Hello legaladvice,
First thank you so much for taking the time to read this post. I appreciate your time immensely.
I am looking to leave a lease that expires in November because I recently signed for a townhome which I move into in July. After contacting the leasing office they informed me over email the current early termination policy is as follows:

If you choose to move forward at this time with Early Termination, the current policy is as follows: Should you sign a lease renewal and need to terminate prior to the lease expiration date, you would be required to go through Early Lease Termination.
Per your lease agreement, a minimum 60-day notice of your intent to vacate is required.
There is a $3,746 early termination fee due within 7 days of your notice; the signing of the Early Termination Agreement due within 24 hours of your notice. The early termination fee is equivalent to two months of rent. In addition to the Early Termination Fee, you are responsible for rent and utilities until your vacate date.
When you are ready to move forward with early termination, the 60-day notice is required to be provided in writing and can be done via email. This notice should include your intended move-out date, which must fulfill the minimum 60-day notice. Your move out date is the date you will be scheduled to vacate the unit and return possession.
Please keep in mind this is the current Early Termination Policy and may change in the future.

This was a shock to me since the original conversation about 2.5 years ago with the lease agent was that I could leave my lease. I then pulled up my original lease as well as the Addendum for this year and there is no verbiage in the lease about early termination. The only thing close to it is the following:

End of Term and Automatic Renewal

If Tenant wishes to terminate this Lease at the end of its original term, Tenant must give Landlord written notice at least sixty (60) days before the end of the term. This notice must be in writing and must be sent by certified mail or personally delivered to Landlord at the address at the top of this Lease. AN ORAL NOTICE IS NOT SUFFICIENT. If written notice of Tenant's intention to terminate this Lease is not given to Landlord within the time noted above, the Lease shall AUTOMATICALLY RENEW for a one (1) year term, on the same terms and conditions as contained in this Lease.

Landlord may offer a new lease to take affect at the end of the original term of this Lease or any renewal term. The new lease may include reasonable changes including an increase in rent. Notice shall be given by
Landlord to Tenant at least sixty (60) days before the end of the current term.
If Tenant chooses not to accept the new lease, Tenant shall give Landlord written notice of intention to vacate at the end of the then current term, at least thirty (30) days before the end of that term. If Tenant does not give this notice, the new lease shall automatically begin on the date specified in Landlord's notice, under the terms specified.
Landlord reserves the right to refuse to renew this Lease for any of the reasons permitted by law.

There is also mention about any changes to the lease needing to be signed for by both parties:

Entire Agreement

This Lease is the entire agreement of Landlord and Tenant. Tenant has read this Lease before signing. Any changes or modifications of this Lease, other than modifications presented by Landlord at the end of the Lease term as provided in Paragraph 5, must be in writing and signed by both parties.

LANDLORD AND TENANT HAVE READ THIS LEASE, FULLY UNDERSTAND ITS PROVISIONS, AND INTEND TO BE BOUND BY IT.

Naturally I emailed the leasing office to explain my situation and was able to setup a meeting with the Assistant Leasing Manager. I explained my story and he said I have one of the original leases before they changed them over (I was one of the first people to move into the apartment complex). He also said that he sees my point that there is no mention about the early termination in the lease or Addendum. The Addendum only stated the new price and term (1 year). The Assistant Leasing Manager said he would email upper management my concerns and let me know what they say. Today he emailed me this:

Thank you for stopping in yesterday expressing your concern on this matter. I was able to speak with upper management they informed me you can complete your lease 11/16/2024 or use our courtesy option of early lease termination policy.
Let me know if you have any questions thanks,

I am looking for advice on what to do here. I've read New Jersey law (Sommer v. Kridel, 378 A.2d 767 (N.J. 1977)), your landlord must make reasonable efforts to re-rent your unit—no matter what your reason for leaving. This will pose a risk to me if it goes over two months of rent like the courtesy option of early lease termination is saying so in that case maybe its best to just pay. I do however have an issue with the repayment schedule. I needed to make a large deposit on the townhome so ideally i'd like to pay if needed on July 16th when I would vacate the apartment. Hoping someone can lay out my options or give some advice on what to do.
TLDR: Trying to leave my lease early that has no statement of early termination. Lease office says its a policy that is enforced. Would like to know my options or advice.
Thank you again for your time!!

Between war, genocide, today’s housing market, the social security you’ve paid your entire career that you may never see, political corruption at its finest. How about everything happening with Baby Reindeer, Met Gala, the list goes on.. Even McKamey Manor is still operating despite mountains of evidence law enforcement ignores (do you remember? they ‘legally’ torture people with the promise of an extreme haunted house experience and winning $20k that you have no chance of winning? allegedly.)
Reckless Ben - I shut down McKamey Manor https://youtu.be/ckX-RuoEles?si=YzatLiL8Ylrz0tqO
It took a few reckless YouTubers who banned together with a just a pure passion for a situation where they really saw potential in their odds to level what many people have been silenced about in their aspirations to bring justice to an obviously broken system.
And for $GME ?
Sony Pictures - Dumb Money available on ad free Netflix https://youtu.be/bmr8YmwnZ3w?si=IKemq9bTnEZc92Ix
Netflix - Eat The Rich: The GameStop Saga https://youtu.be/P8jtdao1zkE?si=WR-ELXnT2Yd71nSt
The banks seem to be bailed every. single. crisis.
The housing crisis https://youtu.be/IjZ-ke1kJrA?si=i6JbUkmWenOYvJQ5
https://youtu.be/vgqG3ITMv1Q?si=S7NLjBcjOhUP3MCE
The March 2023 bank failures https://youtu.be/YDwDMF_f5rM?si=rS0ShhpoyKFN3QH5
https://youtu.be/z8B9K145uTg?si=eC8uKhfun5g7cR96
The ongoing issue with social security https://youtu.be/j1Bfxxhdn6g?si=cCMFq2zgJ6_7ESY1
The controversy around voting rights https://youtu.be/yn36tY7rNUM?si=3V1f2xrBXlm5d8-F
Citizens United https://youtu.be/k5kHACjrdEY?si=QUn9yhl7UfOMHWqL
Where are you left in this?
CNBC - How much do Americans need to be comfortable? https://youtu.be/TgVtXT5Mqj0?si=Oq96lGY4LHxm8H-_
Don’t mistake this post for financial advice. Personally I just… https://youtu.be/Hp_bGdp_yhc?si=wl2IVCqZ65-eFtE3
I believe the people should make informed decisions if they so choose to participate in this market as you can so quickly be in financial ruin. If you so choose to research the recent uproar, please don’t let the following links be your only source of information. Do your own due diligence.
$GME has a seemingly healthy debt to equity ratio lowering their long term debt obligations by 11 million last quarter. Despite their decrease in revenue, they’ve lowered their operating lossed from 311.6 million to just 34.5 mil! Please understand this is unaudited as mentioned in the quarterly report. Take a look for yourself.
GameStop - GameStop Reports Fourth Quarter and Fiscal Year 2023 Results https://investor.gamestop.com/news-releases/news-release-details/gamestop-reports-fourth-quarter-and-fiscal-year-2023-results
Financial Visualizations - $GME https://finviz.com/quote.ashx?t=GME&ty=c&ta=1&p=d
Talk about GameStop’s future is a hot topic and has a new investment plan embracing video game giants future plans.
Bernard Zambonin - GameStop will likely report a profitable year for the first time since 2018 https://www.thestreet.com/memestocks/gme/gamestop-will-likely-report-a-profitable-year-for-the-first-time-since-2018#:~:text=However%2C%20the%20tide%20turned%20when,ahead%20of%20the%20previous%20projections.
Bernard Zambonin - Is Ryan Cohen steering GameStop toward a Berkshire Hathaway or Icahn Enterprises Transformation https://www.thestreet.com/memestocks/gme/is-ryan-cohen-steering-gamestop-toward-a-berkshire-hathaway-or-icahn-enterprises-transformation-
Forbes - Yes, a digital-only gaming future is coming, and we can’t stop it https://www.forbes.com/sites/mitchwallace/2023/10/13/yes-a-digital-only-gaming-future-is-coming-and-we-cant-stop-it/?sh=7b82b7673bd7
Rebekah Valentine - Phil Spencer says Xbox is ‘supportive’ of physical media amid rumors of shift to digital business https://www.ign.com/articles/phil-spencer-says-xbox-is-supportive-of-physical-media-amid-rumors-of-shift-to-digital-business
I wish you all the best of luck. https://youtu.be/Hp_bGdp_yhc?si=JVr6CQcddjDfWm_6

(Yes, the creators already did this, but I wanted to try reproducing their results.)
First of all, there's definitely still issues with the dataset.

Questions mostly have 10 possible answers, but some have fewer "to remove unreasonable choices". This is supposed to be done by actually having <10 answers (I assume), but in some cases questions are padded with N/A at the end multiple times. Removing N/A from the end of the options list until only one existed resulted in removing 3314 options from the test. AFAIK N/A is never the correct answer to any question (I checked).
Some questions are duplicates. I kept only the first instance encountered. This removed 86 questions from the test. I didn't check if their answer options were also duplicates.
Some questions have duplicate answer options (i.e. A and C or whichever being the same answer). As this is obviously incorrect I removed these questions from the test. This removed ~400 questions. It should be pretty easy to fix these but I didn't want to spend more time.
Some questions are impossible to answer as they're missing info.
- For example, question ID 2668 is "Which of the following scans can image brain function?" but it does not give further details, and the answer options are things like "I, II and III only".
- I only noticed one of these but I'm pretty sure there are more.
Some questions have very bad formatting, like 11797:
- \textquotedblleftNew business firms can under price older firms, because thenewer firms can buy the latest equipment and are not bur-denedwith the older, less economical equipment which olderfirms must retire before they can economically adopt thenew. This is why continued technological progress contributesto maintaining a competitive economic system." Explain the er-rors in both sentences.
- Smarter models will probably do better on things like this, but I don't think the formatting is intentional.

For my first run, I used temperature 0.2 (they used 0.1) and this system prompt:

You are a knowledgeable expert. When given a multiple choice question, think it through then give your single final answer as The answer is ....

Here is their system prompt:

You are an knowledge expert, you are supposed to answer the multi-choice question to derive your final answer as The answer is ....

I'm not a fan of the phrasing, but more importantly in my preliminary testing I noticed that GPT-4o interpreted it to mean that it could give multiple answers. My "single final answer" was intended to prevent that. This mostly worked, but when answering questions that involved a lot of LaTeX in the CoT it would sometimes format the answer using LaTeX, making regex matching unreasonably hard. (I didn't fix those, scoring them as failures.)
For my second run, I used temperature 0.5 (which OpenAI uses in their simple-evals repo) and this system prompt:

Answer the following multiple choice question. The last line of your response should be of the following format: 'Answer: ($LETTER)' (without quotes) where LETTER is a single one of the options. Think step by step before answering.

This is based on this prompt from OpenAI's evals. OpenAI's says to pick one of "ABCD" but I was too lazy to generate that dynamically so I changed it a bit. It seems to work well. I used the regex Answer\s*:\s*$\$?([A-Ja-j])$ to capture the answer.
If the model's output didn't seem to give an answer at all I manually checked it. This was:

Mostly GPT-4o saying that none of the answers are correct
Sometimes the model entering an infinite loop until it ran out of output space
A few times the model giving a numeric answer, often one that had no correspondence to possible answers. Scored as a failure.
A few times very slightly bad formatting that my regex didn't match. If the answer it gave was correct I manually fixed it, on the rationale that a slightly better regex could have caught it, otherwise I left it alone (since it wouldn't affect the score either way).

Here are the results I got, plus the original results from TIGER Lab @ UWaterloo.

Models	Prompting	Overall	Biology	Business	Chemistry	ComputerScience	Economics	Engineering	Health	History	Law	Math	Philosophy	Physics	Psychology	Other
GPT-4o (TIGER Lab)	CoT	0.7149	0.8504	0.7852	0.7428	0.7512	0.784	0.5401	0.7152	0.6718	0.5393	0.762	0.6947	0.7355	0.7726	0.7091
GPT-4o (my first run)	CoT	0.7100	0.8441	0.7802	0.7502	0.7404	0.7763	0.5740	0.7061	0.6761	0.5753	0.7901	0.6760	0.7349	0.7611	0.7117
GPT-4o (my second run)	CoT	0.7113	0.8441	0.7725	0.7628	0.7506	0.7662	0.5584	0.6964	0.6641	0.5597	0.7772	0.6474	0.7378	0.7445	0.7041

So I'd say the results themselves are basically "yep, that sure is how it scores". I don't know if my overall scores are actually slightly worse or if it's the effect of removing almost 500 questions from a 12.3k question dataset.
Total cost: maybe $160 based on token counts, messed up cost tracking at first.
The second run had approx 2.17M input tokens and 5.04M output tokens. Naively scaling this to other models (without actually using their tokenizers, and assuming they'll give identical output lengths) gives these approximate prices:

Claude 3 Opus: $410
GPT-4-0314: $367
GPT-4-32k-0314: $608

I don't intend to run those.
I'll post the inputs/outputs of both runs if anyone knows a good place to upload password-protected zips (to avoid accidental scraping, since everything posted to reddit is trained on).

