Full disclosure, I'm just a customer, I don't own a shipping company and no one paid me for this review. I am in Florida and I purchased a car in Washington a month ago. 2 weeks ago it was finally available for pick up so I contacted Montway as they provided the most reasonable price of all the companies I got estimates from, I was charged $230 upfront and $1270 cash on delivery. A carrier was dispatched 3 days after my order was placed, smooth up to now. My car was picked up 3 days after that by a carrier named "Fifth Wheel"; no heads up call, no tracking provided, and no updates on when exactly pickup would be taking place. I had to ask for an estimate time range because neither Montway nor Fifth Wheel provided this. My car was then delivered a full 7 days after pickup and this is where the major problems arose. I was given a heads up text the night before arrival that my car will be arriving the next day a short time after noon, but that it would be getting dropped off almost an hour away from the agreed upon drop off location at a Pilot Truck Stop. Now, the contract states that the driver WILL drop the car off at the CLOSEST commercially feasible location to your door. I was willing to concede that my residential area wasn't the most commercially feasible for a car drop off so I provided a location of my own, a Love's Truck Stop right on the same exact highway that the carrier suggested initially, just that it was 10 minutes away not 45. The trucker responded by passively aggressively sending me the same address he suggested previously. I called Montway to solve this issue and was told the driver can not come closer because he was claiming there are low trees, a blatant lie of course as the address provided has no trees around and the path to said address is a straight shot down a highway that has no trees. I told the Montway representative all of this and suggested that if I am to pick up an hour away from the agreed location, I will need a discount. His response was that my price was already low so a discount doesn't make sense. That genuinely blew my mind. The next day came and it was delivery day, I had to miss work due to the vague timing provided. I contacted the driver to confirm drop off location and time and I got no response. I called Montway and they once again told me the drop off was an hour away with no concrete time or discount. At this point I was furious at the unprofessional nature of the company and the representatives, at one point I spoke with one that actually agreed that the driver needs to come down to the address I provided and after a brief hold I was told the driver has refused to deliver at the location I requested and that Montway can't do anything about it. Excuse me? You're telling me you contracted this carrier to do a job that you promised me would be done one way and now you're completely powerless with how that job gets done? I was baffled. This all went on for hours upon hours with me citing the terms of service and them being worthless in swaying the driver. At one point the driver called me angrily, barely speaking English, suggesting he will not drop off my car anymore and will be leaving it in Orlando, 2 hours from my location. It was around 4pm by this time so I was exhausted, I hung up on him and called Montway explaining the situation. I was finally patched through to a supervisor and the supervisor told me they will take care of everything and give me a discount of $150. With this discount I accepted the adjusted drop off and waited for the car to come. It arrived at 8pm, much later than the "after noon" that was promised by the carrier. In the end, the job was done and it was an ultimately fair price. But the service is among the absolute worst I've ever had to deal with, if you don't want the headache, spend a couple hundred extra.
TLDR: Montway sucks and was completely powerless in controlling their carriers or forcing them to follow contract.

"Why Did Jesus Die on the Cross?"

The main reason Jesus died on the cross was to defeat Satan and set us free from his oppressive rule. Everything else that Jesus accomplished was to be understood as an aspect and consequence of this victory (e.g., Recapitulation, Moral Influence, etc.).
This understanding of why Jesus had to die is called the Christus Victor (Latin for “Christ is Victorious”) view of the atonement. But, what exactly was Christ victorious from, and why? To find out the answers to these questions, we have to turn to the Old Testament, as that's what the apostles would often allude to in order to properly teach their audience the message they were trying to convey (Rom. 15:4).
The OT is full of conflict between the Father (YHVH) and false gods, between YHVH and cosmic forces of chaos. The Psalms speak of this conflict between YHVH and water monsters of the deeps (an ancient image for chaos) (Psa. 29:3-4; 74:10-14; 77:16, 19; 89:9-10; 104:2-9, etc).
The liberation of Israel from Egypt wasn’t just a conflict between Pharaoh and Moses. It was really between YHVH and the false gods of Egypt.
Regardless of whether you think the aforementioned descriptions are literal or metaphorical, the reality that the Old Testament describes is that humanity lived in a “cosmic war zone.”
The Christus Victor motif is about Christ reigning victorious over wicked principalities and Satan's kingdom, and is strongly emphasized throughout the New Testament. Scripture declares that Jesus came to drive out "the prince of this world” (John 12:31), to “destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8), to “destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14) and to “put all enemies under his feet” (1 Cor 15:25). Jesus came to overpower the “strong man” (Satan) who held the world in bondage and worked with his Church to plunder his "palace" (Luke 11:21-22). He came to end the reign of the cosmic “thief” who seized the world to “steal, and to kill, and to destroy” the life YHVH intended for us (John 10:10). Jesus came and died on the cross to disarm “the principalities and powers” and make a “shew of them openly [i.e., public spectacle]” by “triumphing over them in [the cross]” (Col. 2:15).
Beyond these explicit statements, there are many other passages that express the Christus Victor motif as well. For example, the first prophecy in the Bible foretells that a descendent of Eve (Jesus) would crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). The first Christian sermon ever preached proclaimed that Jesus in principle conquered all YHVH's enemies (Acts 2:32-36). And the single most frequently quoted Old Testament passage by New Testament authors is Psalm 110:1 which predicts that Christ would conquer all YHVH’s opponents. (Psalm 110 is quoted or alluded to in Matthew 22:41-45; 26:64, Mark 12:35-37; 14:62, Luke 20:41-44; 22:69, Acts 5:31; 7:55-56, Romans 8:34, 1st Corinthians 15:22-25, Ephesians 1:20, Hebrews 1:3; 1:13; 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 15, 17, 21; 8:1; 10:12-13, 1st Peter 3:22, and Revelation 3:21.) According to New Testament scholar Oscar Cullman, the frequency with which New Testament authors cite this Psalm is the greatest proof that Christ’s “victory over the angel powers stands at the very center of early Christian thought.”
Because of man's rebellion, the Messiah's coming involved a rescue mission that included a strategy for vanquishing the powers of darkness.
Since YHVH is a God of love who gives genuine “say-so” to both angels and humans, YHVH rarely accomplishes His providential plans through coercion. YHVH relies on His infinite wisdom to achieve His goals. Nowhere is YHVH's wisdom put more on display than in the manner in which He outsmarted Satan and the powers of evil, using their own evil to bring about their defeat.
Most readers probably know the famous story from ancient Greece about the Trojan Horse. To recap the story, Troy and Greece had been locked in a ten-year-long vicious war when, according to Homer and Virgil, the Greeks came up with a brilliant idea. They built an enormous wooden horse, hid soldiers inside and offered it to the Trojans as a gift, claiming they were conceding defeat and going home. The delighted Trojans accepted the gift and proceeded to celebrate by drinking themselves into a drunken stupor. When night came and the Trojan warriors were too wasted to fight, the Greeks exited the horse, unlocked the city gates to quietly let all their compatriots in, and easily conquered the city, thus winning the war.
Historians debate whether any of this actually happened. But either way, as military strategies go, it’s brilliant.
Now, there are five clues in the New Testament that suggest YHVH was using something like this Trojan Horse strategy against the powers when he sent Jesus into the world:
1) The Bible tells us that YHVH's victory over the powers of darkness was achieved by the employment of YHVH’s wisdom, and was centered on that wisdom having become reality in Jesus Christ (Rom. 16:25, 1 Cor. 2:7, Eph. 3:9-10, Col. 1:26). It also tells us that, for some reason, this Christ-centered wisdom was kept “secret and hidden” throughout the ages. It’s clear from this that YHVH's strategy was to outsmart and surprise the powers by sending Jesus.
2) While humans don’t generally know Jesus’ true identity during his ministry, demons do. They recognize Jesus as the Son of God, the Messiah, but, interestingly enough, they have no idea what he’s doing (Mark 1:24; 3:11; 5:7, Luke 8:21). Again, the wisdom of YHVH in sending Jesus was hidden from them.
3) We’re told that, while humans certainly share in the responsibility for the crucifixion, Satan and the powers were working behind the scenes to bring it about (John 13:27 cf. 1 Cor. 2:6-8). These forces of evil helped orchestrate the crucifixion.
4) We’re taught that if the “princes of this world [age]” had understood the secret wisdom of YHVH, “they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor 2:8 cf. vss 6-7). Apparently, Satan and the powers regretted orchestrating Christ’s crucifixion once they learned of the wisdom of YHVH that was behind it.
5) Finally, we can begin to understand why the powers came to regret crucifying “the Lord of glory” when we read that it was by means of the crucifixion that the “handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us [i.e., the charge of our legal indebtedness]” was “[taken] out of the way [i.e., canceled]” as the powers were disarmed. In this way Christ “triumph[ed] over” the powers by "his cross” and even “made a shew of them openly” (Col. 2:14-15). Through Christ’s death and resurrection YHVH's enemies were vanquished and placed under his Messiah's feet, and ultimately His own in the end (1 Cor. 15:23-28).
Putting these five clues together, we can discern YHVH's Trojan Horse strategy in sending Jesus.
The powers couldn’t discern why Jesus came because YHVH's wisdom was hidden from them. YHVH's wisdom was motivated by unfathomable love, and since Satan and the other powers were evil, they lacked the capacity to understand it. Their evil hearts prevented them from suspecting what YHVH was up to.
What the powers did understand was that Jesus was mortal. This meant he was killable. Lacking the capacity to understand that this was the means by which YHVH would ultimately bring about the defeat of death (and thus, pave the road for the resurrection itself), they never suspected that making Jesus vulnerable to their evil might actually be part of YHVH's infinitely wise plan.
And so they took the bait (or "ransom"; Matt. 20:28, Mark 10:45, 1 Tim. 2:5-6). Utilizing Judas and other willing human agents, the powers played right into YHVH’s secret plan and orchestrated the crucifixion of the Messiah (Acts 2:22-23; 4:28). YHVH thus brilliantly used the self-inflicted incapacity of evil to understand love against itself. And, like light dispelling darkness, the unfathomably beautiful act of YHVH's love in sending the willing Messiah as a "ransom" to these blood-thirsty powers defeated them. The whole creation was in principle freed and reconciled to YHVH, while everything written against us humans was nailed to the cross, thus robbing the powers of the only legal claim they had on us. They were “spoiled [i.e., disempowered]” (Col. 2:14-15).
As happened to the Trojans in accepting the gift from the Greeks, in seizing on Christ’s vulnerability and orchestrating his crucifixion, the powers unwittingly cooperated with YHVH to unleash the one power in the world that dispels all evil and sets captives free. It’s the power of self-sacrificial love.

