Forbidden Knowledge, or Proof of Obstruction

Historical apprehensions

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.

"No matter which direction a point of view might tend, we are each entitled to our own."

Traditional means of defense

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 them carefully.

Trunk and Roots of an old Oak treeBut a copyright belongs to an 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."

But 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 the copyright by rewriting it as it is more commonly found may constitute a violation of the copyright that I tend (the author of the document this quote is no longer available), but the correction I made is to a journal that is refereed and open to re-evaluation. So, though I may make what I believe is a correction, the referees may gain access to my leased server to do what they believe is necessary if they think I’m wrong. Even the during the composition of the Bible, a consensus was formed by the authors, I believe we ought to have the right to challenge them to be more fair about the interpretation of what has been spoken for example in particular, because what has been written as a result may not truly convey what is truly invoked by the ambiguity of speech.

Hybrid protections and proofs

In our case, the proof we needed would have to be obtained by finding the cameraman somewhere around the gas station or her house (determining whether the cameraman was in the bathroom to take pictures of her in her own house, or in the gas station bathroom was also a consideration), but I built the fort with heat ducts from the top of a furnace left in the alley. Heat ducts that led to forced air outlets that we were urinating into in our house, so when they 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 we suffered the consequences ourselves. No one would believe what we were saying about our strange neighborhood because the power to destroy was defeating the power to create.

I blacked out when I was offended. I didn’t realize that behind the lack of awareness was the motivation for a curse. One that results with the loss of a girl captivated by someone with the power to create. And because boys aren't able to rival the creative 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 also have inspired me to do more, but I just crawled out from behind the couch to go there when my mother called without unplugging it because I wasn’t supposed to work on Sunday and I was hiding 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 my first hosting company developed a way to overcome the problem in 1979 by developing a way to use electronic names rather than jurisdictions to refer to a circumstance, but by 1998 when ICANN was formed, sanctions to restrict the use of them were established, so I used the plan suggested to me at Detailing a Strict Machine to find out what my problem really was.

Blackouts were considered to be a denial of my own faults or behavior, and by the time of this writing, I was considered to be a Nazi because I failed to realize just what the exact nature of my wrongs were. Apparently, I had overlooked the curse of old invoked by One who was offended by our protestations and posturing. I had to have a better understanding of why the Creator, who was written of in the beginning, invoked some kind of curse upon us to determine how we'll be better able to avoid the death the writers considered it to be.

YouTube Illustrations

Say hello! Contact us
Prefer to talk? (612) 562-5890