Introduction
Someone reading this book may wonder what sort of audience is being targeted here. They may also be confused as to what the endgame is behind such a book. The aim of this book is to parallel the different religious & mystic traditions & connect them to the tropes that we find near death experiences propagate. They often are reconnecting us with what ancient texts have said but in the modern secular world where materialism is the norm we have become numb to the meanings & impact behind such text. These texts are often considered archaic & primitive. Unable to contribute much to the modern world they may only be useful in prayer chants.
Thus I aim here to revitalise the spirit of these traditions and connect them to what many call the modern day scriptures. The study of near death experiences, neuroscience, consciousness & other paranormal phenomena.
The endgame of the mystic is to connect, achieve union, knowledge and self growth. Thus by approaching all these texts and the various evolving thought that emerged from it, we can explore the parallels and connections that bridge the gap between traditions. The beauty of mysticism and perennial philosophy is the freedom it offers in interpretation.
This book doesn't focus on the question of whether scriptures are divinely inspired, man made tools written for sociological and political agendas or some sort of corrupted divinity. That discussion is a debate that will never end. Rather the focus here is on the possible wisdom & theological beliefs which parallel and mesh together well in forming a higher meaning & connection to the divine. Whether it be a higher power, an all pervading source or a metaphysical truth. You aren’t required to literally believe the divinity of these texts. A simple level of curiosity & intrigue is sufficient.
However one may contend that it is easy to parallel traditions when they are in harmony but when they differ they directly contradict rendering these connections meaningless and superficial. Therein lies the limitations of this book. Therefore the following concepts won’t be discussed in here. These are mainly :

Unverifiable supernatural claims such as ancient miracles for instance Moses parting the sea, Jesus walking on water, resurrecting etc. For someone expecting this book to be a source of evidence for a specific religion it unfortunately won’t be. However there are multiple correlations and connections and these may act as subtle signs of evidence for a specific faith or multiple of them.
Reconciling contradictions between belief systems and scriptures. For example whether the Divine is a trinity or a unity. Whether a certain sage was superior to another. For instance comparing the personality of Jesus with Muhammad, whether the Bible is morally perfect or not & a plethora of other beliefs that may not agree with one another. The book simply assumes they all are imperfect systems.
The scientific debate on whether NDEs are classified as hallucinations or genuine supernatural occurrences. Whilst an interesting topic in itself, it is out of the scope of this book with many other books discussing the science behind ndes. However when necessary nde claims will be contrasted with naturalistic explanations.

The primary focus is in following a don't throw the baby out with the bathwater approach. Some may also contend that this book follows a shopping cart style of cherrypicking from texts and discarding beliefs from texts one subjectively finds inappropriate. To this I would simply say that the approach here is one of finding the parallels that align well together and acknowledging when a belief doesn't align well. Not necessarily a pick and choose system. An approach I would call the rational mystic.
The rational mystic is one who is simply open to what may be beyond their senses. They may be mystically inclined, fascinated and open to the plethora of supernatural ideas. However they will not blindly believe any and all beliefs. They will discern using rational faculties what of mysticism is most compatible with reality, what the data or evidence shows & what is more probable than not. I believe people of all beliefs or no beliefs can fit this definition. Whether you identify by a religion, as spiritual but not religious, non religious, atheist, deist or agnostic. Thus a skeptic or believer may able to gain an appreciation for these belief systems.
This book dives into the verses and parallels of ancient texts such as the Old Testament, Gospels, Quran, Hadith, Bhagwad Gita, Dhammapada, Tao Te Ching & Gathas of Zoroaster. Other older parallels such as from Vedic India, Ancient Egypt, Greece & Mesopotamia may be referenced.
Alongside that are the testimonies of NDEs and how they may parallel or differ to these texts. This book also attempts to provide commentary on major philosophical themes & elaborate on various exegesis, mystical traditions such as Kaballah, Sufism, Advaita Vedanta, Neoplatonism & Chinese thought. Since mysticism is ultimately about experience it relevant and useful to enhance these discussions by contrasts to various scientific ideas, philosophy & pop culture.
NDE Filter Methodology
One of the problems with ndes is the fact that they are subjective experiences which we cannot objectively verify or replicate. This makes them a weaker form of evidence compared to empirical studies which can replicate the results. These present a challenge. An individual nde may therefore be subject to embellishment, fabrications & delusions. Therefore in picking our choice of NDEs here we can only look at ndes as a whole in terms of statistical patterns that form. This is the methodology used in NDE literature by various academics including neuroscientists & philosophers researching the phenomenon.
To elaborate we therefore will discard testimonies that appear embellished with fantastical details. These fantastical details may also be subjective from person to person. Calling an otherworldly journey fantastical is simply irony. However in following the certain patterns that appear cross culturally in ndes it is much easier to identify reports that are considered fantastical. The following tropes appear the most across multiple nde studies.

Out of Body Experience
Tunnel of Light
Meeting deceased relatives or unknown beings
Perceiving a highly luminous pervading light
Feelings of absolute peace, comfort & love
Arriving at an otherworldly place ie a meadow, garden etc.
Life Review
Border of no return
Pluralistic message about love & wisdom

There are of course other concepts that ndes reference which appear from time to time. These allow ndes to be flexible and not rigid experiences. After all no two nde experiences are the same. However using these motifs listed we can filter through unreliable ndes. These include

NDE reports that are highly coloured with religious fundamentalist tropes particularly tropes promoting an exclusivist attitude to religion.
NDEs that appear too detailed, fantastical & unrestricted appearing more like a science fiction or fantasy novel. For example nde claims of multiple lives on other planets or large scale prophecies & apocalyptic predictions & generally things that differ wildly from the core themes
NDEs that talk too much about one specific spiritual concept, portraying themselves as special, prophets or mediums turning their nde into a narcissistic or monetary agenda through spiritual coaching, multiple books etc.

Finally one may say that the chapters of this book attempt to hint at the veracity of a religion & this book is a subtle attempt to proselytize that faith. I will reiterate that this book isnt trying to prove any specific religion. There may be subtle signs from one faith that fit better with the nde phenomenon than others. The following theories I would say explain these subtle signs. I leave it up to the reader to decide what they feel is the best explanation.

Universal Divine Theory : This is the idea that prophets, mystics & sages from different cultures have been inspired through revelation from the same source & this explains the shared insights of a religion & ndes.
Mystic Wisdom Theory : This simply means that certain religious writers and founders were simply wise spiritual men, mystically inclined honing on their intuition & knowledge.
Intertextuality Theory : Each new religious founder simply built of older religious ideas assimilating it into their theologies.

Whilst these theories may suggest a subtle spark of corresponding truths, generally NDEs dont explicitly point to any religion. Some say its simply the case that a Christian will see Jesus, a Muslim will see Allah, A Jew sees Yahweh & a Hindu sees Krishna. This of course is not entirely true. The portion of ndes that claim to see Jesus form a minority & interestingly they too dont point at specific doctrines. NDE experiencers may simply describe a sentient light they perceive to be God. This being doesnt tell anybody that I am Yahweh or Allah. Experiencers will say that religious texts fall short of describing this being. It is beyond what people are taught in religion.
Those who are familiar with NDE reports and studies will know that NDEs tend to be very religion agnostic and at best subtly imply a religious correlation but rarely do we find massive amounts of nde reports cross culturally presenting exclusivist dogmas such as follow holy book x or you will burn, believe Jesus died for your sin or you will burn for eternity. When an nde does present this its seen as a red flag since this doesn't occur with the majority of other ndes. The most we have are subtle religious correlations. However NDEs do present us with certain philosophical dilemmas when it comes to religion.

If NDEs are vague about religion how are we to interpret these religions ? Are we to see them as man made socio-cultural constructs ? Are we to see them as inspired by God but limited to their time ? Are we to see them as partially divine partially man made scriptures ?
If NDEs prove that religions are man made we must ask what purpose the creator has behind the nde. If the creator has allowed man made cultures to negatively influence and control the world throughout history and has not intervened or communicated with humanity one must wonder what point there is in a nde being a message in the 21st century. So on one hand the NDE presents us with a deistic God who doesnt intervene and let false religions begin and on the other hand the God of the NDE seems very personal, involved in human lives, keeps tracks, feels love and joy for humans etc
If one, many or all religions are truly divinely inspired why do NDES never directly point to this ? NDEs seem more concerned in lessons but not in pointing people to a religion.

Some may ask what difference does it make that it doesnt point to a religion. if anything NDEs show us that God is far beyond the narrow confines of religions. It makes an immense difference when we factor the fact that religions have influenced entire cultures and civilisations in good and bad ways. Religions have been used to wage war, cause destruction, control the masses, brainwash, confuse and build fear into the human subconscious. And on the good side religions have given hope to the world that suffering isnt in vain, that life has meaning & that justice and ultimate happiness exists.
For alot of people the need to connect to the transcendental is insatiable and religion provides a whole structure of beliefs that one can organise themselves on. For some this is very restricting and enforces a cultural dogma on to everyone. They may prefer a shopping cart version of religion where they take whats good for them and discard what they disagree on. For others they prefer to deny all religious concepts as dogma and cultural beliefs. One could argue that humans need the cultural clothing of customs and traditions to keep their lives going, something which they can use to relate with to the divine. Not everyone can believe in an abstract deity that they cannot conceive of in the absence of symbols such as scriptures.
Religious texts provide at the very least a gateway to which one can relate through stories of heroes, morals and metaphors of the divine. Of course none of this leads us to whether said divine being has revealed these texts, whether they are inspired but corrupted by man or fully man made. These symbols act as aids in feeling like we have a piece of the divine soul with us thus giving comfort and hope. Thus whilst some have no need for religions, for the masses religions have immense value.
So why dont NDEs prove religion ?
There are no clear answers to this (unless somebody has an nde and asks whoever they speak with to tell them in specifics what religion is from God and whats not) all we can do is speculate. The ndes that do ask or do mention a scripture are so few that we cannot form any conclusion on this.

The simplest answer is that all religions are man made for good or bad intentions but this would of course lead us to the philosophical deist dilemma.
Perhaps the NDEs message focuses on the lessons and ideals itself and sees scriptures and religions as redundant (even if there is a divine hand behind some) After all these are mainly symbols and cannot compare to a direct mystical experience (something fundamentalists struggle with)
Perhaps an attempt to promote any specific faith would lead to an assumption that the nde message is about exclusivist salvation and leading to the worship of scriptures/religions (something fundamentalists struggle with)
Perhaps this proves that religions are limited to their century and context and that we should only look to them for the universal timeless message they offer not the specifics. After all all major scriptures teach the core values that NDEs have revitalised ie love, mercy, kindness etc

Do NDEs support materialism or not ?
While the aim of this book isnt to debate the afterlife or brain hypothesis, I will say that at the time of this being written, my view on ndes is to say that I consider them a plausible source of evidence towards consciousness surviving death & the afterlife existing. This view of mine may change in time towards either side. The following are some reasons I would argue for them being plausible.
1 Veridical NDEs : Numerous NDES report out of body experiences including witnessing of events in an environment when this should not be possible. More than 100+ veridical cases have been documented. Not to mention veridical cases from across different countries which further strengthens the case. We would have to be radically skeptical to consider all of these testimonies fabricated.
2 Lucid narrative : NDERS experience a highly lucid narrative that usually doesn't end in the middle or chaotically unlike dreams or hallucinations. Their ndes tend to be structured with a beginning, middle and end where they are either told, know or are sucked back into the body. This is quite a strange experience compared to delirium, delusions, hallucinations etc.
3 Deceased Relatives : Most NDES claim to see deceased relatives rather than alive people supporting the afterlife hypothesis. We should expect a mixed cocktail of alive & deceased people appearing in ndes if this was a case of dreams or hallucinations. The population that do claim to see a mixed group of alive and deceased is quite a small proportion of total ndes.
4 Intuitive Reality : NDERS are very convinced that they are in a hyper real reality that makes this world seem black and white, like a dream/illusion as some would say. They are intuitively convinced they are in something real the way we might be talking in person, as opposed to it being just a dream. In one study its believed that nders brain recollect their nde as if it's a real world memory.
5 ESP claims : NDERS may perceive no time at all, may experience a life review such that they can feel the feelings of others and recall memories long forgotten. They may feel like they intuitively know things without needing to learn. Some may report greater vision and detail than waking life, ability to hear thoughts, instantaneously appear, be in two places at once or pass through solid walls.
5 Religious Expectations : NDES often may contradict the beliefs of many Christians, Atheists and Muslims who have varying beliefs about the afterlife. Some may be surprised to experience the things they see & are particularly surprised at the ESP abilities as these are not predicted by religions. Particularly interesting are religious conservative ndes with more exclusivist beliefs who are surprised and end up becoming more pluralist and liberal.
6 Clinical Death Scenario : The best NDE studies focus on scenarios whereby the person undergoes cardiac arrest and thus clinical death. At this time a person has no heartbeat, no breathing, dilated pupils, no light reflex, no gag reflex and EEG reading of little to no brain activity. This is consistent with unconsciousness as no blood and oxygen can fully reach the brain. Furthermore the fact that most undergoing clinical death dont report any experiences means NDEs are odd occurrences & consciousness should not occur.
7 Transformation : NDERS often are transformed in their beliefs with less to no fear of death, detachment from the material, more interest in altruism and spirituality and are impacted by their NDE for decades, remembering it far more than a hallucination or dream. They see it as the most important experience of their life.
8 Double edged sword : The fact that not everyone has an nde may support the idea of nde being more than brain activity. After all if the nde simply was some evolutionary dying mechanism we would expect everybody to have one. This point could also support naturalistic hypothesis (See below)
However there is still uncertainty regarding the nde phenomenon and further data, & studies are required to build a case that is greater than just plausible. These are some opposing reasons to consider doubt in them valid
1 Embellishment : NDEs are unverifiable and therefore we cannot verify which ndes are authentic or which ndes are embellished over time with the nders own thoughts, interpretations or exaggerations. This makes it easier for fabrications and frauds to claim an nde experience.
2 Brain Activity : Since NDES happen during clinical death or unconscious states where a persons brain can be returned to living we cannot be sure that there isnt some deeper brain activity that causes an nde. We also cant be sure than an nde isnt happening in the window where cerebral blood flow hasnt ceased or in the window where CPR leads back to cerebral blood flow. EEG machines also have certain limitations such that they cannot detect deeper brain regions due to the skulls electrical resistance. EEG spikes may occur due to muscle twitches & electrical noise which can often make it harder to differentiate whether this is due to the NDE or not.
3 Cultural/Religious Contradictions : If we keep an open mind, its entirely possible that a Western nde could see Jesus, an Indian nde see Buddha or an Indian nde see Jesus & a Western nde see Buddha. It seems this can be reconciled by the idea that ndes are customized to fit what comforts people subconsciously. Japanese NDEs for example see a bridge/river symbolizing journey to another world, Westerners a portal/tunnel. Westerners relate best to Jesus, Easterners to other figures. However some ndes provide conflicting metaphysical views. This can be an issue with some ndes if nde 1 says they were told to keep reincarnating until they reach nirvana, nde 2 says something more fitting to abrahamic faith. nde 3 says hell doesnt exist and nde 4 says they saw hell realms.
4 Double edged Sword : This point can be argued for ndes (See above) but also against ndes. Only a small percentage 10-20% of those under cardiac arrest are said to have experienced an nde. This point leaves questions as to why aren't all people experiencing an nde. Should we not expect a larger proportion say more than half of people to experience an nde ? If there is a realm beyond the material should we not expect every person to experience an nde. A low proportion may mean that the nde is some sort of brain anomaly. We only have speculations as to why all dont get an nde.
5 Future Science : Current materialistic explanations may be inadequate to explain ndes but this doesnt mean that future understanding of the brain may not yield a new theory/explanation that explains it away. Thus it remains a potential argument.
All of these points are worthy discussions on their own and can be found in various other valuable books. The above points are simply a valuable framework by which the reader may be able to take away what they value out of this book. Everything written is simply my own research into the subject & I always advise people to take it with a grain of salt unless it makes rational sense to you & appeals to your intuition.
Diving into the depths
Spirituality & mysticism can be thought of as two sides of the same coin with philosophy the ring that runs the circumference of the coin. While spirituality deals with the human aspects such as soul, spirit, ego, morality & purpose, mysticism deals with the divine aspects of things such as essences, attributes, metaphors, realities, realms, entities, space, time, substances etc. We aim to dive into the following themes in this book.
The Divine Source : Everything relevant to defining the higher power & source of existence including essences & attributes.