Why Penal Substitution Is Unbiblical

For the sake of keeping this already lengthy post as short as possible I'm not going to spend too much time on why exactly PSA (Penal Substitutionary Atonement) is inconsistent with Scripture, but I'll go ahead and point out the main reasons why I believe this is so, and let the reader look further into this subject by themselves, being that there are many resources out there which have devoted much more time than I ever could here in supporting this premise.

"Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:"-1 Corinthians 5:7

The Passover is one of the two most prominent images in the New Testament given as a comparison to Christ's atonement and what it accomplished, (the other most common image being the Day of Atonement sacrifice).
In the Passover, the blood of the lamb on the door posts of the Hebrews in the book of Exodus was meant to mark out those who were YHVH's, not be a symbol of PSA, as the lamb itself was not being punished by God in place of the Hebrews, but rather the kingdom of Egypt (and thus, allegorically speaking, the kingdom of darkness which opposed YHVH) was what was being judged and punished, because those who were not "covered" by the blood of the lamb could be easily identified as not part of God's kingdom/covenant and liberated people.
Looking at the Day of Atonement sacrifice (which, again, Christ's death is repeatedly compared to throughout the New Testament), this ritual required a ram, a bull, and two goats (Lev. 16:3-5). The ram was for a burnt offering intended to please God (Lev. 16:3-4). The bull served as a sin offering for Aaron, the high priest, and his family. In this case, the sin offering restored the priest to ritual purity, allowing him to occupy sacred space and be near YHVH’s presence. Two goats taken from "the congregation” were needed for the single sin offering for the people (Lev. 16:5). So why two goats?
The high priest would cast lots over the two goats, with one chosen as a sacrifice “for the Lord” (Lev. 16:8). The blood of that goat would purify the people. The second goat was not sacrificed or designated “for the Lord.” On the contrary, this goat—the one that symbolically carried the sins away from the camp of Israel into the wilderness—was “for Azazel” (Lev. 16:8-10).
What—or who—is Azazel?
The Hebrew term azazel (עזאזל) occurs four times in Leviticus 16 but nowhere else in most people's canon of the Bible, (and I say "most people's canon," because some people do include 1 Enoch in their canon of Scripture, which of course goes into great detail about this "Azazel" figure). Many translations prefer to translate the term as a phrase, “the goat that goes away,” which is the same idea conveyed in the King James Version’s “scapegoat.” Other translations treat the word as a name: Azazel. The “scapegoat” option is possible, but since the phrase “for Azazel” parallels the phrase “for YHVH” (“for the Lord”), the wording suggests that two divine figures are being contrasted by the two goats.
A strong case can be made for translating the term as the name Azazel. Ancient Jewish texts show that Azazel was understood as a demonic figure associated with the wilderness. The Mishnah (ca. AD 200; Yoma 6:6) records that the goat for Azazel was led to a cliff and pushed over, ensuring it would not return with its death. This association of the wilderness with evil is also evident in the New Testament, as this was where Jesus met the devil (Matt. 4:1). Also, in Leviticus 17:1-7 we learn that some Israelites had been accustomed to sacrificing offerings to "devils" (alternatively translated as “goat demons”). The Day of Atonement replaced this illegitimate practice.
The second goat was not sent into the wilderness as a sacrifice to a foreign god or demon. The act of sending the live goat out into the wilderness, which was unholy ground, was to send the sins of the people where they belonged—to the demonic domain. With one goat sacrificed to bring purification and access to YHVH and one goat sent to carry the people’s sins to the demonic domain, this annual ritual reinforced the identity of the true God and His mercy and holiness.
When Jesus died on the cross for all of humanity’s sins, he was crucified outside the city, paralleling the sins of the people being cast to the wilderness via the goat to Azazel. Jesus died once for all sinners, negating the need for this ritual.
As previously stated, the goat which had all the sin put on it was sent alive off to the wilderness, while the blood of the goat which was blameless was used to purify the temple and the people. Penal substitution would necessitate the killing of the goat which had the sin put on it.
Mind you, this is the only sacrificial ritual of any kind in the Torah in which sins are placed on an animal. The only time it happens is this, and that animal is not sacrificed. Most PSA proponents unwittingly point to this ritual as evidence of their view, despite it actually serving as evidence to the contrary, because most people don't read their Old Testament and don't familiarize themselves with the "boring parts" like Leviticus (when it's actually rather important to do so, since that book explains how exactly animal offerings were to be carried out and why they were done in the first place).
In the New Testament, Christ's blood was not only meant to mark out those who were his, but also expel the presence of sin and ritual uncleanness so as to make the presence of YHVH manifest in the believer's life. Notice how God's wrath isn't poured out on Christ in our stead on this view, but rather His wrath was poured out on those who weren't covered, and the presence of sin and evil were merely removed by that which is pure and blameless (Christ's blood) for the believer.
All this is the difference between expiation and propitiation.

