonathan Suspects Something Though It Makes Him Sound Crazy (Including Another Potential Terrorist Clue)", wherein I described my surmisal that I am part of the secret subtext to Letterman's very recent front-page adventure, I included this sentence:

"This same woman had on her wall at work, as the only non-business image, a photo I had taken (of a lobster truck, as she had described to me being sick on New Year's Eve but having been provided a lobster dinner by her husband)."

And now, framed by the context just provided (I believe you would actually have to read that entire section of my Oct. 11th blog to appreciate this), I give you David Letterman from his Wednesday, October 14, 2009 show - just three days later:


Unfortunately, as I've pointed out before, the timestamp on these blogs is malleable, I could edit something tomorrow that I wrote today and it would still retain today as the timestamp - therefore, there would only be proof that my Oct. 11th blog was actually written on Oct. 11th to those who saw the blog around the time that I published it. That is particularly unfortunate for those who haven't figured out, from the proof that I have occasionally been provided, and in turn shown, on various occasions, that I truly have been given secret importance, and there is true veracity in my words. It is also unfortunate when one considers that I have enemies, acting to serve ulterior motives or feelings of maliciousness, who would like to generate the idea that I lack integrity/veracity, and possess no secret importance. I believe I am up against big organized efforts, big money, big global power, and therefore there additionally are those whose impression of me is something to which certain people have deliberately misled them.

As it is quite clear to me that, at least for the moment, I have the ear of someone close enough to Letterman as to provide him with material for his October 14th monologue (likely Letterman himself), I should perhaps take this opportunity to show him/them an example of how co-workers are not always a million miles away from being the worst people in the world. Nor do I expect that part of my situation to be immune.

I have described before how, as a secretly super-important person in relation to people as important as Spielberg and McCartney, my "doorstep" has been chosen by those who would wish to "get to" those at the center of Western pop culture, through me, as a depository for terrorist clues. There have been fewer major terrorist events of our time that didn't somehow contain something to associate with me/my work/my situation, than major terrorist events of our time that have. And it is with benefit of the knowledge of that context that I have been scrutinizing many terrorist occurrences.

It being unmistakable to me that the perpetrators of these occurrences are connected to people who have always found the way to infiltrate my situation, so it has been that I have always encountered co-workers who have been involved in actions that connect. However, without the knowledge that previous occurrences have established this context to what I encounter, what I will now describe, as yet another example, will certainly seem something based on flimsy reasoning:

The July 21, 2005 Synchronized Attack On London Underground Stations
When the July 21, 2005 London attacks occurred, the names of four London underground (subway) stations became part of the story. And those hungry to play amateur detective, knowing that you never know what you know until you begin with a theory, began looking at the names of those underground stations in case they said something when put together. In other words, four words/names were handed to us: what's that spell (if anything)? Maybe nothing, maybe something, maybe enough of something to lead to endless, meaningless conjecture.... or not....

We had stations named Oval, Shepherd's Bush, Warren and Hackney. In the lexicon of matters pertaining to global terrorism, Oval is a word that "plays the game" - unless you feel like insisting that it only makes you think of the shape of eggs, in which case this is going to be a long day. Sound, common logic would now produce the thought: if this word is contextualizing the other words, or at least to be read in the context of the other words, it would become obvious why Shepherd's Bush would be words of significance. To illustrate this very basic point of logic, if I were to say, "Don't cry for me," and someone replied, "Who am I, Susanna?", I would have no trouble deducing that the other person had used my phrase to contextualize their response, therefore, their response contained a reference to the song, "Oh Susanna". The one fits with the other, the one establishes the context for the other. Oval, in the context of global terrorism, suggests, possibly, the White House's Oval Office (there isn't really any other oval that would come to mind in the context of global terrorism, perhaps one other at the most). And Oval contextualizes Shepherd's Bush, as Bush was then the American President. But where does that leave Warren and Hackney? It would be easy to consider, as a possibility, that the word Warren contains the relevant word, War, if it was implied that it should suggest something in this lexicon. We also notice that the terrorists, in this theory, are restricted to using already-existing names of underground stations, and so must make do with what they have. Warren is not a word that would have lent itself to contextualizing the other three words, however, once two of the four words set the context, Warren is to be considered in their context. Just as the name Susanna would not really even begin to suggest "Oh Susanna" were it spoken in the absence of the phrase, "Don't cry for me." This interpretation of the word Warren, and by association the words Oval and Shepherd's Bush, is weakened if Hackney is too big a fly in the ointment, too clearly not a card amongst other cards of the same deck. To put it another way, Hackney kind of shoots the whole theory to h e double hockey sticks.

The attack occurred on July 21, 2005. On July 19, 2005 I finished my last day of an approximately two-week temp job (at a company I had once had a permanent job with for six years before I quit in 2000 to try day-trading). One of the approximately ten projects I worked on during that approximately two-week job that ended July 19, 2005 was for a client named Jerry Hackney. Hackney had therefore become a word somewhat foremost in my thoughts. Hackney was also the missing puzzle piece two days later, if one follows the preceding paragraph.

Now, try to express all that I've just described, and require others to read numerous pages as part of the bargain. And now try dealing with someone who pretends that their way of putting two plus two together is to imagine that I'm some non-entity trying to blame Jerry Hackney for committing terrorist acts.