Consciousness & Spirit : Everything relevant to the nature of consciousness, qualia, perceptions, the spirit & soul.
Reality : Everything relevant to the nature of perception, illusion, concepts, space, time, substances, modes, forms & realities.
Spirituality & Purpose : Everything relevant to the nature of human meaning, objectives, purpose & suffering.
Morality : Everything relevant to values, ideals, ethics & morals.
Knowledge & Truth : Everything relevant to the nature of seeking truth, seeking knowledge & attaining wisdom. These include concepts such as beliefs, truths, axioms, speculations, nature of inspirations & revelations.
Awakening & Dark night of Soul : Everything relevant to the nature of materialism, spiritual awakening, seeking inner peace, anxieties, depression, remorse, angst & layers of the psyche.
Divine Sorrow : Everything relevant to the nature of the eschatological souls corruption, redemption, purification, punishment, divine justice & mercy including modes & forms.
Divine Bliss : Everything relevant to the nature of the souls destiny, ultimate peace, happiness, bliss & divine love including modes & forms.

Hello everyone,
This is my first time writing here, and I'm not sure what to expect and what kind of responses I'll receive. I look forward to hearing from you!
I would like to hear opinions from both individuals with an avoidant attachment style and those without. What do you think of the letter? Is it a good idea to send it, or do you think I should make some modifications?
I'm using fictional names.
For some context, I wrote the letter below to my "ex," although I'm not sure if I can really use the word "ex." We always referred to our relationship as simply David & Mathieu. When people asked us if we were a couple, we would say no, it was just David & Mathieu.
We were friends for a year and a half before starting a different dynamic. It wasn't planned or wanted; it just happened very naturally. He has always been someone special to me; I don't know how to explain it, but for as long as I can remember, he has been special to me, and I told him that.
Two things to know about him are that he has an avoidant attachment style, which he himself acknowledges. So sometimes it was complicated; he never reassured me about anything, had blockages like we couldn't see each other during the week, and very often I couldn't touch him (affectionately) because he needed space. But I know he made efforts and stepped out of his comfort zone for us. He started holding my hand in public by himself, opening up more and more, and introduced me to important people in his life. It may not seem like much, but for someone with an avoidant attachment style, it was already a lot.
What made the situation even more complicated is that he was also fraysexual. So as the relationship progressed, the closer we got, the less sexual interest he had in me. He still needed sex, but it wasn't possible with me. Again, he was aware of how he was, and we always talked about it openly.
David & Mathieu lasted 7 months, and what ended it were the arguments we had towards the end. I started feeling insecure about his sexuality, the fact that he was back on dating apps (he said it was just for hookups) - I believed him, but it still made me insecure, and he had trouble reassuring me. He would get angry and say that I doubted his word. Furthermore, I brought up things from the past, like a guy he had something with while we were together during the first month of David & Mathieu. Also, towards the end, he expressed his need for space and to minimize contact, and I also struggled to give him that. I believe I have an anxious attachment style, so it was complicated for me to respond to some of his requests. But when we were together, it was really good; we often told each other that the best moments together were when it was just the two of us.
Anyway, he gave reasons for ending us: that I often doubted his word, that I brought up the past too much, and that he felt like he couldn't do things he had the right to do (like sleeping with others) and that I couldn't give him the space he needed. He was always honest about not wanting to lose his freedom. I never intended to take it away from him, but sometimes I needed to discuss things to feel good, and he struggled with that.
It's been a week now since we last had contact. We never really had a discussion to close everything; he shared his decision with me over the phone, I reacted badly, I tried to convince him to change his mind, and that's it.
The day after the phone call, he still agreed to come do an activity with me, but he said only because I told him it would make me feel better, and after that activity, he gave me back the things he had at his place. I still have things with me.
I would like to hear opinions from both individuals with an avoidant attachment style and those without. What do you think of the letter? Is it a good idea to send it, or do you think I should make some modifications?
Well, here's the letter finally.
Thank you.
I respect and understand your choice.
I've wondered if it's also what I wanted and maybe I was just delusional to think otherwise.
I'm not expecting or needing you to respond to these messages. It was important for me to share my observations with a clear head rather than being in a flood of emotions. I fully understand that you don't need to receive this message, maybe you're already rolling your eyes. It's more for me that I'm doing this, it seemed like the right thing to do for me.
I'm not into blaming, victimizing, or reproaching, and I'm not taking all the blame on myself. I'll only speak about what belongs to me. I'm not angry, disappointed, and I have no negative feelings towards you. I know you're a good person with good intentions, and you never intended to hurt me in any way.
I accept your decision much more easily now that I've finally understood that having contact with me now does more harm than good. I've always wanted what's best for you and to make you feel special.
You know what I think of you, what I told you was never fake or to please you, it was simply the truth. For me, when I was with you, you were the most... things & things, and I had no interest in looking away. I never played games with you or tried to sell you dreams. I'm aware that it could have played against me, and I didn't care. But honestly, I never felt like you were taking advantage of that.
Not that I think you care about that, but I stopped talking to the guy I was chatting with at the Biodôme on the same day. If it helps some people, that's great, but for me, jumping into something else to feel better isn't healthy, I'd find it disrespectful, and it's just not me.
Sorry for losing sight of what was important and focusing too much on the past and things that didn't matter. Sorry for not being respectful and attentive towards the end, for making you feel like I didn't trust you/wanted to restrict you/didn't understand you bettedidn't assert my limits enough, and for not giving you the space you needed. I'm not perfect, I was just doing my best.
When I told you that we were better than that, well, I failed, and I let you down in a way, I acknowledge that, and I'm sorry. I messed up, and it's okay to make mistakes. You know, humans are sometimes poorly made, losing strength to realize things that were obvious.
I have work to do on myself in several aspects. I need to avoid creating scenarios, leave the past where it is, verbalize my needs and limits more clearly, in a better way and at the right time, learn to realize that what I have in front of me is true without suspicion, and learn to say: "This thing scares me, I don't know how to tame it, I don't know how it will affect us, let's talk about it."
I think just choosing better moments for certain discussions could potentially have changed the course of things. (We often had discussions about important things when we were drunk, it always turned out badly.)
I'm still the same guy I was a week ago, I haven't magically changed already, but what I can confidently tell you is that there has been an awakening, and I'm committed to evolving and being better.
I know that for you, us, it was a challenge and maybe sometimes destabilizing, it took you out of your comfort zone. I felt that you were doing your best, I never felt like you were forcing yourself, and for example, just holding my hand in public meant something significant to you. I could have taken that into consideration more and made sure you felt good and safe instead of adding pressure and frustration.
You and I are unique individuals, for whom it's not easy to build certain dynamics, we deserved to have what we had, but with the issues at the end, sometimes it wasn't easy.
I never wanted something conventional. For me, answering the question 'Are you a couple?' with 'No, it's just David & Mathieu' made me proud, and I liked it, for me, there was no need for further explanation.
I never asked or hoped for you to have the same requirements for yourself as I imposed on myself. I've always been very aware of your needs. The fact that it was important for me not to be touched by others, that belonged to me alone, I wish we could have navigated through that more healthily.
You often asked me what I expected from you, that it wasn't clear to you. I expected nothing more than what was ongoing. I was in this situation because I wanted to be, are you perfect as you are, I would say.... yes but no. But guess what, when I told you that you were perfect as you were, it was true, in the sense that even the things that weren't perfect made you a special thing for me. Don't try to understand, even I have difficulty understanding myself.
Trying out David & Mathieu wasn't a mistake for me, it was positive in many ways. And as I've already told you, what we had was enough for me, you were enough for me. The issues at the end for me were mostly predictable, all surmountable, and weighed less in the balance compared to the rest.
David & Mathieu was something peculiar, imperfect, and perfect at the same time. The fact that the best moments were mostly when we were alone together, that feeling that hand in hand it was us vs the rest, the feeling of pride and not wanting to be anywhere else and with anyone else at times.
I wish for us to find all of that again.
When you told me that you were lucky to have me, I was also lucky to have you, and I hope you know why.
Maybe one day, at the right time and if we both want it, we can see if it's possible to rebuild a friendly dynamic in which we both feel good. We've always managed to build better with the past. We make a good team when we're respectful and attentive.
I still wish to have you in my life, but if that's not possible, I'll respect that.
If someday we reconnect, I neither desire or need to revisit the issues we experienced. My mindset is to move towards something better and positive, not to fall back into negativity.
By the way, I have your grandfather's ring. I was wearing it when I got out of your car. If you want me to return your belongings quickly, let me know. Otherwise, don't worry, I'll take care of it.
I'll always be happy to hear from you, but I understand that you and I need space for now. Yes, even me.
This Saturday, Friday, or both nights, it's still to be determined, there's a possibility that I'll go out to the Eco with Emily. I'm not telling you to not go if that's what you had planned. But at the same time, I'd like us to respect what we need, but I don't want us to prevent each other from doing anything either.
If it happens soon that we come face to face, know that I'm no longer in the emotion, I'm good, I'll be friendly, and I'm ready to be flexible (leave) if necessary.
I don't plan to go to the Eco (a bar where we always went together, almost every weekend) often in the near future, this weekend is a bit special because Emily is staying in town exceptionally and plans to go out all weekend with friends from NY.
In conclusion, I would say once again that I respect your decision. It's unfortunate that we won't have the opportunity to continue having good times together. I've always had fun with you; it wasn't difficult.
Well, that's all. That's enough. That's already a lot.
Maybe one day I'll write a 10-minute song about an owl who always left 56,000 things at my place, who knows. 🤷🏻‍♂️ (he loves a Taylor S song that lasts 10 minutes about an ex of hers.)
Yes, I fully intend to make some cash off of you, no shame.
Bye for now