The Content of Paul's Gospel Message

When the New Testament writers talked about “the gospel,” they referred not to the Protestant doctrine of justification sola fide–the proposition that if we will stop trying to win God’s favor and only just believe that God has exchanged our sin for Christ’s perfect righteousness, then in God’s eyes we will have the perfect righteousness required both for salvation and for assuaging our guilty consciences–but rather they referred to the simple but explosive proposition Kyrios Christos, “Christ is Lord.” That is to say, the gospel was, properly speaking, the royal announcement that Jesus of Nazareth was the God of Israel’s promised Messiah, the King of kings and Lord of lords.
The New Testament writers were not writing in a cultural or linguistic vacuum and their language of euangelion (good news) and euangelizomai would have been understood by their audience in fairly specific ways. Namely, in the Greco-Roman world for which the New Testament authors wrote, euangelion/euangelizomai language typically had to do with either A) the announcement of the accession of a ruler, or B) the announcement of a victory in battle, and would probably have been understood along those lines.
Let’s take the announcements of a new ruler first. The classic example of such a language is the Priene Calendar Inscription, dating to circa 9 BC, which celebrates the rule (and birthday) of Caesar Augustus as follows:
"It was seeming to the Greeks in Asia, in the opinion of the high priest Apollonius of Menophilus Azanitus: Since Providence, which has ordered all things of our life and is very much interested in our life, has ordered things in sending Augustus, whom she filled with virtue for the benefit of men, sending him as a savior [soter] both for us and for those after us, him who would end war and order all things, and since Caesar by his appearance [epiphanein] surpassed the hopes of all those who received the good tidings [euangelia], not only those who were benefactors before him, but even the hope among those who will be left afterward, and the birthday of the god [he genethlios tou theou] was for the world the beginning of the good tidings [euangelion] through him; and Asia resolved it in Smyrna."
The association of the term euangelion with the announcement of Augustus’ rule is clear enough and is typical of how this language is used elsewhere. To give another example, Josephus records that at the news of the accession of the new emperor Vespasian (69 AD) “every city kept festival for the good news (euangelia) and offered sacrifices on his behalf.” (The Jewish War, IV.618). Finally, a papyrus dating to ca. 498 AD begins:
"Since I have become aware of the good news (euangeliou) about the proclamation as Caesar (of Gaius Julius Verus Maximus Augustus)…"
This usage occurs also in the Septuagint, the Greek translations of the Jewish Scriptures. For instance LXX Isaiah 52:7 reads, “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news (euangelizomenou), who publishes peace, who brings good news (euangelizomenos) of salvation, who says to Zion, ‘Your God reigns.'" Similarly, LXX Isaiah 40:9-10 reads:

"…Go up on a high mountain, you who bring good tidings (ho euangelizomenos) to Sion; lift up your voice with strength, you who bring good tidings (ho euangelizomenos); lift it up, do not fear; say to the cities of Ioudas, “See your God!” Behold, the Lord comes with strength, and his arm with authority (kyrieias)…."-NETS, Esaias 40:9-10

This consistent close connection between euangelion/euangelizomai language and announcements of rule strongly suggests that many of the initial hearers/readers of the early Christians’ evangelical language would likely have understood that language as the announcement of a new ruler (see, e.g., Acts 17:7), and, unless there is strong NT evidence to the contrary, we should presume that the NT writers probably intended their language to be so understood.
However, the other main way in which euangelion/euangelizomai language was used in the Greco-Roman world was with reference to battle reports, announcements of victory in war. A classic example of this sort of usage can be found in LXX 2 Samuel 18:19ff, where David receives word that his traitorous son, Absalom, has been defeated in battle. Euangelion/euangelizomai is used throughout the passage for the communications from the front.
As already shown throughout this post, the NT speaks of Jesus’s death and resurrection as a great victory over the powers that existed at that time and, most importantly, over death itself. Jesus’ conquest of the principalities and powers was the establishment of his rule and comprehensive authority over heaven and earth, that is, of his Lordship over all things (again, at that time).
This was the content of Paul's gospel message...

Justification, and the "New" Perspective on Paul

The following quotation is from The Gospel Coalition, and I believe it to be a decently accurate summary of the NPP (New Perspective on Paul), despite it being from a source which is in opposition to it:

The New Perspective on Paul, a major scholarly shift that began in the 1980s, argues that the Jewish context of the New Testament has been wrongly understood and that this misunderstand[ing] has led to errors in the traditional-Protestant understanding of justification. According to the New Perspective, the Jewish systems of salvation were not based on works-righteousness but rather on covenantal nomism, the belief that one enters the people of God by grace and stays in through obedience to the covenant. This means that Paul could not have been referring to works-righteousness by his phrase “works of the law”; instead, he was referring to Jewish boundary markers that made clear who was or was not within the people of God. For the New Perspective, this is the issue that Paul opposes in the NT. Thus, justification takes on two aspects for the New Perspective rather than one; initial justification is by faith (grace) and recognizes covenant status (ecclesiology), while final justification is partially by works, albeit works produced by the Spirit.

