1-Are we all on the same page here? What if the court want to take things beyond June 30? After all, how many of the judges themselves had in mind that this would be prolonged like this after I present my argument, and despite getting convinced in that argument?
...
2- I have this divided (as I used to wish) into two things for me: The offer amount is for the material side while refusing that addition (which is now done through transferring to the side who made the related bet with the corruption guy my capability to receive and own the benefit of that bet. This makes them maintain the capability to give the guy a free pass on losing that bet) is for the moral side, and I have zero interest in cheating myself out of this arrangement.
...
(Added April 8, 2024)
I got confused above (and also the first time I brought that transfer idea). I just needed to establish the transfer mentioned above. I did not need to make it replace my refusal. Therefore I here correct things accordingly.
I am also replacing "the side who made the related bet with the corruption guy" with "the people who made the related bet against the bet of the corruption guy". Had I been not just set to receive the benefit of winning the bet but also a bettor here, I would have used the word "right" rather than "capability" to express such transfer to another entity.
...
I am taking advantage of the extension of time to add to my moral position, but I am very far from believing this was really done for me. I can see through stronger shields and disguises than this alleged increase in compensation aim. But I better be careful not to get hit with one of those "limited scope" things.
...
And hey corruption guy, so now you mess my things trying to show me how much this is your choice and you accept the consequences of losing this bet? So what was that sudden exact doubling of the protein powder price last summer for? And how about those sudden changes to the traffic that were as if someone trying to convey to me of also being stuck in an unforeseen way? Actually some of the things here were even more intense and even later you may easily switch directions like a joke. So, stop playing both sides in order to take what you want without having it counted on you.
By the way, I was very close to being devastated with your "its your lucky weekend" game if it were not for that March 24 and 26 squeeze signal, and especially given that it did not occur to me that you could have been given half the time between December 14 and June 30, right? LOL.
...
(Added April 9, 2024)
Except for what my own posts authorize it, the court has not right to control the time here after having kicked the case out of its authority by denying it.
...
I forget to mention in the earlier post how this guy even one time reverted to his earlier signal of making somebody park his car behind mine despite all empty spaces around and adjacent to the car, and this happened in late January of this year.
Although it is probably already known, the more intense signal to which I referred above is the bringing back of that same catholic priests settlement commercial after years of stopping from using it in a way that was suggesting complaining of suffering or discrimination. And this also occurred in this year.
So, could it be that this guy was really given the option to end this situation at the offer but he chooses to continue with that bet thinking (or pretending) he can win?
...
I am not reluctant to accept the benefit of winning that bet from someone who chooses it that much. I see good chance that he on his own chose this path enough for that, but how can I be sure enough? However, a little while ago I was washing dishes and thinking about how this guy acts like he is above the consequences of his choices. As mentioned before, I think he put tracking device in my car after I disabled him from tracking me through my phone (by carrying it separately from its battery) despite that I kept talking and complaining publicly about him violating my privacy. And as he does on the internet, he also had the audacity of using that violation of privacy to have fun in messing out my things and through that reveal that violation to me. However, these thoughts were still insufficient substitute to the answer of that question. So I kept wishing I have more information to decide that. Then it occurred to me to follow that with the question of why is it that I do not have such information? Isn't it his choice to put me in this isolated position? So why should that be for him instead of against him? That thought did it for me and therefore I am here cancelling the refusal to receive the benefit of that bet (The transfer is still there).
...
(Added April 10, 2024)
Again, I am in the process of reconsidering my decision above and... you guessed it: I am back to that material/morality combination and the refusal. This is my final choice without more pressure applied here to make me switch to the other direction, which is something that I really and honestly do not want to occur. I do not play such games on myself. Assuming there were no tax consequences, I do not see that my own conviction would have led me to other than seeking the return of that addition even had I already received it.
...
I do not think the way " You owe me and I do not owe you" I once wrote may suggest, but I was looking for the strongest expression to convince others that I really look for other than the direct material benefit in the intended addition to the offer.
...
This corruption guy is again trying to make me switchback by annoying me. As if the frustration of even one of those situations where he interferes to mess my internet transactions, let alone when I am unable to logon to some site despite supplying the correct user name and password, was not enough. And why does he need me to change direction? He wants to pay me the addition? He can do that after I receive the offer and the case goes out of the court hands? Doesn't he trust himself?
...
Here is an addition designed specifically for the guy in case he wants to pay more on his own: After I have already received the amount of the offer, the refusal becomes expired after July 1 of this year. This replaces that the case goes out of the court hands requirement.
...
Not sure when exactly the court got involved, but I have been passing the challenge of this bet since July of last year continuously, and I still can let this guy put monitors displays in my home and to which he send whatever movies and images he wants, and he still wouldn't win.
...
No comments:
Post a Comment