Hello everyone,
This is my first time writing here, and I'm not sure what to expect and what kind of responses I'll receive. I look forward to hearing from you!
I would like to hear opinions from both individuals with an avoidant attachment style and those without. What do you think of the letter? Is it a good idea to send it, or do you think I should make some modifications?
I'm using fictional names.
For some context, I wrote the letter below to my "ex," although I'm not sure if I can really use the word "ex." We always referred to our relationship as simply David & Mathieu. When people asked us if we were a couple, we would say no, it was just David & Mathieu.
We were friends for a year and a half before starting a different dynamic. It wasn't planned or wanted; it just happened very naturally. He has always been someone special to me; I don't know how to explain it, but for as long as I can remember, he has been special to me, and I told him that.
Two things to know about him are that he has an avoidant attachment style, which he himself acknowledges. So sometimes it was complicated; he never reassured me about anything, had blockages like we couldn't see each other during the week, and very often I couldn't touch him (affectionately) because he needed space. But I know he made efforts and stepped out of his comfort zone for us. He started holding my hand in public by himself, opening up more and more, and introduced me to important people in his life. It may not seem like much, but for someone with an avoidant attachment style, it was already a lot.
What made the situation even more complicated is that he was also fraysexual. So as the relationship progressed, the closer we got, the less sexual interest he had in me. He still needed sex, but it wasn't possible with me. Again, he was aware of how he was, and we always talked about it openly.
David & Mathieu lasted 7 months, and what ended it were the arguments we had towards the end. I started feeling insecure about his sexuality, the fact that he was back on dating apps (he said it was just for hookups) - I believed him, but it still made me insecure, and he had trouble reassuring me. He would get angry and say that I doubted his word. Furthermore, I brought up things from the past, like a guy he had something with while we were together during the first month of David & Mathieu. Also, towards the end, he expressed his need for space and to minimize contact, and I also struggled to give him that. I believe I have an anxious attachment style, so it was complicated for me to respond to some of his requests. But when we were together, it was really good; we often told each other that the best moments together were when it was just the two of us.
Anyway, he gave reasons for ending us: that I often doubted his word, that I brought up the past too much, and that he felt like he couldn't do things he had the right to do (like sleeping with others) and that I couldn't give him the space he needed. He was always honest about not wanting to lose his freedom. I never intended to take it away from him, but sometimes I needed to discuss things to feel good, and he struggled with that.
It's been a week now since we last had contact. We never really had a discussion to close everything; he shared his decision with me over the phone, I reacted badly, I tried to convince him to change his mind, and that's it.
The day after the phone call, he still agreed to come do an activity with me, but he said only because I told him it would make me feel better, and after that activity, he gave me back the things he had at his place. I still have things with me.
I would like to hear opinions from both individuals with an avoidant attachment style and those without. What do you think of the letter? Is it a good idea to send it, or do you think I should make some modifications?
Well, here's the letter finally.
Thank you.
I respect and understand your choice.
I've wondered if it's also what I wanted and maybe I was just delusional to think otherwise.
I'm not expecting or needing you to respond to this message. It was important for me to share my observations with a clear head rather than being in a flood of emotions. I fully understand that you don't need to receive this message, maybe you're already rolling your eyes. It's more for me that I'm doing this, it seemed like the right thing to do for me.
I'm not into blaming, victimizing, or reproaching, and I'm not taking all the blame on myself. I'll only speak about what belongs to me. I'm not angry, disappointed, and I have no negative feelings towards you. I know you're a good person with good intentions, and you never intended to hurt me in any way.
I accept your decision much more easily now that I've finally understood that having contact with me now does more harm than good. I've always wanted what's best for you and to make you feel special.
You know what I think of you, what I told you was never fake or to please you, it was simply the truth. For me, when I was with you, you were the most... things & things, and I had no interest in looking away. I never played games with you or tried to sell you dreams. I'm aware that it could have played against me, and I didn't care. But honestly, I never felt like you were taking advantage of that.
Not that I think you care about that, but I stopped talking to the guy I was chatting with at (our last activity together) on the same day. If it helps some people, that's great, but for me, jumping into something else to feel better isn't healthy, I'd find it disrespectful, and it's just not me.
Sorry for losing sight of what was important and focusing too much on the past and things that didn't matter. Sorry for not being respectful and attentive towards the end, for making you feel like I didn't trust you/wanted to restrict you/didn't understand you bettedidn't assert my limits enough, and for not giving you the space you needed. I'm not perfect, I was just doing my best.
When I told you that we were better than that, well, I failed, and I let you down in a way, I acknowledge that, and I'm sorry. I messed up, and it's okay to make mistakes. You know, humans are sometimes poorly made, losing strength to realize things that were obvious.
I have work to do on myself in several aspects. I need to avoid creating scenarios, leave the past where it is, verbalize my needs and limits more clearly, in a better way and at the right time, learn to realize that what I have in front of me is true without suspicion, and learn to say: "This thing scares me, I don't know how to tame it, I don't know how it will affect us, let's talk about it."
I think just choosing better moments for certain discussions could potentially have changed the course of things. (We often had discussions about important things when we were drunk, it always turned out badly.)
I'm still the same guy I was a week ago, I haven't magically changed already, but what I can confidently tell you is that there has been an awakening, and I'm committed to evolving and being better.
I know that for you, us, it was a challenge and maybe sometimes destabilizing, it took you out of your comfort zone. I felt that you were doing your best, I never felt like you were forcing yourself, and for example, just holding my hand in public meant something significant to you. I could have taken that into consideration more and made sure you felt good and safe instead of adding pressure and frustration.
You and I are unique individuals, for whom it's not easy to build certain dynamics, we deserved to have what we had, but with the issues at the end, sometimes it wasn't easy.
I never wanted something conventional. For me, answering the question 'Are you a couple?' with 'No, it's just David & Mathieu' made me proud, and I liked it, for me, there was no need for further explanation.
I never asked or hoped for you to have the same requirements for yourself as I imposed on myself. I've always been very aware of your needs. The fact that it was important for me not to be touched by others, that belonged to me alone, I wish we could have navigated through that more healthily.
You often asked me what I expected from you, that it wasn't clear to you. I expected nothing more than what was ongoing. I was in this situation because I wanted to be, are you perfect as you are, I would say.... yes but no. But guess what, when I told you that you were perfect as you were, it was true, in the sense that even the things that weren't perfect made you a special thing for me. Don't try to understand, even I have difficulty understanding myself.
Trying out David & Mathieu wasn't a mistake for me, it was positive in many ways. And as I've already told you, what we had was enough for me, you were enough for me. The issues at the end for me were mostly predictable, all surmountable, and weighed less in the balance compared to the rest.
David & Mathieu was something peculiar, imperfect, and perfect at the same time. The fact that the best moments were mostly when we were alone together, that feeling that hand in hand it was us vs the rest, the feeling of pride and not wanting to be anywhere else and with anyone else at times.
I wish for us to find all of that again.
When you told me that you were lucky to have me, I was also lucky to have you, and I hope you know why.
Maybe one day, at the right time and if we both want it, we can see if it's possible to rebuild a friendly dynamic in which we both feel good. We've always managed to build better with the past. We make a good team when we're respectful and attentive.
I still wish to have you in my life, but if that's not possible, I'll respect that.
If someday we reconnect, I neither desire or need to revisit the issues we experienced. My mindset is to move towards something better and positive, not to fall back into negativity.
By the way, I have your grandfather's ring. I was wearing it when I got out of your car. If you want me to return your belongings quickly, let me know. Otherwise, don't worry, I'll take care of it.
I'll always be happy to hear from you, but I understand that you and I need space for now. Yes, even me.
This Saturday, Friday, or both nights, it's still to be determined, there's a possibility that I'll go out to the Eco with Emily. I'm not telling you to not go if that's what you had planned. But at the same time, I'd like us to respect what we need, but I don't want us to prevent each other from doing anything either.
If it happens soon that we come face to face, know that I'm no longer in the emotion, I'm good, I'll be friendly, and I'm ready to be flexible (leave) if necessary.
I don't plan to go to the Eco (a bar where we always went together, almost every weekend) often in the near future, this weekend is a bit special because Emily is staying in town exceptionally and plans to go out all weekend with friends from NY.
In conclusion, I would say once again that I respect your decision. It's unfortunate that we won't have the opportunity to continue having good times together. I've always had fun with you; it wasn't difficult.
Well, that's all. That's enough. That's already a lot.
Maybe one day I'll write a 10-minute song about an owl who always left 56,000 things at my place, who knows. 🤷🏻‍♂️ (he loves a Taylor S song that lasts 10 minutes about an ex of hers.)
Yes, I fully intend to make some cash off of you, no shame.
Bye for now

Before you read anything in this letter, if you decide to, I want to make it perfectly clear that my only intention is to take responsibility for my actions and apologize. I’ve considered writing this letter for years and have been stopped at every turn; I was fearful of driving a wedge into your efforts to heal, reopening old wounds, disrupting your peace. If an apology came, I wanted it to come after both of us were able to heal and to grow - perhaps even to the point where it would no longer be necessary, though if anything at this point would be too little too late, then I am sorry for that too. I was doubtful of my intentions, and I had to know that in doing this I wasn’t simply trying to relieve my own guilt at the expense of your peace. I am not writing in expectation of a response, or forgiveness, or a single thing at all from you; I simply know that you are owed apologies for having suffered my stupidity, immaturity, and cruelty, and that if that is something you harbor even the smallest desire to hear, then you deserve to.
During our relationship, I was cold, unkind, unfair, unavailable, hateful, jealous, dishonest, and manipulative, and worst of all I was too immature to see all of the ways I was mistreating you until after everything was said and done. When we met, I had low self-esteem, and I realize now that I allowed every negative emotion that I harbored for myself to be projected onto you and our relationship. You showed me compassion, kindness, and warmth, and, not knowing how to handle it, took it, and you, for granted. There is no excuse for the way that I composed myself during our time together, and I realize now just how much that must have hurt you, how deeply unfair and unexcusable and stupid my actions were.
I did not understand your needs, nor did I try to - not nearly as much as I should have. I did not respect your boundaries, emotional or physical, nor did I respect your needs - needs that should have been fulfilled without a second thought by any halfway decent partner. I realize now how disrespectful I was towards you during our time together, and how insignificant this all had to have made you feel.
I had the emotional regulation of a child during our relationship. I let my own negativity and the battles I was trying to ignore rather than confront and grow from with my own mental health manifest in a way that was taken out on you. I withdrew from your trust, I took advantage of your kindness and compassion, I spoke harshly and said horribly unfair things - things that I’ll wish forever I could take back. I was also too selfish and immature to provide you with the comfort and compassion that you needed for your own battles, and that was far worse than you ever deserved. I remember once that you told me, confiding in me after your mental health had declined and you started talking to someone, that you felt like our relationship and the problems that we were facing and not doing anything to fix long-term were a direct cause for the decline you were going through. Rather than doing what any halfway decent partner should do in that situation and coming to understand what you were going through and what I had to do to make things right, I grew defensive and sullen. I could rattle off how I was just a stupid immature boy who couldn’t experience or regulate emotions healthily to save his life, but I’m not here to excuse or justify my actions. If anything, I think that I knew that what you were saying was not only true, but a preventable situation that I had brought onto both of us. What I did was wrong at all turns.
As I have said before, my intention of writing is not to relieve any shame that I felt or because of some misplaced idea of absolving my guilt. But nonetheless, I want you to know that I am ashamed. If you’ve ever blamed yourself, even in passing, for anything that happened or how things ended up (which I doubt, as I’m sure you recognized my wrongdoing well before I did), then I’m here to take responsibility. For all of it. Our greatest problems were my doing, and the way that both our relationship and any last shred of decency between us ended was also my fault. I was a pathetic bigot who didn’t see the ways that my words or actions were harmful and asinine, and I’ll spend a lifetime working to atone for such absurd and monstrous behavior, if something like that is even possible. I refused to do any of the work on myself or the relationship that I needed to back then to call myself an even halfway decent person, let alone partner. I’ve spent a long time doing that work now, too late after the fact, realizing all of the ways that I acted as an unacceptable human being and acknowledging all of the ways in which I needed to be better. Going from a stupid teenage boy who didn’t think twice about his hateful and and selfish behavior to a man in therapy working to heal and do right by the people around him, I only wish that I had the wherewithal to do this work and have these revelation far, far earlier than I did and save you the pain and trouble that I caused you. Worst of all, I will forever hate myself for the last words we spoke to each other and the way things ended, both in person and over text. My greatest regret will always be my anger and lack of compassion that led us to that moment, and what my anger and lack of compassion spurred me towards in that moment. I will be selfish in this moment and say that I would rather by far have these words be the last ones we exchange than what passed between us before.
I am sincerely, eternally, cataclysmically sorry for all of it. All the pain, negativity, and doubt that I brought into your life in the time that I was in it, or in the time following my departure. And in a way that is heartfelt and honest, with only hopes for the best for you in mind, I hope that you do find someone that you deserve.
You were my first serious partner, and the first person in my life that I felt like truly saw and understood me. You made me feel safe and seen, and I did not know how to handle that. Rather than trying to emotionally mature to reciprocate that care for you, I took it for granted, and for that I am so, so sorry.
If you’ve read this far, I sincerely hope that this letter found you well. An old friend of Anna’s that I worked with for a while said that you’re getting your master’s degree, and I think that that’s absolutely incredible. I know that the work that you’ll go on to do will be huge and I hope that your passion for it has only grown since last we talked.
I want to reiterate that I am sending this without expectations of anything. I am not writing this thinking that I am owed forgiveness or even a response from you. But, I’ve come to a point in my own career where I could be relocating out of the country in a matter of months, possibly for good, after I finish my own schooling. If there is a chance that I can offer something in the way of closure that neither of us got back then by writing this, then I’d very much like to. If not, then I pray you find your peace and become everything that you’re meant to be.
I will always be grateful for the time we had together, even if it was short - and I’m grateful that you got away from someone undeserving of that time.

My fellow gamers, for too long has our community suffered the indignation of an intolerable culture that has denigrated, besmirched, exploited, and has outright demonized our culture of unique individuals with a genuine love of a hobby that they see as profitable and progressive. They have taken beloved IP’s (Intellectual Properties) and twisted them into their own personal ideological crusade of undermining and humiliating the core aspects of characters they deemed as “Toxic” or “White Supremacy”. Through the guise and protection of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusivity) & ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) they have used our influence in the entertainment industry to push their narratives and agendas that have stigmatized our culture with numerous anti-consumer practices that they call “being progressive”. But the truth of the matter is they were never really looking to be a part of our community, they simply wanted to use our community as a tool of activism and propaganda in the entertainment industry as it was extremely profitable, and they wanted inclusion in that division. Ever since GamerGate & Female Frequency, we have had to endure the incursion of forced ideologies, xenophobic behaviors and inferior overpriced products that have never been in our best interest and have been flat out disgraceful towards foreign media.
Before Gaming had become a major source of entertainment, we were often categorized as anti-social or societies rejects where because we found more enjoyment in playing fictional characters and not spending as much time out and about, we never fully assimilated in society (which is a good thing if you ask me). From 1998 to 2007, at the height of innovation, creativity and production, Gaming had reached a golden age in which it had revolutionized society. Hollywood Execs who had ruined the movie industry turned their attention to video games as a source of income since video games had outperformed movies in terms of profit. No one was concerned about gaming, much less diversity or inclusivity until it became profitable. This makes people like SBI look extremely disingenuous as they were not interested in gamers as a community with its own culture. They simply wanted to use it as another weapon in identity politics.
Microtransactions; the hidden enemy to gamer progress and inducer to mental laziness of our community. Microtransactions have been around for a long time; however, it has never been more potent and apparent than in recent years. It has aided in the dismantling and segregation of players on the ideology of FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) and has created another sub-culture of gamers who have no real drive to be better outside of how much money they put into the game. This has degraded our culture as well as we have become “fat” off transactional gaming but at the same time we have been “starved” of purposeful gaming where our achievements were our sustenance. I am not saying that microtransactions are bad, but when they are exploitative and predatorial like they have been and don’t give gamers room to grow, we become lethargic and unwilling to improve ourselves as gamers. Oversaturated microtransactional games are one of the many reasons why we have become complacent and unwilling to fight against the exploitative tactics used by big brand game companies such EA, Ubisoft, ActivisionBlizzard, NaughtyDog and so many other western business model companies. Western style games were not like this in the past, they had much more depth and actual effort put into them with the gamer in mind. This has not been the case for over a decade and our connection to western developers has been whittled down to just being transactional. That is one of the reasons why you see so many remasters and remakes in today’s gamer community. They have lost their willingness to improve as developers of games and simply accept corporate/share holder rules.
Game journalists also do not have any real integrity or purpose outside of being funded for their involvement in promoting IPG (Identity Political Games) in a positive light to the public whether it’s positively received or not. They are not interested in what we have to say, they all support the same agenda and that is why they are a dying breed. Within the next couple of years, they will be out of the job and more than likely they will not be able to stay in the industry giving how they have responded to past articles that have clearly been scripted on the premise of diversity and racism. Not only that, but most of them are also extremely hostile to the community as they stereotype and defame the individuals that are a part of the community they are supposed to serve. We have been mentally liberated from their lies and coercive tactics as we tend to laugh at their obvious attempt at virtue signaling while hiding their misdoings so that they can play the victim.
My gamer brothers & sisters, I would not suggest the following action that we must take now without good cause. I have weighed our options and the best option for us now is this…...CULTURAL SECESSION. Naturally this is a form of segregation where they would more than likely claim they are being segregated by the dominant culture of the gaming community but that is incorrect. For years now we have been the ones who are often marginalized and ostracized for the smaller portion of our community. And when we aren’t, we’re exploited for more funds so that these companies can stay in business only to subject us to low quality products that coincide with the “WOKE Agenda” that are often huge expenses to these big brands i.e. AAA/AAAA games that will eventually flop for its obvious forced diversity and bug infested product which will undoubtedly piss off the consumer to the point of wanting a refund. Losing copious amounts of capital and stock in the process, not to mention their reputation is permanently marred.
We must separate on every cultural level in terms of entertainment and ideology. We must reject everything from the west that promotes toxic western beliefs, practices, and exclusion from other cultures (i.e. Southeastern Countries such as Japan and Korea). Japan & Korea have been the targets of unjust discrimination from Western Developers, Western Journalists, Western Localizers (The Wokelizers) and Western Society Prejudice regarding their sense of aesthetics as Westerners hate the aesthetic sense of these countries. The reason why they resort to such base tactics isn’t just because it weaponizes the ideal female form but it’s also because they have deep-seated insecurities about their own looks so when they see attractive female characters, they use terms such as “unrealistic” or “hypersexualized” to establish the moral high ground. But the truth is, they want to feel superior to that which is ideal, so they insult and dehumanize this figure that portrays natural female beauty because they see it as an insult to their own social superiority in what they believe is a hierarchy of them being at the top of all other women. Because of this and so many contributing factors, their movies flop harder than the Fat Chocobo landing on a group of enemies and their games seismically fail just as much if not more. We must sever our connection to Western Developers, Publishers, and ALL Western-Centric Entertainment for they seek to mentally enslave us to their Xenophobic ideology.
Let’s define Western Culture and its traits. Western Culture/Society is composed of more than several different ideologies that work in unison with one another to facilitate dominance over multiple aspects of society. Business, Social, Political, Technological, and sometimes even Global Affairs are affected by these ideologies that portray a specific mindset of Western beliefs. What are those ideologies you ask?