I believe what's called the "new perspective" is actually rather old, and that the Reformers' view of Paul is what is truly new, being that the Lutheran understanding of Paul is simply not Biblical.
The Reformation perspective understands Paul to be arguing against a legalistic Jewish culture that seeks to earn their salvation through works. However, supporters of the NPP argue that Paul has been misread. We contend he was actually combating Jews who were boasting because they were God's people, the "elect" or the "chosen ones." Their "works," so to speak, were done to show they were God's covenant people and not to earn their salvation.
The key questions involve Paul’s view(s) of the law and the meaning of the controversy in which Paul was engaged. Paul strongly argued that we are “justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law” (Gal. 2:16b). Since the time of Martin Luther, this has been understood as an indictment of legalistic efforts to merit favor before God. Judaism was cast in the role of the medieval "church," and so Paul’s protests became very Lutheran, with traditional-Protestant theology reinforced in all its particulars (along with its limitations) as a result. In hermeneutical terms, then, the historical context of Paul’s debate will answer the questions we have about what exactly the apostle meant by the phrase "works of the law," along with other phrases often used as support by the Reformers for their doctrine of Sola Fide (justification by faith alone), like when Paul mentions "the righteousness of God."
Obviously an in-depth analysis of the Pauline corpus and its place in the context of first-century Judaism would take us far beyond the scope of this brief post. We can, however, quickly survey the topography of Paul’s thought in context, particularly as it has emerged through the efforts of recent scholarship, and note some salient points which may be used as the basis of a refurbished soteriology.
[Note: The more popular scholars associated with the NPP are E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright. Dunn was the first to coin the term "The New Perspective" in a 1983 Manson Memorial Lecture, The New Perspective on Paul and the Law.]
Varying authors since the early 1900's have brought up the charge that Paul was misread by those in the tradition of Martin Luther and other Protestant Reformers. Yet, it wasn't until E.P. Sanders' 1977 book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, that scholars began to pay much attention to the issue. In his book, Sanders argues that the Judaism of Paul's day has been wrongly criticized as a religion of "works-salvation" by those in the Protestant tradition.
A fundamental premise in the NPP is that Judaism was actually a religion of grace. Sander's puts it clearly:
"On the point at which many have found the decisive contrast between Paul and Judaism - grace and works - Paul is in agreement with Palestinian Judaism... Salvation is by grace but judgment is according to works'...God saves by grace, but... within the framework established by grace he rewards good deeds and punishes transgression." (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, p. 543)
N.T. Wright adds that, "we have misjudged early Judaism, especially Pharisaism, if we have thought of it as an early version of Pelagianism," (Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, p. 32).
Sanders has coined a now well-known phrase to describe the character of first-century Palestinian Judaism: “covenantal nomism.” The meaning of “covenantal nomism” is that human obedience is not construed as the means of entering into God’s covenant. That cannot be earned; inclusion within the covenant body is by the grace of God. Rather, obedience is the means of maintaining one’s status within the covenant. And with its emphasis on divine grace and forgiveness, Judaism was never a religion of legalism.
If covenantal nomism was operating as the primary category under which Jews understood the Law, then when Jews spoke of obeying commandments, or when they required strict obedience of themselves and fellow Jews, it was because they were "keeping the covenant," rather than out of legalism.
More recently, N.T. Wright has made a significant contribution in his little book, What Saint Paul Really Said. Wright’s focus is the gospel and the doctrine of justification. With incisive clarity he demonstrates that the core of Paul’s gospel was not justification by faith, but the death and resurrection of Christ and his exaltation as Lord. The proclamation of the gospel was the proclamation of Jesus as Lord, the Messiah who fulfilled Israel’s expectations. Romans 1:3-4, not 1:16-17, is the gospel, contrary to traditional thinking. Justification is not the center of Paul’s thought, but an outworking of it:
"[T]he doctrine of justification by faith is not what Paul means by ‘the gospel’. It is implied by the gospel; when the gospel is proclaimed, people come to faith and so are regarded by God as members of his people. But ‘the gospel’ is not an account of how people get saved. It is, as we saw in an earlier chapter, the proclamation of the lordship of Jesus Christ….Let us be quite clear. ‘The gospel’ is the announcement of Jesus’ lordship, which works with power to bring people into the family of Abraham, now redefined around Jesus Christ and characterized solely by faith in him. ‘Justification’ is the doctrine which insists that all those who have this faith belong as full members of this family, on this basis and no other." (pp. 132, 133)
Wright brings us to this point by showing what “justification” would have meant in Paul’s Jewish context, bound up as it was in law-court terminology, eschatology, and God’s faithfulness to God’s covenant.
Specifically, Wright explodes the myth that the pre-Christian Saul was a pious, proto-Pelagian moralist seeking to earn his individual passage into heaven. Wright capitalizes on Paul’s autobiographical confessions to paint rather a picture of a zealous Jewish nationalist whose driving concern was to cleanse Israel of Gentiles as well as Jews who had lax attitudes toward the Torah. Running the risk of anachronism, Wright points to a contemporary version of the pre-Christian Saul: Yigal Amir, the zealous Torah-loyal Jew who assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin for exchanging Israel’s land for peace. Wright writes:
"Jews like Saul of Tarsus were not interested in an abstract, ahistorical system of salvation... They were interested in the salvation which, they believed, the one true God had promised to his people Israel." (pp. 32, 33)
Wright maintains that as a Christian, Paul continued to challenge paganism by taking the moral high ground of the creational monotheist. The doctrine of justification was not what Paul preached to the Gentiles as the main thrust of his gospel message; it was rather “the thing his converts most needed to know in order to be assured that they really were part of God’s people” after they had responded to the gospel message.
Even while taking the gospel to the Gentiles, however, Paul continued to criticize Judaism “from within” even as he had as a zealous Pharisee. But whereas his mission before was to root out those with lax attitudes toward the Torah, now his mission was to demonstrate that God’s covenant faithfulness (righteousness) has already been revealed in Jesus Christ.
At this point Wright carefully documents Paul’s use of the controversial phrase “God’s righteousness” and draws out the implications of his meaning against the background of a Jewish concept of justification. The righteousness of God and the righteousness of the party who is “justified” cannot be confused because the term bears different connotations for the judge than for the plaintiff or defendant. The judge is “righteous” if his or her judgment is fair and impartial; the plaintiff or defendant is “righteous” if the judge rules in his or her favor. Hence:
"If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatsoever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom. For the judge to be righteous does not mean that the court has found in his favor. For the plaintiff or defendant to be righteous does not mean that he or she has tried the case properly or impartially. To imagine the defendant somehow receiving the judge’s righteousness is simply a category mistake. That is not how the language works." (p. 98)
However, Wright makes the important observation that even with the forensic metaphor, Paul’s theology is not so much about the courtroom as it is about God’s love.
Righteousness is not an impersonal, abstract standard, a measuring-stick or a balancing scale. That was, and still is, a Greek view. Righteousness, Biblically speaking, grows out of covenant relationship. We forgive because we have been forgiven (Matt. 18:21-35); “we love" because God “first loved us” (1 John 4:19). Love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:8, 10, Gal 5:14, Jam. 2:8). Paul even looked forward to a day when “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10), and he acknowledged that his clear conscience did not necessarily ensure this verdict (1 Cor. 4:4), but he was confident nevertheless. Paul did in fact testify of his clear conscience: “For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation [i.e., behavior] in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward” (2 Cor. 1:12). He was aware that he had not yet “attained” (Phil. 3:12-14), that he still struggled with the flesh, yet he was confident of the value of his performance (1 Cor. 9:27). These are hardly the convictions of someone who intends to rest entirely on the merits of an alien righteousness imputed to his or her account.
Wright went on to flesh out the doctrine of justification in Galatians, Philippians, and Romans. The “works of the law” are not proto-Pelagian efforts to earn salvation, but rather “sabbath [keeping], food-laws, circumcision” (p. 132). Considering the controversy in Galatia, Wright writes:
"Despite a long tradition to the contrary, the problem Paul addresses in Galatians is not the question of how precisely someone becomes a Christian, or attains to a relationship with God….The problem he addresses is: should his ex-pagan converts be circumcised or not? Now this question is by no means obviously to do with the questions faced by Augustine and Pelagius, or by Luther and Erasmus. On anyone’s reading, but especially within its first-century context, it has to do quite obviously with the question of how you define the people of God: are they to be defined by the badges of Jewish race, or in some other way? Circumcision is not a ‘moral’ issue; it does not have to do with moral effort, or earning salvation by good deeds. Nor can we simply treat it as a religious ritual, then designate all religious ritual as crypto-Pelagian good works, and so smuggle Pelagius into Galatia as the arch-opponent after all. First-century thought, both Jewish and Christian, simply doesn’t work like that…. [T]he polemic against the Torah in Galatians simply will not work if we ‘translate’ it into polemic either against straightforward self-help moralism or against the more subtle snare of ‘legalism’, as some have suggested. The passages about the law only work — and by ‘work’ I mean they will only make full sense in their contexts, which is what counts in the last analysis — when we take them as references to the Jewish law, the Torah, seen as the national charter of the Jewish race." (pp. 120-122)
The debate about justification, then, “wasn’t so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church.” (p. 119)
To summarize the theology of Paul in his epistles, the apostle mainly spent time arguing to those whom he were sending letters that salvation in Christ was available to all men without distinction. Jews and Gentiles alike may accept the free gift; it was not limited to any one group. Paul was vehement about this, especially in his letter to the Romans. As such, I will finish this post off by summarizing the letter itself, so as to provide Biblical support for the premises of the NPP and for what the scholars I referenced have thus far argued.
After his introduction in the epistle to an already believing and mostly Gentile audience (who would've already been familiar with the gospel proclaimed in verses 3-4), Paul makes a thematic statement in 1:16: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” This statement is just one of many key statements littered throughout the book of Romans that give us proper understanding of the point Paul wished to make to the interlocutors of his day, namely, salvation is available to all, whether Jew or Gentile.
In 1:16 Paul sets out a basic theme of his message in the letter to the Romans. All who believed, whether they be Jew or Gentile, were saved by the power of the gospel. The universal nature of salvation was explicitly stated. The gospel saved all without distinction, whether Jew or Greek; salvation was through the gospel of Jesus Christ. Immediately after this thematic declaration, Paul undertakes to show the universal nature of sin and guilt. In 1:18-32 Paul shows how the Gentile is guilty before God. Despite evidence of God and his attributes, which is readily available to all, they have failed to honor YHVH as God and have exchanged His glory for idolatrous worship and self-promotion. As a consequence, God handed them over in judgment (1:18-32). Paul moves to denunciation of those who would judge others while themselves being guilty of the very same offenses (2:1-5) and argues that all will be judged according to their deeds (2:6). This judgment applies to all, namely, Jew and Greek (2:9-10). This section serves as somewhat of a transition in Paul’s argument. He has highlighted the guilt of the Gentiles (1:18ff) and will shortly outline the guilt of the Jew (2:17-24). The universal statement of 2:1-11 sets the stage for Paul’s rebuke of Jewish presumption. It was not possession of the Law which delivered; it was faithful obedience. It is better to have no Law and yet to obey the essence of the Law (2:12-16) than to have the Law and not obey (2:17-3:4). Paul then defends the justice of God’s judgment (3:5-8), which leads to the conclusion that all (Jew and Gentile) are guilty before God (3:9).
Paul argues that it was a mistaken notion to think that salvation was the prerogative of the Jew only. This presumption is wrong for two reasons. First, it leads to the mistaken assumption that only Jews were eligible for this vindication (Paul deals with this misunderstanding in chapter 4 where he demonstrates that Abraham was justified by faith independently of the Law and is therefore the father of all who believe, Jew and Gentile alike). Second, it leads to the equally mistaken conclusion that all who were Jews are guaranteed of vindication. Paul demonstrates how this perspective, which would call God’s integrity into question since Paul was assuming many Jews would not experience this vindication, was misguided. He did this by demonstrating that it was never the case that all physical descendants of Israel (Jacob) were likewise recipients of the promise. In the past (9:6-33) as in the present (at that time; 11:1-10), only a remnant was preserved and only a remnant would experience vindication. Paul also argued that the unbelief of national Israel (the non-remnant) had the purpose of extending the compass of salvation. The unbelief of one group made the universal scope of the gospel possible. This universalism was itself intended to bring about the vindication of the unbelieving group (11:11-16). As a result of faith, all (Jew and Gentile) could be branches of the olive tree (11:17-24). Since faith in Christ was necessary to remain grafted into the tree, no one could boast of his position. All, Jew and Gentile alike, were dependent upon the mercy and grace of God. As a result of God’s mysterious plan, He would bring about the vindication of His people (11:25-27). [Note: It is this author's belief that this vindication occurred around 66-70 AD, with the Parousia of Christ's Church; this author is Full-Preterist in their Eschatology.]