Perpetual Victimhood: By weaponizing the fact that they are marginalized and of a small portion of western society, they can push their agenda to absurd standards that ultimately ostracize the main demographic. And when companies don’t capitulate, they are labeled as anti-progressive/misogynist’s or cohorts of White Supremacy. They use this to cancel their targets and silence them through societal defamation to keep the public on their side. They also use this mindset to justify their own lack of self-agency as they tend to throw companies who do adhere to their demands but miserably fail to turn a profit under the bus so that they can maintain face in front of the public while denying their actual involvement. They will never accept “Sense of Agency” when it’s negative but will gladly accept it when a positive outcome shines on them as if they are entitled to it.

Official Wiki GamerGate Page)

Societal Terrorism: This is another form of ideology weaponization that they use in order to make companies “toe-the-line” with their agenda. By weaponizing cancel culture, they exert dominance over these companies but in exchange they also reimburse those companies with DEI & ESG funds that raise their credit score as well as having social status with the marginalized demographic. However; cancel culture has not succeeded in years and developers and publishers probably only want the money and the DEI ESG rating. But they have to maintain the image of having social economic power so that they can continue to strong-arm other developers into compliance and promoting financial benefits of DEI & ESG. In other words, if you are not for sale, they discredit and stigmatize you in the industry.

Asmongold Clips.
https://youtu.be/Iq86DnmX2xY

“Its not us, its you who’s wrong” Mentality: This mentality is especially annoying as they tend to use it to hide their incompetence. They often look down upon gamers who are not in the industry to hide their obvious lack of knowledge on game development thinking that their job title grants them special status that they believe gives them the right to be condescending. But the truth they never wanted revealed has already strangled their careers of all credibility. They were never GAMERS, they were INVADERS. Community Colonists that seek to indoctrinate next generational gamers into their hive-mind and brand previous generations of gamers as villains.

@GeeksandGamers
https://youtu.be/1HbrTkqQFuM

Double-standard Enforcement: By labeling something as “unrealistic” or “hypersexualized”, they can claim this is morally wrong if it promotes traditional dynamics between men and women. Heterosexual relationships are condemned while at the same time Same-sex relationships are praised. Additionally, heterosexual relationships with main white male characters turn antagonistic and spotlight stealing. This is deliberate as to promote the “Girl Boss” ideology to indoctrinate women into the Feminazi state of mind. While at the same time, should a male character also adopt the “I don’t need male/female” ideology its seen as Toxic Masculinity which isn’t even a real thing. The idea of a strong male character is taboo while enforcing strong female characters is the ideal.

@MugenLord
https://youtu.be/to5Uciy_yeg
@EndymionTv
https://youtu.be/7TPTR8-qmbk

Dehumanization/Demonization: This is something that most military branches use in order to remove conscious inhibitions such as mass slaughter is wrong or categorization. By enforcing ideologies to denounce humanity in certain targets, it deactivates your conscience by saying this is not human therefore its ethically okay to treat this target without compassion and deny the fact it has sentience. We gamers fall under this category for journalists, developers, companies and society at large. This is a tactic we are familiar with to an extent as it implies that we are not normal when we do not do what everybody else is doing. “Geeks are the worse” or “Nerds need to fall into a pit of lava” are verbal dehumanization forms that most people in society say and we as Gamers tend to be relegated to those categories. This is their way of imposing the social hierarchy on us by establishing superiority. We know this as Gamers as we see it very often in the games that we play and some times experience it in real life.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gamergate#The_end_of_their_relevance

Deflection/Projection: This is basic psychology 101. By redirecting the conversation away from their mistakes and back on to the opposing view to avert blame and justify their innocence they can avoid criticism. However; deflection is a CONSCIOUS decision, meaning they have no real argument to justify their incompetence. If you can consciously process the situation, you have self-agency which means you don’t have a legitimate excuse. Projection is something else entirely. Most times, Projection doesn’t work on conscious decisions rather it is automatically deployed when feeling threatened, anxious or both. Instead of accepting accountability for feelings or actions that are deemed socially unacceptable they accuse others of committing that unacceptable behavior thereby exonerating themselves and proving that those feelings and/or actions are not their own.

@TheTrentReport
https://youtu.be/bPIPSKruYRo
These traits are so nefarious and unconscionable that I have a hard time believing that anyone could harbor them. However, given the social, political, and economic climate that we are in, those in power who use their influence on controlling society most definitely possess these insidious traits. Everything that they do is all about control and since video games are the biggest market in the world, they want control over it and the communities built around it to accrue more wealth and to use that wealth to subjugate other cultures. Mainstream media is a tool as well as mainstream organizations and sites to help accomplish this goal.
The government recently announced its intentions towards what they believe is “GamerGate 2.0” and now even the ADL has made an official appearance, referring to gamers as “extremist’s”. We know EXACTLY what they are doing, and they aren’t even trying to hide it anymore because they don’t think we are aware of their motives. This is just a pretext for them to exert even more control and we know why, it’s because they want the influence we as a community have to must serve them. So here is what we do my fellow gamers-
“In light of recent events and years of mainstream stigma, we the members of the Global Gaming Community [GGC] must officially renounce ALL TIES to the corporate western video game market. We have been financially exploited through predatorial monetization schemes, pelted with numerous articles of disdain and intentional misrepresentation from game journalists, news outlets regarding us as dangerous individuals and, even subjected to inferior products not only riddled with bugs but also products meant to push political agendas. For the preservation of our community and its unique culture, apart from a few select game development studios we officially sever all connections to western owned video game companies & their mainstream affiliates. From this point onward, we will no longer support western corporate developers, journalists and publishers that do not coincide with the goals of our community.”
Naturally this is completely optional. If you are okay with the state of the gaming community as it is, feel free to ignore this. But if you wish for real change and a break away from oversaturated monetization in the games you play and the push for radical ideological reform, then you are in the right place. Lets sever these rotted miasmic ties once and for all so that our community can be preserved and made better for future gamers. If you agree with this, share it with whoever you think might be interested. The more gamers who get involved, the easier it will be for us to finally break free from mainstream game companies and their associates.

So recently, I've been seeing a lot of people talk about why a person in a relationship shouldn't go to clubs, because people go there to have sex/hit on others. However, where I'm from (Slovenia), I've never heard of a person who goes out with that intention, we mostly go out with friends, drink and dance, talk in quieter areas etc. The women here aren't considered "sluts", and they mostly just hang out with their female friends. So naturally, I started thinking there might be a cultural difference in relation to where you're from - maybe it's more of an American thing? So I wanted to hear what you think and maybe where you are from to form a more coherent opinion.
P.S. Either way, I think prohibiting your partner from going out to a club is dumb, since loyalty should be chosen by them, not enforced by you. I, for example, would let my girl go out with her friends (even though I mostly tag along for fun nowadays), because I trust her and I know her loyalty would mean nothing if she didn't choose it herself (if I locked her up at home).

Hello,
First time Reddit poster. Started watching in 1998 and wound down in 2011.
I read/hear a lot about how Shawn Michaels/HHH pulled a last minute swerve for Shawn to win the European Championship over The British Bulldog at the 1997 One Night Only PPV. The detractors say that although Shawn's excuse was that he was doing it for "heat" and to make the title mean something, he didn't really do much with it and treated it as an afterthought joke. The D-X vs Hart Foundation feud happened a little bit before I started tuning in, but over the last 10-15 years, especially with more "shoot" interviews available, books/articles published, etc. it's possible the narrative of what happened at One Night Only is a mischaracterization of Shawn Michaels.
What We Know: In 1997, The British Bulldog aka Davey Boy Smith -- a member of the heel stable, The Hart Foundation -- is the European Champion and is always expected to "go over" whenever the WWE travels to Europe. 9/20/97 is the One Night Only PPV, in Birmingham, England.
What has been said by a few sources: Up till the day of the show, Davey was under the assumption that he was not going to lose the title to Shawn Michaels, since England is obviously within Europe. What made this event extra special is that there had been a plan for him to be escorted to the ring by his sister who was sadly stricken with a terminal illness. There would've then been cheers all around for this valiant hero and the 11,000 fans would then be sent home happy with a feel-good story.
Here is where things get murky: The same sources state that Shawn and HHH decided to pull a fast one on Vince McMahon an hour or so before it was show time. The two demanded that Shawn beat Davey for the European Championship. Has Shawn or HHH ever independantly admitted that it was in that short of a turnaround and that the two went behind Davey's back? Even Jim Ross says that Davey was with Shawn and HHH when the idea to change the finish was pitched and blames Davey for not "protecting himself." That means Davey agreed and was not forced. As mentioned earlier, the excuse that has been used is that Shawn felt that it would be a great way to draw "heat" since there was very much a pro-Davey crowd watching and so the return match in the Spring of 1998 (when they headed back to not just the UK, but this time in Manchester which was The Bulldog's billed hometown) would have a massive redemption arc which would be that much greater for the fans. In the meantime, Shawn would have good matches and elevate the European Championship, something, quite frankly, he was better at than Davey. It ties into the reasoning that has been given in that Shawn (arguably being at the peak of his ability), would be able to make that title mean something (like what he did for the Intercontinental Championship).
However, because of the backstage Kliq stories which continue to come out, the manner in which Shawn later dropped the European Championship, and the fact that there really was no return match for Shawn vs. Davey since both were out of the WWE by then, many fans have pointed to this PPV as an "obvious" example of the weight Shawn and HHH carried backstage. In recent shoot interviews, Bret Hart (who would leave the WWF six weeks later in spectacular fashion) has said this match was simply a way to make Davey and the rest of the Harts look foolish.
What you can't deny is the heat in the arena, after the match, was white-hot.
Okay with that background established, let's look to see why I feel that what happened at the One Night Only PPV is a mischaracterization of Shawn Michaels:

The Hart narrative.
- It's hard to put a lot of stock into "he said, she said," but in case you want to take it as gospel...in Page 256 of Shawn's book (yeah, yeah, I know) Heartbreak & Triumph, he details that Davey was on board with the plans -- with no mentions of if it was pitched an hour before or days earlier. If fans are ready to believe Bret, why can't they leave wiggle room for Shawn?
  - While Shawn certainly has excuses (and apologized) for his sophomoric hijinx and makes himself sound like a creative genius, Bret has consistently come off as two things: 1) Making himself look heroic 2) Making himself look like he's had a perpetual gloomy cloud over him at every stage of life. His book, My Real Life in the Cartoon World of Wrestling, briefly mentions this match and some nonsense of how he "saw the light die in Davey's eyes that day, darkness seeping into a heart that was giving out." Statements like that (and ones he continues to say) are dangerous, essentially telling fans that Shawn is partly responsible for the death of Davey Boy, stemming from this match. Huge mischaracterization.
- Bret points to how Davey told everyone he expected to win, promised everyone that he was going to win the match for his English fans and especially his sister...as proof that Shawn swerved plans at the last minute just to needle the Harts ("It was designed to make us all look stupid." -- Inside The Ropes ).
  - What? There's literally thousands of instances where wrestlers lose in their hometown and use real life to push stories. And finishes change all the time. The new storyline made long term sense and Vince/Creative agreed. It could have been great, but no one expected Bulldog to quit six weeks later because of the Screwjob. No one expected Shawn's back injury to happen a couple months after that.
- Diana Hart Smith (Davey's wife and Bret/Owen's sister) in 2012 said, regarding the changed finish, you "have to do what you're told." However, she is not credible, by Bret's own words, stemming from his reaction to a largely fictional biography on the Hart Family, written by Diana (Under the Mat).
Davey was still booked to look strong, despite losing.
- The RAW before the event, Davey had his knee "injured" from chair shots by HBK/HHH. And yet Davey still didn't "quit" when locked into the Figure Four at the PPV (even with HBK getting help from all the members of D-X). The match was stopped, akin to Stone Cold vs Bret Hart at WrestleMania 13. Diana Hart Smith even got involved in the post match antics with Chyna.
- I don't believe, for a moment, the Hart family -- especially Bret -- didn't fully agree to how it all precisely happened especially when you're getting non-wrestlers involved inside the ring. If they wanted to change it, they could've.
  - There's been no mention from Bret about going to bat for Davey and them getting rejected.
Bret Hart and the Hart Foundation still had a lot of backstage influence.
- This wasn't Savio Vega or Dean Douglas eating an unnecessary pin. There is an established history of the Harts wanting to do things their way. Bret was World Champion and by far the highest paid wrestler on the roster so although Shawn had stroke, Bret certainly did too. And Davey had been with the company and had success far longer than Shawn (though in interrupted stages). DQ/Countout results are a common occurrence for situations where two powerful wrestlers/factions don't want to "job" to one another. In fact, the 10/6/97 RAW had Bret changing a finish where he was supposed to eat a pin from HHH (via HBK interference) into a Countout.
- Yes, certainly, maturity was something Shawn and HHH lacked but you have to remember that unlike the Harts, they were not nepo-babies raised in the industry. And they were much younger (Shawn is 8 years younger than Bret whereas HHH is 12 years younger). Even Davey could be considered a nepo-baby since Dynamite Kid was his first cousin and he debuted in the WWF largely because Stu Hart cut a deal to include his son-in-law.
Bret's possible thought process
- My opinion (yes, speculation) is that Bret knew he was out the door and so he didn't care too much about what happened to Davey's European Championship since he had his own issues he was dealing with, regarding WCW contracts, Wrestling with Shadows, and dropping the World Championship. He mentioned how stressful all that was. What is fact though is that Davey wasn't someone Bret held in high regard. From talking about him not being able to construct matches, to being under the influence, to personal life issues, to even forcing Davey to cut his long braided hair because according to Davey's family, Bret said it was starting to look too much like his (even though it wasn't the same type nor color).
- I also feel that with everything that happened between that period, and to Brian Pillman, Owen, and Davey dying very young, it understandably left an awful taste in their mouths. It all gets magnified a bit. Then add that Bret's time with WCW wasn't really anything extraordinary (for his standard), and his constant reminding us of how Goldberg ended his career makes me believe that there still is a grudge with HBK/HHH which will never truly go away. And unlike Shawn who seemingly has moved on, Bret hasn't. Which is why he keeps establishing the narrative that the Hart Foundation was always in the right and the D-X was always in the wrong.
Finances
- 1997, the WWF was in peril. House shows and merchandise were selling, but PPVs were not. Having a swerve on a PPV makes the next one "must see TV" (again, this was a world before streaming). In this instance, the next time they came to England. Nitro was still beating RAW.
Storyline
- Shawn had only recently turned heel (after SummerSlam, a month earlier). The plan was established from back then to have a heel Shawn face Austin at WrestleMania XIV. This was an era where there really was only one major show per week (and some on tape delay) and most fans did not have internet access at home, so establishing quick, obvious heat was important. What better way than to "screw" Davey in front of his fans and family? Beating Davey in the USA wasn't going to do it because, remember, Davey was a heel in the USA. 9/29/97 (two days later) Davey faced Vader in New York. Vader was about to beat him clean and then the Harts stormed in and used weapons on Vader, resulting in a DQ.
  - If not beat Davey, a former Intercontinental Champion, then who? The talent roster was quite thin and a memorable Undertaker program was upcoming. Also, Shawn had not had a singles belt since Feb 1997. Nevertheless, the ratings jumped towards the end of 1997.
Defending the European Championship
- How many of you remember Davey ever defending the European Championship on RAW or a PPV? From the moment he won it on 2/26/97, over the next seven months, he defended it only four times on non-house shows. Even if you include house shows, the vast majority of the defenses were in the USA so it was hardly a Europe-only belt. All the four RAW or PPV matches ended in DQ/Countout type finishes. I'll be honest, I haven't watched every single one of those matches but I do see that he beat HHH via pinfall, as one of his first defenses on 2/28/97. Davey regained the belt on 10/26/99 after he came back, but lost it six weeks later on 12/12/99 as he started spiraling, defending it only a handful of times on TV.
- Shawn, unlike Davey, really could make that belt mean something so I do believe the Manchester return match in the Spring of 1998, after he dropped the World title to Austin, would've been big (not unlike Hart vs Bulldog at SummerSlam 1992). Even his most ardent haters will admit to HBK's talent. Yes, he dropped it to HHH in a comedic fashion on 12/11/97 but what was the alternative? With Bret leaving/gone and Shawn in a program with The Undertaker (who didn't need the European Championship since he was about to face Kane), as a World Champion (earlier than he thought he was going to be -- Screwjob plans were hatched later than Sept) him randomly losing the European title would've made him look bad even if it was lost in an underhanded fashion. Losing it to Owen could've been a possibility but Owen would win the Intercontinental Championship on 10/5/97 so that wouldn't really make sense neither. That said, the two of them faced one another on 10/20/97 in a title for title clash (No Contest). Owen later beat HHH for the European title on 2/26/98 (and then lost it back) and the two later had a WrestleMania XIV match for it. So dropping it to HHH made sense. Look at the roster back then and tell me who an alternative could have been?
- Shawn gets a lot of heat for not defending the European title as often as some feel he should have. But as of 9/20/97, the WWE didn't know what Bret was going to do. Shawn infamously won the World Championship on 11/9/97. I'm not going to rehash the backstage Montreal play-by-play but I firmly believe that if Bret stayed with the WWE for a bit longer, Shawn would have had more time to have matches for the European title. The problem is everything happened so quickly. Unlike Davey, it's not like Shawn spent seven months as European Champion and defended it only four times on TV. Shawn did defend it three times on TV but in 2 1/2 months including an epic with Shamrock on RAW on 11/3/97, before he won the World title from Bret. Between a program with The Undertaker, leading D-X, and becoming World Champion sooner than he expected, there was no time (or really justification) to defend the European title even more often, when he had a program with Austin coming (in arguably the biggest title change in history).

TL:DR Even if (big, if) the finish was changed an hour before showtime, Davey agreed to the finish (with what I believe is with the Hart family on board -- but seeing how it all played out over the next few months and years left a bad taste and narrative change). Shawn winning the European Championship was what was best for business. Therefore Shawn flexing his backstage power "just because" or "only to hate on the Harts" makes zero sense.

Technically it's not just for children, but they're the most common category of dependent and most likely to benefit from *one* of the plans. It zeroes out tuition, it does not cover other expenses.
I just learned that California shifted its income-eligibility status (under Plan B) to a state-level poverty wage, rather than a federal-level poverty wage. This is a shift from something like a ~$15k annual limit for the child, to a ~$20k annual limit, and will increase as California's Franchise Tax Board revises.
One HUGE advantage of this program is that it does not require the VETERAN to live in California, which is a lot more flexible, than, say, Washington's. This is based on the residency of the DEPENDENT.
I told a friend about this when I was using my GI Bill, and by the next week not only did she zero out her future law school tuition, she got a refund on the amount she had already paid. She later ran into difficulties using this with an MBA program, because there was confusion over what it covers. It apparently covers "academic" programs, which includes full-time MBA studies, but does not cover "self-funded" or "professional" programs like the part-time MBA programs. So, her parent's sacrifices *only* covered a law degree.
Three useful links for you and your dependents to assess:
California College Fee Waiver, to explain in further detail (I'll copy-past the content of this here, but it may update) https://www.calvet.ca.gov/VetServices/Pages/College-Fee-Waiver.aspx
How a Dependent would to establish residency in California for Education purposes (TLDR: 366 days, intent to permanently stay):
https://www.ucop.edu/residency/establishing-residency.html
California Income Eligiblity Limits for Plan B (looks like $21,561 for 2024 based off 2023 numbers): https://www.ftb.ca.gov/file/personal/residency-status/index.html

College Fee Waiver

The College Fee Waiver for Veteran Dependents benefit waives mandatory system-wide tuition and fees at any State of California Community College, California State University, or University of California campus. This program does not cover the expense of books, parking or room and board. There are four plans under which dependents of Veterans may be eligible.

Plan A

The unmarried child of a Veteran who is totally service-connected disabled or whose death was officially rated as service-connected is eligible. The child must be over 14 years old and under 27 years old to be eligible. If the child is a Veteran, then the age limit is extended to age 30;
The spouse of a wartime Veteran who is totally service-connected disabled is eligible. There are no age limit restrictions;
The unmarried surviving spouse of a wartime Veteran whose death has been rated as service-connected is eligible. There are no age limit restrictions;
Any dependent of any Veteran who has been declared missing in action, captured in the line of duty by hostile forces, or forcibly detained or interned in the line of duty by a foreign government or power is eligible.

The Veteran must have served at least one day of active duty during a period of war as declared by the U.S. Congress, or during any time in which the Veteran was awarded a campaign or expeditionary medal. Concurrent receipt of benefits under Plan A and VA Chapter 35 benefits is prohibited. To receive benefits under Plan A, a dependent must sign an "Election To Receive College Waiver Benefits" statement acknowledging this fact. There are no income restrictions under this plan. To be eligible, the event which caused basic entitlement to benefits (i.e., the date the Veteran died of service-connected causes or the date the military or United States Department of Veterans Affairs (USDVA) rated the Veteran as totally disabled as a result of service-connected disabilities) must have occurred prior to the child's 21st birthday.

Plan B

The child of a Veteran who has a service-connected disability, or had a service-connected disability at the time of death, or died of service-related causes is eligible. The child's annual income, which includes the child's adjusted gross income, plus the value of support provided by a parent, may not exceed the annual income limit. The current academic year entitlement is based upon the previous calendar year's annual income. Under Plan B, wartime service is not required and there are no specific age requirements. Children are the only dependents eligible under this plan. There is no prohibition against receiving concurrent VA Chapter 35 benefits.

Plan C

Any dependent of any member of the California National Guard, who in the line of duty while on active service to the state, was killed, died of a disability resulting from an event that occurred while in active service to the state, or is permanently disabled as a result of an event that occurred while in the service to the state is eligible. Surviving spouses who have not remarried are also eligible.
"Active service to the state," for the purpose of this benefit, means a member of the California National Guard activated pursuant to Section 146 of the Military and Veterans Code. A copy of those orders pursuant to Section 146, not Section 143, must be furnished to establish eligibility.

Plan D

Medal of Honor recipients and children of Medal of Honor recipients under the age of 27 may qualify. Benefits under Plan D are limited to undergraduate studies only, and applicants are subject to both income and age restrictions. There is no prohibition against receiving concurrent VA Chapter 35 benefits.

Notes:

All applicants must meet California residency requirements as per the schools requirements.
If eligibility criteria is met, use of the College Waiver for Veterans Dependents may be applied to state-support programs in the CCC, CSU, and UC systems. Some academic programs at these institutions that are considered self-supported, commonly referred to as extension courses or extended education are not required to apply the College Fee Waiver because these courses, degrees, and certificates are neither funded by the state nor are they system-wide programs. Veterans dependents using this waiver should research their academic programs thoroughly before applying to the college or university.
Education Code, Section 66025.3 does not provide the authority to grant College Fee Waiver benefits retroactively. However, an exception exists relating to applications received under the provisions of Military and Veterans Code Section 890.3(a)(1). The law permits retroactive fee waiver benefits when an application is denied solely due to the fact that the Veteran has a claim pending with the USDVA for service connected disability or death benefits, but the claim has yet to be awarded, and in the future the USDVA adjudicates a service connected rating. The Veteran or student must have applied for the College Fee Waiver during each academic year in which they are seeking the benefit; the application will be denied due to no service connected disability. Once the Veteran has been awarded service connected disability rating, bring the VA notification letter and denial letter(s) back to the CVSO for review.
If you are a child of a Veteran, you must attach Verification of Dependency. Acceptable verifications include, but are not limited to, a Birth Certificate, Adoption Records or Marriage Certificate. Those seeking status as an Adopted Child or as a Stepchild must have entered into such status prior to the child's 23th Birthday.
Effective January 1, 2024 Plan B applicant income, which includes the student's adjusted gross income for the prior year plus the value of any support received from a parent, will no longer be measured against the federal poverty threshold limit when making a fee waiver eligibility determination. Instead, beginning with Academic Year 2024-25, the student's income will not be allowed to exceed the STATE poverty level as published in the resident requirement filing chart found on the Franchise Tax Board website. This change was brought about when AB 1745, Soria. Public postsecondary education: veterans: waiver of mandatory systemwide tuition and fees, was signed into law by Governor Newsom. This represents a substantial change to the program as the State poverty threshold limit is significantly higher than the federal poverty threshold limit. For example, in 2023 the State threshold was $20,913, while the federal threshold was $15,225.