I never thought I would ever enter one of these "Entitled" subreddits with a story of my own before, but apparently, the fates have decreed otherwise, for last week, I too, was blessed to be in the presence of a Karen. An EB. A whackjob. Whatever you want to call her.
The lady in question is someone whom I shall refer to, going forward, as "Hyacinth", mostly because she acts a LOT like Hyacinth Bucket from the Britcom "Keeping up Appearances". For those familiar with the TV show, why she has earned this moniker will soon become painfully obvious.
To continue...
I met Hyacinth about a year ago. Some friends and I were setting up a public exhibition, and I had volunteered to be one of the tour-guides, to explain said-exhibition to potential museum visitors, and guide them through the photographs, antiques, and other things that made up our display. One day, a friend texted me if I was free that Friday to meet-and-greet a group of people who were coming to see the exhibit. I said "yes".
Among this group was Hyacinth.
I did not at the time have any inkling of how bad this would get.
Fast forward about six months, then.
In the short time I've known her, a few things have become painfully obvious about Hyacinth - she loves - LOVES - LOOOVES (did I say 'loves'?) to talk about her family, her relatives, who she's related to, how she's related to them, why, what they do, how much they earn, how much they're worth, who else she knows, who her friends are, what they do, how much they earn, and how much they're worth. The words "Millionaire" and "Billionaire" pop up so often, you'd think you were reading the Forbes List. And she would talk about them for AGES - what should be a five-minute phone-call would turn into a 30 minute lecture about how well-connected she is.
For the most part, she was generally civil. She invited me out to meals with her friends, she asked me to tell them about myself...always, again, for some reason, with heavy emphasis on family history and connections and occupations and jobs and stuff. By now I had accepted that she was just weird, and eccentric and whatever. Takes all types, as they say, and I assumed that was it.
Something to know about the two of us is that we're both members of a local club. This club is a cultural club, dedicated to the promotion and preservation of our shared ethnic heritage. There's the main club, and then there's the smaller youth-group within the main club. Said youth-group is run by a friend, and we have a FB group. In this group we share videos, recipes, photos of food, family, friends, events we went to, or hosted, or participated in, and occasionally, historical stuff related to our culture - photographs, antiques, family heirlooms, and such-like.
The reason for this post is because of what happened about a week ago - in this group.
I had written a FB post about similar such organisations as our club, and a bit about their history, how they had formed, why, and where at. For visual interest, I'd added a photograph into the post, which was of the first-ever such club, at its formation, which was WELL OVER 100 years ago (our club doesn't go back that far!!).
I posted it in one group on FB and then shared it into the youth-group's FB group as well, and just...left it.
In a matter of a couple of hours, Hyacinth was attacking me on FB.
Which members of this photograph are my ancestors? Which ones are my relatives? Which ones are my family?? I told her none of them are - it's a historical photo in the public domain, it was relevant to what I was writing, it was relevant to our group, I shared it. End of story.
No, not good enough.
She immediately demanded to know by what right I shared this photograph, whether I'd asked anybody's permission, and why I hadn't contacted the descendants of the people in the photograph - which is WELL OVER 100 years old - 120+, to give you an idea.
I told her I had no idea how to do that, even if I had the names. She got furious and demanded I contact these people (how??) and ask their permission, or she would, and get me sued. She was also FURIOUS that I dared to share the photo in another group, which wasn't about our club, or culture, or heritage - and that I have NO RIGHT to do so!!
I'm like - that's my damn FB group - you don't have any right to tell me what I can or can't share in my own group. You don't get to dictate to me how I use my social media account.
But no, not good enough. She went on a diatribe that lasted two days, and a messenger diatribe that lasted at least two hours. Now she's threatening to send emails and screenshots and whatever, because I dared to share a public domain photograph, to some people who she says are SUPER RICH and SUPER INFLUENTIAL and SHE KNOWS THEM and THEY'LL SUE ME!!
Anyway, I reported her to our group-admin, who is my friend, who reported her to the club committee, citing harassment of a member as the reason.
The committee is currently in conference about this (and other incidents) surrounding Hyacinth - to decide what to do with her, finally, at long-last. According to my friend, Hyacinth has made loads of enemies, has done nothing but complain, has made outrageous suggestions to the club, and has attacked at least 2 or 3 other members - my incident is just the most recent one IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS!!
I'm waiting on my friend to provide an update about this, and if necessary, for me to provide evidence of the encounter.
My friend was shocked that this happened - and frankly, so was I - that Hyacinth was this aggressive about something which is REALLY a non-issue. We both agreed that any friendship that existed between us and her, was now fully, and completely dissolved.
Hyacinth is not going to like that - as I said - she's all about bragging and connections and who she knows and how famous they are...she's not going to like this at all. Especially if they kick her out of the club.