Just a theory, possibly totally unrelated. But there are some new confirmable pieces and connections that I haven’t seen mentioned at all yet. So if I’m wrong at least there is a partially correct timeline here that can be edited to correctness. My last attempt to connect any dots I think. Please feel free to find holes and debunk it and suggest edits.
TLDR: Maybe the big deal is that these items were from a robbery that took place nearby days prior. There were two bags taken and articles only mention one being found. The robbers were reported to have been seen else where on CCTV counting money, so they may have been able to make a sale in the area. The same bag could have ended up at the Mark, and maybe even be the bag EP intentionally shows in hotel lobby on CCTV footage. EP said he was given a big bag to dispose of. In EP’s case the chain of custody should be legally sound, but for someone else buying or possessing stolen property prior to that, it’s illegal in NY even if you’re unaware.
The robbery occurred on 1/18/23 and was reported on 1/21/23. This is on 83rd and The Mark Hotel is on 77th. Half a mile walk through the park away. EP mentioned a big bag that hotel staff was told to dispose of.
Here is what appears to be a bag in the video EP posted. There was a girl in the frame too.
A NY post article about this murder mentions:
“A young woman — who was entering the building carrying a large bag that appeared to contain clothing - choked back tears when asked if she was related to the victim. ‘It's very, very hard for me and my family. We've already talked to the police and the district attorney. I don't want to talk anymore,’ the woman said, without identifying herself.”
The victim was SA’d. House was ransacked. “The two suspects loaded up Hernandez’s belongings into a blue rolling Jansport backpack and a green rolling bag and were on CCTV divvying up cash, prosecutors said.”.
Same day Drake is seen leaving The Mark hotel.. He is seen the next day at a listening party in New Jersey.
These were posted August 2023 by EP on his Facebook page. They look like older lady clothes. But ofc, this could just be things left behind at the hotel by others.These are the only clothes EP ever posted on his Facebook.
The victim being an upper east side woman she probably had some nice things, clothing and jewelry in particular as ladies do especially at her age. And the jewelry EP posted didn’t look new or like it would have been for a younger girl.
EP implies Drake/team only wanted one thing from a big bag and EP implies there was loads of jewelry left behind. They said the rest of the stuff in the big bag was trash. Because the items were expensive and not really just any random stuff, it was instead put into lost and found.
There’s an incident report from Mark security on July 20th. Probably when EP had to work as security with protests that Theodore organized.. EP appears to express frustration with the protestor situation for which he nearly got arrested. This was probably the next time he saw Drake since January. EP keeps mentioning 7/27/23. This is the day he was named the protestor lawsuit.
EP mentions Officer Viola had a CCRB citation for trying to contain the protest. Officer Viola and EP both impacted negatively. EP mentioned that this rapport with the officer probably saved him from getting arrested
EP is going thru it at this point. [EP cites many examples of why he takes offense for treatment of staff. And hubris. The man he almost got arrested he alleges staff isn’t being treated in a way that feels respectful He mentions he still has to give the friendly enjoy your evening. He cites cultural frustrations as well, echoing Kenny’s “not like us” sentiments.
At some point EP’s is instructed by his director to clean out the lost and found. By August he’s so fed up that he’s going to sell these things redacted lol figure it out ig. He posts them on Facebook.
Fast forward to now, and Kendrick drops a diss track. At some point, Akademiks told that EP had the items and accused theft, according to EP. or him and Drake both did not sure who he’s directing this at.
“Meet the Grahams” comes out and EP said I understood the assignment. Kenny at some point gets the album art from EP with item’s that appear to have belonged to Drake.
Drake releases “The Heart Part 6” said that he fed the cover art content to Kenny. Why would he lie about that? Why not say wow Kenny you got people going through my trash? Or is he telling the truth?
Buying stolen goods is illegal. But EP, on the other hand, obtained the items after they were disposed of, which should be legal if I understand correctly especially if unclaimed after x many days.
EP’s manager finds out about the album cover and questions him about how the items were obtained. But staff knew that EP had these items already according to EP. He was instructed to not throw them in the trash originally and then months later instructed to clean out the lost and found. EP implies that policy/practice allows him to claim the items at this point.
He claims he explains to his boss how the items were obtained. She advises him to get a lawyer which is strange because staff knew these items were in the lost and found and that by law, if they aren’t claimed within a certain amount of time they’re fair game. But if they’re stolen from a murdered scene, yeah you might want to speak to a lawyer because possession of stolen property is illegal even if you didn’t know it was stolen. It also may implicate you in a murder that took place nearby. It doesn’t make sense to me that EP’s boss would advise a lawyer when she would probably know the chain of possession and policies. It could be that it was only due to theft allegations from the album cover release but if policy and law was followed then this seems a little out of place, especially if they didn’t want the items back anyway.
EP alleges that police were called because someone got assaulted this night. I’m not sure who this is but It appears to be the same man pictured about a minute later.
EP tweeted
“Those were good men… One was from Texas. He loved cowboy boots, guns, and horses. other was from the Bronx, and well on his way to becoming a "Blue H.E.N.R.Y."
[redacted fill in the blank urself ok]
Tweets about them: Here Here Here

Join Abyss RP - A Realistic Serious Roleplay Experience
Join Abyss RP, where realism meets immersive roleplay. We're dedicated to providing a detailed and authentic experience, from legal endeavors to thrilling illegal activities.
Calling All Law Enforcement: We're actively recruiting dedicated officers to uphold the law in our city. Police recruits will receive a special police starter pack to kickstart their career in law enforcement.
Explore Diverse Activities: Delve into a wide range of activities, including:

Illegal Gun Crafting
License Forgery
Realistic Lumberjack Job with Animations
Construction Work
Garbage Searching
Mining in the Caves
Player Sabotage
Drug Crafting
Take on 9 Heists, from ATMs to Big Banks and even an Oil Rig
Exclusive Whitelisted Jobs such as White Widow, Mechanic, Restaurants, and Police

Too Much to List: Our city is teeming with opportunities for exploration and adventure. Uncover hidden gems and exciting challenges as you immerse yourself in the world of Abyss RP.
Join Us: - Discord: discord.gg/EpaW64WXRA

FiveM Connect: cfx.re/join/og6ley

Experience the thrill of law enforcement in Abyss RP. Join our dedicated team today!

Hey fellow Roovians…it’s been so long! This will be similar to my last post from 2023 as usual!

I’m still working as an associate attorney for Mitchell & Mitchell, and have been practicing almost 3 years now doing exclusively criminal work.

I am really excited to carry on the tradition of helping this community of wonderful Redditors by giving information…and I’ll answer what questions I can! I believe that I can be a voice for your questions and concerns, as well as the voice and contact person for my LOCAL firm here in Middle Tennessee.

In my 2023 post, I mentioned that I am a long-time attendee of Bonnaroo. This will be my 12th consecutive year! As a somewhat newly licensed attorney, I can answer most of your questions, and if I cannot I have been given explicit permission from the managing partner of my firm to relay questions that I am unsure of directly to him and give you the best and most accurate information. Although I am new as an attorney (3 years officially last month), I’m in an extremely unique learning and working situation, as my supervising attorney, Jack Mitchell, has been practicing locally in criminal defense for over 30 years. That’s in addition to having a great working relationship with the district attorney assigned to Bonnaroo cases.

I wanted to continue the tradition of this post because I do believe that people on this sub get some good benefit from it and share details of the process for handling charges that can change from year to year. This is a place to ask questions you may have, and I will try to answer everything I can (and if not, I will do my best to get the answer for you). As someone who loves attending Bonnaroo and being part of the community there, I hope you don’t need this information, but it is here in case you do.

The current elected District Attorney brought changes to the way criminal charges resulting from the festival were handled. In years past, criminal citations and charges were treated differently during Bonnaroo. Those who caught charges (defendants) were sent a letter from the District Attorney’s Office and the Court Clerk indicating that with the payment of a fine, the charges would be dismissed or retired after a certain period of time. The more serous the offense, the larger the fine assessed.

The last several years, criminal charges resulting from Bonnaroo were supposed to be treated the same as every other crime in Coffee County. However, what we found is that the process for festival offenses is still much different than the process used the rest of the year, and we expect more of the same this year.

What does this mean for you? If you are arrested or cited for any criminal offense while you are in Coffee County for Bonnaroo, you will have to make regular court appearances (REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE CITING OFFICER TELLS YOU) or have a licensed attorney appear on your behalf, and you will be prosecuted through the justice system. It’s annoying, for sure, but if you don’t show, and don’t have permission to not appear, the penalties could increase.

Probably the best advice we could give you when dealing with law enforcement is to exercise your right to remain silent. Along with this, you should not willingly consent to the search of your person, bags, vehicle, or campsite (other than when you enter the tollbooths). An officer may go ahead and search anyway, but giving consent immediately removes any chance of suppressing the contraband they find.

We understand that sometimes unfortunate things happen, and at Bonnaroo it is usually a case of bad luck and timing rather than bad people or actions. If you find yourself in this situation and need the assistance of an attorney, you can contact us through Reddit, at (615) 896-4211, [emily@mitchellattorneys.com](mailto:emily@mitchellattorneys.com), or through our website at mitchellattorneys.com. We can work with you on fees and will try to minimize travel and costs for out of state clients.

The major benefit of retaining an attorney with knowledge of the system is most of the leg work and negotiation can be done prior to the first time you are required to be in court. For most of our clients in past years, they were only required to make one court appearance, and for others (depending on the charges and criminal history) we were able to completely avoid the need for their appearance in court. Almost everyone we represented in past years was able to keep the conviction off their record and have their charges expunged.

Every situation is different, but our knowledge of the local judicial system and professional relationship with the District Attorney’s office will help ensure the most favorable result for your individual case. I will be on the farm experiencing the festival as always, and I’ll have koozies and business cards with me, lol! Enjoy your time in Middle Tennessee and at Roo. Also, look for our sign prior to entering and, like the sign says, take a picture JUST IN CASE.

*NEW INFO FOR THIS YEAR (2024)\*
Last year there were only a little over 20 arrests made. The number of citations given was also significantly low for the number of people attending. An assistant district attorney told me this information and stated those numbers will absolutely be different this year. So I wanted y’all to be very aware of that!

**TLDR:*\* while this whole post is informative, basically this is about Coffee County’s Bonnaroo citation procedures and helpful information

Letter E in team name: Elena Nathara
Sex: Female
Age: 25 during the Fall of Beacon, 26 Atlas arc
Birthday: 7th day of 4th month
Species: Faunus, snake. Notable markers are snake eyes and tongue. (Several generations of snake faunus family is/are the reason for more than one trait.
Height: 1,77 meters
Family: A father, mother died in a mining accident when working for SDC. She has no other relatives, as far as she knows,>! yet she is rumoured to have an older sister working with crime families of Vacuo.!<
Class: Assassin. Speciality: Offence, the killing of key targets during battle, moving in the environment.
Appearance: Athletic, strong body, medium-length green-coloured hair, and green eyes.
Colour: Yellow, yet likes green more.
Weapons: A sword gauntlet in her left and right arm with a magnetized flame thrower on the right one(or uses a flame thrower that she carries on her back) and a small crossbow in the left one. She uses, on occasion, metal cloves with poison-laced claws.
History: Elena Nathara was born to a snake faunus mother and a snake faunus father in Vacuo. Her childhood wasn´t an easy one. Her mother died in a mining accident when she was 11. She had to learn to survive at an early age and had to work in different jobs to stay alive as part of her training. Her father was a huntsman who trained Elena to fight with mentors he trained with in his early life to teach her about the world, to move unseen, move fast in different environments and to use her charm to gain information and gain access to secure places.
When she was 17 years of age, she did huntsman assessment trials and passed with excellent grades. Instead of going to Shade Academy, she took the opportunity that a Beacon Academy faculty member who was visiting Vacuo made for her to go train at Beacon. While suspicious of the teacher´s intentions, she accepted the offer on condition that her father was allowed to move to Vale. Later in her life, she started to wonder whether the teacher was looking for her specifically under the orders of Ozpin, Headmaster of Beacon, yet she couldn´t prove anything, and she did profit from it anyway.
She met Rogert Oberon during initiation and became his partner for the rest of initiation. They showed great teamwork and the ability to complement their respective skills. They became members of REPR with Rogert in charge. Elena became Rogert´s most trusted ally and a teacher in parkour and advanced hand-to-hand skills in the team. Over time, Elena grew close to Roth, and Raina became the kind of younger sister Elena never had.
During Elena´s time in the Beacon, Elena gained an interest in singing and becoming a doctor, both interests reinforced by her talent pool. After graduation, Elena wanted to travel the world to see what else is there in the Kingdoms other than Vale and Vacuo.
Current location: Unknown, last seen in Mistral near its capital. No recent sightings.
Profession: Solo working Huntress for hire.
Personality:

Elena is a charisma and survival-oriented person due to her practised tricks and experiences of her youth. She believes she needs to be as strong and clever as possible to simply survive day to day.
While Elena looks and acts tough, she shows her kinder side to those who earn her trust. She had(or has) trust issues due to her childhood on Vacuo and needed to be distrustful of others to stay alive.
Elena is protective of children and has become a big sister figure to some of the kids in Vale. Has strong protective instincts focused on her family and teammates.
Elena hates SDC with a passion due to her family history with the company and losing her mother in a mining accident caused by faulty equipment. Over time her dislike became her desire to see SDC burn for the poor treatment of its workers and continuing the idea of Faunus not deserving rights.

Semblance: Kinetic redirection, Elena can transfer her stored speed energy to hit harder.
=Redacted theories to authorized personnel only as follows: Kinetic redirection assumed aura-based technique that is relatively common among Huntsmen. Theories about a semblance that is easily covered and hard to prove without more information. Permission is requested to search for the information with more hands-free methods. It is also said that Elena has an unnatural ability to detect weak points in people, Grimm and items.
=Classified information ends=
Skills:

Knowledgable in human, faunus and criminal psychology. (Trained by her mentors in Vacuo and successfully helped train her team leader Rogert Oberon.)
Infiltration and spying skills. (She received training in stealth from her mentors, father, and teachers in Vacuo.)
Good interrogator skills and how to gain information by talking and by inflicting pain. Specializes in the manipulation of targets to gain useful information.
Advanced hand-to-hand and close combat skills with a focus on assassination.
Advanced parkour skills. Highest ranking in speed trials.
Knows how to camouflage and hide in different environments. Specializes in desert camouflage. Trained in wilderness survival and how to survive there potentially for years at a time. (Trained by Rogert Oberon and in Huntsman Academy.)
Knows how to survive in a desert and has an endurance advantage there due to her snake faunus nature.
Knows how to gather intel with computers and how to open electronic doors with a specially designed unlocking device. (Trained by Raina Odell.)
Good medical skills gained in the time between graduation and the Fall of Beacon.

Strengths:

Fast runner and very agile fighter.
Can channel a lot of force to specific points due to knowing the human body making her also a good medic.
Fast climber.
Lightning-fast reaction speed due to her snake faunus nature.
Strong resistance against heat.

Weaknesses:

Easily affected by cold and winter environments due to her faunus nature.
Impatience (yet it became more manageable as she got older.)
Easily affected by attacks that land on her when the aura is out.

Facts about the character:

Elena became a Huntress to learn how to fight and to give her more career options.
After graduation, Elena wanted to travel the world. So when the team was put on a vote about sticking together, she voted No despite her "affection" for Roth and Raina wanting her to stick around.
As Elena travelled around the world, she gained a reputation for being an Angel of mercy due to helping any wounded around villages she passed by.
Originally intended to be a counter for Ace Operative Harriet during early creation phase.

Extra Skill:

Singer: Elena had to discover her talent early in her life to survive, which led her to take many different routes in the job market. She discovered a decent talent for singing, if somewhat unprofessionally, while undercover.

The title of this post may seem insane to most people, I know. Although it is long, please follow me closely as I explain why Beyoncé is the loser of a beef that she wasn't even included in.
We are currently in a time in the music world where the "top artists" are releasing some of their worst work, their desires are CLEARLY outweighing their passion, and their fandoms' dedication outweighs their actual value. Let's look at a few examples:

Kanye West: I don't even think an explanation is necessary here
Nicki Minaj - Pink Friday 2 & "Big Foo"t: ...
Cardi B - "Enough (Miami)": literally sounds like every Cardi B song ever...

& many others. you know who.
Basically... music is not music right now (the mainstream, top performers). Passion is being replaced with greed, which kinda makes sense given the economy rn, but consumers continuing to be passive & dismissive about this is dangerous for the future of art AND EDUCATION (I'll get to that).
The Kendrick Lamar vs. Drake beef was not just a cool rap moment. The music that came from both sides of this beef, as well as the events that occurred outside of the music, drew a BOLD line between Entertainers/Pop Stars and Artists. It also revealed another important question: when CAN the music be separated from the artist (notice I said "can" instead of "should")?
See, many people throw around the phrase "we SHOULD separate the art from the artist." However... how did separating R. Kelly's art from him go? He had a cult following of people who SAW him and KNEW about him being a predator, but didn't care. This allowed his career to grow and gave him more money & resources to hurt people and simply make black people look a little cuckoo for continuously rallying behind him. WE CANNOT SEPARATE HIM FROM HIS ART. Unless you're cool with jamming to songs about little girls.
Pop Stars, like Drake and Beyoncé, get hella passes for their actions. Kendrick Lamar absolutely broke that wall down regarding Drake. He showed that Drake's "art" is not only flawed, but his tactics are detrimental to an entire culture and to art. I won't go in too much detail just because there are many articles/videos that break their beef down. We heard Kendrick describe his interpretation of Drake's relationship with Atlanta (which I agree with) in "Not Like Us." However... I don't think Kendrick knew he was breaking Beyoncé's wall down as well...
The possibility of separating Beyoncé from her work was thrown in the trash in 2013 with her surprise self-titled album. See, her first 4 solo albums were AMAZING (imo). She did a DAMN good job with those records without tactics that have detrimental consequences SOCIALLY (I'm aware of her theft allegations during this time, but for this post I'm discussing her impact on the world collectively rather than just within the industry). We could enjoy the music without feeling guilty due to her political and business decisions. Thus, we COULD separate the art from the artist. However... she stripped that ability away from us with each album after 4. *let me please note that I believe that pop stars should not dabble in activism, so this next section may slightly sound biased bc of that belief, but I'm doing my best to stay neutral*

Beyoncé (2013) - there's not much wrong with this album to me, but I mention it because I believe it's the catalyst. Feminism had a big year in 2013 (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/16/feminism-minority-voices-2013-inclusion), and feminism was a large theme of the album. Whether this was intentional or not, it had an impact (https://www.elle.com/culture/a35492/beyonce-and-feminism-essay/). I don't believe there were greedy/shady intentions with this album or its promotion, I just think the success of this album could've prompted the choices she and her team made for the following albums.
Lemonade (2016) - This is an amazing album sonically and visually. But... the promotion. So, the film she released with the album went through 11 chapters that represented the 11 songs on the album. Oh wait... there's 12 songs on Lemonade. Formation is thrown on at the end. The album is clearly relationship centered, but she released Formation as the single with all the black power imagery during a time where Black Lives Matter was moving heavy (I am black btw). I feel like the racial and social impact of this album is due to our own interpretations and theories about the album's meaning, and I think it was made that way on purpose. I think they had a great 11 song album that could've sold on its own, but Formation was used to stir the pot and I personally feel like using activism for marketing in an album rollout for pop music is unethical. maybe I'll do a separate post on that.
Renaissance (2022) - 2020-2022 was a big period for the LGBT community, particularly the trans community. Also, the hype around the show Pose was booming. I love this album. But come on... look into the promotion

If you want a deeper dive on her promotion tactics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99W79ED4hCE
You see where I'm going here. When you pair this with all of the other mess like the songwriting allegations, her obvious goal of billionaire status, and promoting wealth to us as if it coincides with excellence and it's something we should all be striving for, all while being held up as a LEADER in the black community or even the black art space..... it's a no for me. The music is great but I can't financially support an artist like that.
However... Kendrick Lamar's music connects with me on a different level because it coincides with the human experience. He is honest, authentic, and creative in his work. Artists being themselves is what inspires transformation in me. He doesn't have to use overboard promotional tactics and grift to a specific demographic to take care of himself and his family. And Beyoncé doesn't have to either. Also... Kendrick is competent and knowledgeable about his work. We know the passion behind it because we see it in the lyrics, hear it in his delivery, and feel it when he discusses it. Never any large consumerism tactics behind it... any of that.
Kendrick is sticking out in the industry right now (to me) because he has separated himself from the "greedy pop star," like Drake. It shines a light on the true artistry in Kendrick's work, and the lack of it in Drake's. And when I looked into Drake's mess, I found a bunch of other top stars' mess as well. And that includes Beyoncé.
I call Bey the real loser of the Kendrick vs. Drake beef because I believe she has been held at the top spot for us (black ppl) for a while. She just won an "innovator" award. Her image doesn't coincide with what is on paper and wax for me anymore. She's a hell of a performer... but there's too many questionable elements here. Kendrick has not only proven himself to be the top rapper, but the TOP artist (at least among black artists, but I believe overall).
Yes, the pop stars are "bigger." More fans, more money, more power, crazier fans, more resources, etc. Beyoncé is the most adored; the bigger one. But when it comes to art, which I'm passionate about DEARLY.... it's Kendrick for me. Listen to his albums and tell me different.

As a side note, it takes you back to a bygone era. When American leaders were larger than life figures. Powerful men, who for whatever their faults were, cared about the country and its future. Today we have feckless dotards with soy hipster handlers.
Professor Woodrow Wilson once said that every man sent out from a university should be a man of his nation as well as a man of his time, and I am confident that the men and women who carry the honor of graduating from this institution will continue to give from their lives, from their talents, a high measure of public service and public support.
"There are few earthly things more beautiful than a university," wrote John Masefield in his tribute to English universities--and his words are equally true today. He did not refer to spires and towers, to campus greens and ivied walls. He admired the splendid beauty of the university, he said, because it was "a place where those who hate ignorance may strive to know, where those who perceive truth may strive to make others see."
I have, therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived--yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace.
What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children--not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.
I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.
Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need to use them is essential to keeping the peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles--which can only destroy and never create--is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace.
I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war--and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.
Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament--and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude--as individuals and as a Nation--for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward--by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here at home.
First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable--that mankind is doomed--that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.
We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade--therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable--and we believe they can do it again.
I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of peace and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal.
Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace-- based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions--on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single, simple key to this peace--no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process--a way of solving problems.
With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor--it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors.
So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.
Second: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a recent authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims--such as the allegation that "American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of wars . . . that there is a very real threat of a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union . . . [and that] the political aims of the American imperialists are to enslave economically and politically the European and other capitalist countries . . . [and] to achieve world domination . . . by means of aggressive wars."
Truly, as it was written long ago: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth." Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements--to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning--a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.
No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements--in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.
Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation's territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland--a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east of Chicago.
Today, should total war ever break out again--no matter how--our two countries would become the primary targets. It is an ironic but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours. And even in the cold war, which brings burdens and dangers to so many nations, including this Nation's closest allies--our two countries bear the heaviest burdens. For we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combating ignorance, poverty, and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other, and new weapons beget counterweapons.
In short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements to this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours--and even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest.
So, let us not be blind to our differences--but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.
Third: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the cold war, remembering that we are not engaged in a debate, seeking to pile up debating points. We are not here distributing blame or pointing the finger of judgment. We must deal with the world as it is, and not as it might have been had the history of the last 18 years been different.
We must, therefore, persevere in the search for peace in the hope that constructive changes within the Communist bloc might bring within reach solutions which now seem beyond us. We must conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the Communists' interest to agree on a genuine peace. Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy--or of a collective death-wish for the world.
To secure these ends, America's weapons are nonprovocative, carefully controlled, designed to deter, and capable of selective use. Our military forces are committed to peace and disciplined in self- restraint. Our diplomats are instructed to avoid unnecessary irritants and purely rhetorical hostility.
For we can seek a relaxation of tension without relaxing our guard. And, for our part, we do not need to use threats to prove that we are resolute. We do not need to jam foreign broadcasts out of fear our faith will be eroded. We are unwilling to impose our system on any unwilling people--but we are willing and able to engage in peaceful competition with any people on earth.
Meanwhile, we seek to strengthen the United Nations, to help solve its financial problems, to make it a more effective instrument for peace, to develop it into a genuine world security system--a system capable of resolving disputes on the basis of law, of insuring the security of the large and the small, and of creating conditions under which arms can finally be abolished.
At the same time we seek to keep peace inside the non-Communist world, where many nations, all of them our friends, are divided over issues which weaken Western unity, which invite Communist intervention or which threaten to erupt into war. Our efforts in West New Guinea, in the Congo, in the Middle East, and in the Indian subcontinent, have been persistent and patient despite criticism from both sides. We have also tried to set an example for others--by seeking to adjust small but significant differences with our own closest neighbors in Mexico and in Canada.
Speaking of other nations, I wish to make one point clear. We are bound to many nations by alliances. Those alliances exist because our concern and theirs substantially overlap. Our commitment to defend Western Europe and West Berlin, for example, stands undiminished because of the identity of our vital interests. The United States will make no deal with the Soviet Union at the expense of other nations and other peoples, not merely because they are our partners, but also because their interests and ours converge.
Our interests converge, however, not only in defending the frontiers of freedom, but in pursuing the paths of peace. It is our hope-- and the purpose of allied policies--to convince the Soviet Union that she, too, should let each nation choose its own future, so long as that choice does not interfere with the choices of others. The Communist drive to impose their political and economic system on others is the primary cause of world tension today. For there can be no doubt that, if all nations could refrain from interfering in the self-determination of others, the peace would be much more assured.
This will require a new effort to achieve world law--a new context for world discussions. It will require increased understanding between the Soviets and ourselves. And increased understanding will require increased contact and communication. One step in this direction is the proposed arrangement for a direct line between Moscow and Washington, to avoid on each side the dangerous delays, misunderstandings, and misreadings of the other's actions which might occur at a time of crisis.
We have also been talking in Geneva about the other first-step measures of arms control designed to limit the intensity of the arms race and to reduce the risks of accidental war. Our primary long range interest in Geneva, however, is general and complete disarmament-- designed to take place by stages, permitting parallel political developments to build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms. The pursuit of disarmament has been an effort of this Government since the 1920's. It has been urgently sought by the past three administrations. And however dim the prospects may be today, we intend to continue this effort--to continue it in order that all countries, including our own, can better grasp what the problems and possibilities of disarmament are.
The one major area of these negotiations where the end is in sight, yet where a fresh start is badly needed, is in a treaty to outlaw nuclear tests. The conclusion of such a treaty, so near and yet so far, would check the spiraling arms race in one of its most dangerous areas. It would place the nuclear powers in a position to deal more effectively with one of the greatest hazards which man faces in 1963, the further spread of nuclear arms. It would increase our security--it would decrease the prospects of war. Surely this goal is sufficiently important to require our steady pursuit, yielding neither to the temptation to give up the whole effort nor the temptation to give up our insistence on vital and responsible safeguards.
I am taking this opportunity, therefore, to announce two important decisions in this regard.
First: Chairman Khrushchev, Prime Minister Macmillan, and I have agreed that high-level discussions will shortly begin in Moscow looking toward early agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty. Our hopes must be tempered with the caution of history--but with our hopes go the hopes of all mankind.
Second: To make clear our good faith and solemn convictions on the matter, I now declare that the United States does not propose to conduct nuclear tests in the atmosphere so long as other states do not do so. We will not be the first to resume. Such a declaration is no substitute for a formal binding treaty, but I hope it will help us achieve one. Nor would such a treaty be a substitute for disarmament, but I hope it will help us achieve it.
Finally, my fellow Americans, let us examine our attitude toward peace and freedom here at home. The quality and spirit of our own society must justify and support our efforts abroad. We must show it in the dedication of our own lives--as many of you who are graduating today will have a unique opportunity to do, by serving without pay in the Peace Corps abroad or in the proposed National Service Corps here at home.
But wherever we are, we must all, in our daily lives, live up to the age-old faith that peace and freedom walk together. In too many of our cities today, the peace is not secure because the freedom is incomplete.
It is the responsibility of the executive branch at all levels of government--local, State, and National--to provide and protect that freedom for all of our citizens by all means within their authority. It is the responsibility of the legislative branch at all levels, wherever that authority is not now adequate, to make it adequate. And it is the responsibility of all citizens in all sections of this country to respect the rights of all others and to respect the law of the land.
All this is not unrelated to world peace. "When a man's ways please the Lord," the Scriptures tell us, "he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him." And is not peace, in the last analysis, basically a matter of human rights--the right to live out our lives without fear of devastation--the right to breathe air as nature provided it--the right of future generations to a healthy existence?
While we proceed to safeguard our national interests, let us also safeguard human interests. And the elimination of war and arms is clearly in the interest of both. No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security against the risks of deception and evasion. But it can--if it is sufficiently effective in its enforcement and if it is sufficiently in the interests of its signers--offer far more security and far fewer risks than an unabated, uncontrolled, unpredictable arms race.
The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough--more than enough--of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we labor on--not toward a strategy of annihilation but toward a strategy of peace.

Example for letter of intent ina law enforcement careers

A community for the public to reach out to officers with questions

Key Takeaways

Overview of Pichai's Statements on OpenAI and YouTube

Concerns About OpenAI's YouTube Data Usage

Potential Copyright Violations

Publicly Available Data and Licensing Issues

Industry Reactions and Legal Implications

Google CEO Pichai, will ‘sort it out’, if OpenAI misused YouTube for AI training

Google's Terms of Service and Compliance Mechanisms

Clarity and Enforcement of Terms

Engagement with Companies on Compliance

Processes to Address Non-Compliance

Comparison Between Google and OpenAI's AI Capabilities

Google's AI Overview and Project Astra

OpenAI's GPT-4o and Voice Mode Features

Industry Impact: Google's and OpenAI's AI Innovations

Impacts on AI Development Landscape

Competitiveness in AI Solutions

Google's Strategic Partnerships and Ecosystem

Collaboration with Apple

Integration into iOS and Other Platforms