Why being transgender is not a sin, by MARK WINGFIELD NOVEMBER 9, 2018

Link to original post: https://baptistnews.com/article/why-being-transgender-is-not-a-sin/#.YYk6tE7MK72
I recently met a lovely young family in the northern suburbs of Dallas. They told me they previously attended a large Baptist church there – until their high school son became their daughter.
The mother was committed to her volunteer work in the church, and when she told the pastor who supervised that ministry area that her child was transgender, the pastor said: “That’s fine. We love everybody here. But it’s still a sin.”
“Blah, blah, blah, but….” Whatever comes after the “but” always negates whatever nice things were said in the first part of the sentence. Beware of the “but.”
Some would look kindly on the suburban pastor’s response because, after all, the pastor didn’t kick the family out of the church or condemn the teenager straight to hell. But.
Even among Christians who appear kind or progressive, too often the existence of someone who identifies as transgender gets chalked up to “sin.” No doubt that’s the root reason so many Christians happily pile on against transgender persons and their family members about bathrooms and schools, because in their heart of hearts, they don’t understand transgender identity and simply default to thinking it is a sinful lifestyle choice.

I think we all can agree that a “sin” is something we do that we shouldn’t do, something we have a choice about. If I eat an entire half-gallon of ice cream, I am likely guilty of the sin of gluttony. I didn’t have to eat the ice cream. If I fixate on why other people are more athletic and agile than me in my mid-life body, I probably am guilty of the sin of envy. There is a way for me to redirect my thoughts to avoid envy.
The same is not true of transgender identity. Emphatically and conclusively, this is not a choice. It is who a person is. Did you choose to have red hair? Did you choose to be tall or short? Did you choose to have the genetic markers you have? Of course not. Transgender persons are simply acknowledging that the gender identity assigned to them at birth because of physical anatomy does not match the brain, biochemical and genetic gender identity they know inside.
Since writing a column two years ago about understanding transgender identity – an opinion article that has been read more than 1 million times and led to giving a TED Talk on the same subject – I have conversed with hundreds of transgender persons and family members of transgender persons. That’s not just ministerially speaking. It really has been hundreds. Every one of those transgender persons has told me that they knew from their earliest awareness – from the time they were 4, 5 or 6 years old – that the gender anatomy they showed on the outside did not match who they knew they were on the inside.
There is an increasing body of scientific evidence to back up this assertion. For example, a 2008 study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that female fetuses with increased prenatal exposure to androgens are more likely to have gender nonconforming behaviors. Researchers – including some theologically conservative ones – point to environmental factors that may be responsible for what appears to be an increase in transgender identity through endocrine disruption beginning in the 20th century. This is linked to industrialization, development of new chemicals and medicines.
But these environmental factors only explain an increase, not the presence of transgender identity, which has been documented for centuries. The American Academy of Pediatrics (not to be confused with a small association of conservative pediatricians often cited by critics of transgender rights) recently released a new policy statement explaining that variation in gender identity is a normal part of human diversity. For an excellent, lay-friendly description of the emerging science of transgender identity, look to this report from Harvard University.

I could quote chapter and verse for study after study, and that would not change the minds of some people who are determined to label as sinful anything they do not understand, usually because “the Bible says so.” In these cases, I ask people to tell me where in the Bible being transgender is condemned as sinful. The only answer usually offered is Deuteronomy 22:5, which says: “A woman shall not wear a man’s apparel, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does such things is abhorrent to the Lord your God.”
Here’s the problem with even a literal reading of that passage: Transgender persons will tell you they are not “men” putting on “women’s” clothing or “women” putting on “men’s” clothing. Instead, they are declaring an identity much deeper than clothing; they are saying that they are dressing outwardly to match who they know they are on the inside. This is not cross-dressing, which is not the subject of this column. Cross-dressing is about finding pleasure in wearing certain clothes. Being transgender is about finding mental and spiritual peace by aligning outward presentation with inner being.
Occasionally, people will point to Genesis 1:27 as a condemnation of transgender identity: “male and female he created them.” Most transgender persons will tell you they believe God has, in fact, created them as either male or female; the problem is how they have been labeled by others who are not God.
Some people today identify as “gender fluid,” meaning they find in themselves bits of both male and female identity and cannot definitely say they are one or the other. While this may sound unsettling to some of us on first hearing, a return to Genesis might help. There we also learn that God created both “night” and “day” and that God separated “land” from “sea.” Yet we have no problem understanding the existence of dawn and dusk or marshes and everglades. Also, the point of Genesis 1 is inclusion, not exclusion. The ancient text tells us that God created everything: “and,” not “or.”
The other lesson we need to keep learning from Genesis is that all humanity is created “in the image of God.” Everybody. Without exception. When we look at others who are different than us and try to see in them the image of God, we gain new understanding and empathy.
Sometimes well-meaning Christians get this part but still can’t get over the “sin” label. So they will say things like, “All of us are sinners in God’s eyes, and it’s just that my sin is different than your sin.” That’s another way of saying, “I love you, but….”
There’s an easy way to remember why this is wrong: Transgender identity is about who a person is. It is about their fundamental being as humans created by God in God’s image – an image that God has declared to be good.

Context: my husband (36m) and I (41m) are from Virginia. We are living and working in AZ and are on a 2 week trip home. Both my parents and his parents are also here in VA. We all live in the same area, but husband and I, as well as his parents are currently employed in AZ. The town he and his parents are from in VA is about 45 minutes from the town my parents and I are from - same area, neighboring towns. So we are essentially on a 2 week vacation to be home and visit family and friends. With our jobs, we only get two trips a year to come home. Next one will be Christmas.
A good friend from AZ decided to spend a week with us because she had never been to East Coast and we invited her - a very close friend to my husband and I for the past 3 years. After spending several days with the MIL, our friend (she is a dear friend to my husband and me both) has decided she REALLY does not like my MIL. She explained it yesterday as my MIL constantly making comments about what she was wearing, what she was eating, her makeup, repetitively suggesting sunscreen while in the sun (only because my MIL recently had a scare with basal cell carcinoma) and actually got tearful talking about it to me. There were multiple other comments she cited, that to me seems rather trivial. My MIL can be borderline annoying. She tends to tell the same stories and repeat herself many, many times. And she's pretty forward with her suggestions on many things. After 16 years, I just ignore it - not that it ever really bothered me in the first place. It's just her personality. She is a chatty lady, never rude or condescending, but she certainly loves to talk a lot. But on the other hand, I can see how it would really irritate others. The 10th time she's told you about how they cut the basal cell carcinoma off her leg and how she's keeping her skin covered and sunscreen on to prevent sun exposure - yeah, it doesn't even phase me at all, but apparently it's like nails on a chalkboard to some. I honestly thought it was just minor annoyances adding up until my friend explained yesterday that it made her feel like my MIL was calling her out for being brown (we are all white and our friend is Navajo). To be clear, my husband, in-laws and I all live and work on the Navajo reservation and have for many years. I do not think my MIL did or ever would say anything racially charged because I don't think she has those thoughts - none of us think like that at all. Regardless of what I think or know, this is how my friend interpreted it. For reference, she and I are staying with my parents, who are a whole different speed and she loves them and spending time here.
Today, we had to take my husband to his parents and plans were known that our friend and I were going out to get pedicures. My MIL loves pedicures and more than that, just loves being around people. My FIL and husband were doing a lot of farm work today, essentially leaving my MIL to be at home all day alone.
When we got there, my MIL was dressed, hair done and ready to go with us. Our friend had said enough that I knew this was not a situation I could diffuse. Nor do I think it is my place to intervene. Our friend never said anything to my MIL about how badly her comments bothered her because she doesn't want to make an issue of it. She just does not want to be around her.
I feel so caught in the middle, dancing the fence and feel like I was forced to choose a side by ditching my MIL - a position I despise being in. I just told my MIL that we were going bar-hopping after pedicure, which was a lie but she is a 100% non-drinker and I knew she wouldn't go if she thought that is what we were doing. It worked and she didn't go.
If it were me, by myself, I would never in a million years have just left her sitting by herself if I knew she wanted to go somewhere with me. The guilt today has been unbearable and I've been a bit tearful over the whole thing. Fighting back the tears in public is embarrassing AF, y'all. I love my in-laws dearly and would bend over backwards for them any day of the week. I've gotten multiple texts from my husband about how sad my MIL has been today because we left her there alone. He took her out for lunch after we ditched her and she told him that we saw her as a 3rd wheel and it made her sad and honestly, my MIL is NOT the "sad type". I've never saw her sad in the 16 years I've been around her, other than after her mother died. I.e., for her, sad isn't even in her vocabulary. I can't and won't tell my husband that our friend is the reason I didn't take my MIL out today because I'm afraid that would turn the whole situation nuclear and cause more friction and volatility amongst everyone and I also don't feel like it's my place to speak on our friend's behalf. I also don't want to cram two women in a car, one of whom can't stand the other one and not knowing if my MIL would make more comments to my friend that would make her uncomfortable. I could see how upset my MIL was in her face before we left. I immediately told our friend how horrifically guilty and terrible I felt for leaving her alone before we pulled out of the driveway because I knew how much she was looking forward to getting out of the house with us today and how much getting ditched by us would hurt her. I was really hoping our friend would backstep and agree to my MIL going with us. She just told me "thank you for not inviting her, I don't think I could handle it anymore". To beat it all, my husband is staying with his parents because there's a lot of upkeep needing to be done at their place and I really kinda miss my husband a lot, but seeing him would require our friend to be around my MIL and that won't fly. My husband also feels like I don't want to be around him and his family, now. However, we are the ones who invited our friend here and I certainly wouldn't feel right about ditching our friend to go see my husband either. I generally try to be very conscientious about others and go out of my way to ensure everyone is comfortable, happy and having a good time. But this entire situation is completely untenable.
I drop the friend off at the airport on Weds to fly back to AZ, the husband and in-laws leave to drive back to AZ on Thurs (I'm following a few days after) so this whole horrible mess will be over with then. I loath and hate this entire situation. I feel angry with our friend for putting me in this situation, but also was never present when my MIL made whatever comments she made. Or perhaps I was present and literally nobody paid attention because we all know my MIL and sometimes we just let her talking go in one ear and out the other. I feel like and I want to say our friend is over exaggerating, but I can't because I didn't hear or do not remember what my MIL said to our friend. And especially if she feels like she is being attacked based on her race or culture. I'm not touching that with someone else's 10-foot pole. I'm again going to reiterate how horrible and what a shitty human being I feel like for ditching my MIL today, knowing how badly it would hurt her feelings and how badly I hated doing it. Also reiterating that neither my MIL, nor any of us are racist and our friend is the same race and culture as the people we've been working with, working for and living amongst for the better part of 5 years now. If someone had ever told me they thought my MIL was racist, well...I don't know what I would do, but I can guarantee I wouldn't have felt guilty about leaving her today. Plus, I've spent enough time around her that I'm pretty sure I'd know if she were racist by now. I just have one more day to dance this dance and I can deal with the fallout later when everyone has more distance between them. I have no idea if I'm actually going to tell my husband and MIL all of this later, but saying anything now with emotions raw seems like a treacherous and flammable experiment. I'll just take the blame and play middle-man for now.
AITAH for ditching my MIL?

The issue of aligning Theon, Asha, and Jon in time is deceptively hard, believe it or not (har!).
However, I believe I've identified enough reliable sync points to propose an alternative timeline from the unofficial timeline we all know and love. TL;DR: yes, this is a Pink Letter theory. I'm not even going to attempt to offer an alternative culprit, I just think I can disprove a few things. IN SHORT: I believe Jon dies 4 weeks before Tycho Nestoris even reaches Stannis.)
I'm open to counterarguments or being proven wrong. (EDITED to provide more searchable quotes)
Just for fun: Reek II, Wayward Bride, Jon VI, Davos IV.
For a start, let’s point out that Jon VI and Wayward Bride happen somewhere around the same time, likely somewhere in the vicinity of ~2 weeks following Reek II. We know this because Jon and Asha receive very similar wedding invitations from Ramsay that also describe the fall of Moat Cailin, and because Wayward Bride occurs on a full moon and Jon VI has a scene in bright moonlight. Sometime soon after, we get Davos VI: in the 18 days since Davos’ imprisonment, Wyman’s gotten the same wedding invitation that Asha and Jon have, and it’s also been long enough that it’s also past Wayward Bride, dated by Stannis sending a raven about taking Deepwood Motte. This lines up Moat Cailin fell during a "sickle moon," which places it ~2 weeks before the full moon in Wayward Bride, so these events happen ~2 weeks from each other. It makes sense (though is remarkable!) that Davos happens to be in prison during said events. This is just for fun, though.
What’s important is the next sync point:

The intuitive version—where George is giving us helpful hints

Jon VII, The Prince of Winterfell, and The King’s Prize.
In The King’s Prize, Stannis’ host sets out from Deepwood Motte. In Jon VII, during a new moon, Jon receives a letter informing him of this plan ("we march against him")—I believe we can sync these events as occurring roughly contemporary to one another, with Jon VII happening a few days later. For ease later on, let's say Jon VII happens ~0.5 weeks after Asha departs Deepwood.
Very shortly after that is Prince of Winterfell and Jeyne’s marriage: during this chapter, Roose receives word that Stannis has left Deepwood Motte. Allowing for just a bit more wiggle room for Arnolf to have received a similar update as Jon did, and then forwarding that information to ahead to Roose, we can place Prince of Winterfell fairly soon after Jon VII, itself after The King’s Prize begins.
Theon in Winterfell
Thanks to Asha keeping track, we know that Theon ends up at the Crofter's Village no sooner than 53 days from the time they left Deepwood Motte. (Asha notes that "On the thirty-second day" grain ran out, at least two more days pass—the day "Lord Peasebury turned against the northmen" and "The next day the king's scouts chanced upon an abandoned crofters' village" then "they had been three days from winterfell for nineteen days") (It's possible but not necessary to insert more days between 32 and the Peasebury day, and we're trying to keep this march as short as possible)
Therefore, the entirety of Theon’s Winterfell arc occurs during this time, since PoW starts right after the announcement that Stannis has begun to march and Theon I occurs ~3 days before The Sacrifice. We can actually reasonably sync these chapters, but for the most part we don’t really have to. Ghost of Winterfell begins four days prior to Theon I, so that only needs to align with Tycho's arrival.
The one interesting thing to note is the snow in The Turncloak. In The Turncloak, snow begins to fall heavily ("by nightfall snow was coming down so heavily"), and the snowstorm begins. However, also in this chapter, two scouts return to inform Roose that Stannis’ host has begun to break apart in the snow and had "slowed to a crawl". Comparing that to Asha's updates, this is at the earliest ~1 week into the march by Asha’s count, or anytime afterward ("fourth day of the march... snow began to fall" + "third day of snow, the king's host had begun to come apart"). For Asha, it's already been snowing a few days. Accounting for additional travel time back to Winterfell from wherever Stannis is, and considering that this report comes just as Winterfell is getting snow, that means Stannis’ host got the snowstorm several days before it hit Winterfell, maybe even a week earlier.
Almost like the snowstorm is following Stannis there. ;)
Asha's Days
As for Asha and Jon’s storyline—where it actually matters here—it appears remarkably easy to compare time:
I believe Asha counting the days must be an exercise with narrative importance, and it's incredibly useful: we can pin nearly to the day how much time elapsed from the beginning of Stannis’ march from Deepwood Motte until their arrival at the Crofter’s Village (no less than 34 days (cited above) and then add another 19 days at the Crofter’s Village in advance of Tycho’s arrival.
Together, the time from the beginning of The King’s Prize to the end of The Sacrifice is, at minimum, 53 days. (or, in reference to Tycho’s arrival: Stannis departs Deepwood at T -53).
TWOW Theon appears to occur just before dawn the next day, and since The Battle at the Crofter’s Village appears to begin immediately after TWOW Theon ends, we’ll say that the Battle, therefore, is 54 days following Stannis’ departure, or 7 weeks and 5 days.
Jon's Moons
Meanwhile, every subsequent Jon chapter gives us either a moon phase or an account of days past:
Jon VII occurs during a new moon ("They had no moon to guide them home, and only now and then a patch of stars.") The weather is notably clear, clear enough that it's a plot element: this is the reason for heading to the weirwood grove now. When Jon returns he get the news of Stannis’ departure from Deepwood.
(As an aside, it’s been storming the last seven days, so the latest Mance could have left is a week prior, though obviously since we’re syncing this with Prince of Winterfell, Mance likely left earlier than that)
Jon VIII occurs just before the half moon, about a week later. A moon "but half-full," to quote the text exactly. This is when Val departs to find Tormund. She says: I’ll be back on the "first night of the full moon." No one ever says she’s late, and Jon never worries about her being gone too long, so we can assume this is true—Val returns on the first night of the full moon, with Tormund, in Jon X.
Therefore, Jon IX has to happen somewhere between Jon VIII and Jon X, which gives us just over a week’s period to occur. If we’re being generous, we can say this occurred only a few days after Jon VIII, around the actual half moon.
In Jon IX, Selyse arrives and declares she intends to stay “no more than a few days,” and while this prediction is not a trustworthy source, it might give us some kind of ballpark. Jon notes the weather is clear in the morning and calls it a “respite” and thinks the snows have "moved off to the south" (to Stannis?) but by the evening, the snow is "coming down more heavily". The next day, Tycho appears to be gone, and Alys arrives.
So: Tycho appears to leave just over 1 week after Jon VII, when Jon received word that Stannis planned to march on Winterfell. This way, it makes intuitive sense that Jon sent Tycho to Deepwood Motte—barely any time has passed. It seems entirely possible that Stannis had yet to leave, or at least that Tycho could catch up with him on the march. So far, this feels entirely believable and logical.
In Jon X, Alys weds. Flint and Norrey have "hied" (hurried) to Castle Black for the Wedding, which is possible if we've said that Jon IX was ~1 week ago. The snow is still falling "heavily". Jon receives a letter confirming that eleven ships have left Eastwatch for Hardhome (likely a few days prior). Val arrives that night—our full moon, we presume.
Jon XI begins the next morning. ("that day" until "finally, as the shadows of the afternoon grew long"). There is no place to fit any time in between here and Jon IX, because this chapter includes Jon showing Val her new quarters ("I've had the top floor made ready for you"). In Jon XI, Jon notes that the snow has finally stopped after two weeks ("a fortnight"). The last time we know the weather was clear for more than a few hours (so clear it was a plot point!) was Jon VII, when Jon went to the weirwood grove. By our count of the moon, Jon VII was two weeks ago, so this lines up exactly.
Tycho
So we've said Tycho leaves in Jon IX, which is just over a week since Jon VII. If, at an estimate, we're saying Jon VII probably occurred about a half a week after Stannis actually left, Tycho departed Castle Black a week into Stannis' march. Again—he could catch up here, that makes sense.
Meanwhile, thanks to Asha, we know Tycho makes it to Stannis’ camp 7.5 weeks after their departure. If we are roughly syncing the start of The King’s Prize half a week before Jon VII, and seeing Tycho set out from Castle Black only a week later, then Tycho takes ~6 weeks to reach Stannis, and he’s not a teleporting banker at all. That’s plenty of time to reach Deepwood Motte, negotiate the exchange of hostages, travel to Winterfell in the storm, grab Theon, and then make it back to Stannis’ camp.
Jon X—Jon XIII
However, we now run into the problem of how much time has passed since Tycho left.
We said that Jon X and Jon XI (the next day) occur ~1 week after Tycho departs.
After that, Jon XII occurs exactly three days following Jon XI—there’s no space to add any extra time here. We can safely place Jon XII ~1.5 weeks following Tycho’s departure.
Jon XIII is the only remaining Jon chapter without a moon phase or a clear date. However, there are a number of events that relate to earlier events: Jon XIII begins with Jon and Selyse discussing Hardhome, seemingly for the first time, following the word of the disaster in Jon XII. Up to you how long you think Jon would have waited to discuss this—I don't think very long.
Additionally, back in Jon XII, Jon says Tormund will take men to Oakenshield in “within a day or two.” In Jon XIII, Toregg returns in the morning to announce that Tormund has settled his people at Oakenshield and is returning with 80 men in the afternoon. Tormund arrives that afternoon, bringing 50.
Soon after, the Bastard Letter arrives.
Personally, I think it’s most likely that Jon XIII occurs only a few days following Jon XII. If I’m feeling generous, I’d say we can put Jon XIII ~1 week following Jon XII, and being generous we’ll say that Jon dies ~2.5 weeks after Tycho departs Castle Black. That is, therefore, 3.5 weeks after Jon first heard word that Stannis was leaving Deepwood Motte, and (we're guessing) ~4 weeks after Stannis actually left.
By this count, Jon's dead, and Tycho Nestoris still won’t arrive at the Crofter’s Village for another ~3.5 weeks.
Next, I'm going to propose (and acknowledge) the ways that other versions of this timeline will fix this problem, though I don't like them exactly. Then, afterwards, I'm going to give a last piece of evidence why I believe in the version of events I've just described.
If you're unintersted in "what-ifs," scroll down to "The Snowstorm"

The Less Intuitive Version—where George sneaks in "The Mystery Month"

In order for us to believe Jon XIII happened after TWOW Theon, we’d need to invent a month to add in to Jon’s storyline. I call this the “Mystery Month”—is there a missing month in Jon’s storyline, or isn’t there?
I see a couple ways to make this happen.
The long wait before Jon XIII
The first, simplest way, is that we say this: Jon XIII happens a month after Jon XII. It took Jon a month to plan for and to bring up Hardhome to Selyse, Selyse has waited over month to plan her weddings with Gerrick Kingsbloods’ daughters, and Tormund has been at Oakenshield for over a month. The Letter arrives a month after the Wildlings come through, and so long as the King’s Prize also began over a week before Jon gets the Letter about it in Jon VII, we can make this work. Tycho arrives on time, we skip ahead a month before Jon XIII, and then Jon dies after the battle.
Yes, this could be how it happens, No I do not think that it's convincingly possible that Jon XIII happens a month after Jon XII.
If we don't want to try to force in a lot of time between Jon XII and Jon XIII, there are a few other ways to attempt to solve this (though these are still three timelines of entirely my own invention):
The trouble with slow ravens
Number one, across the board, it's tempting to add buffer time by imagining that Stannis left Deepwood Motte even earlier than we estimate—maybe a whole week, or even longer, before Jon hears about it in Jon VII. The main issue with this strategy is that Stannis has to send the letter, so the raven leaves at latest when Stannis does, and so now we're arguing that a raven takes over a week to fly to reach Jon .... which means that now we're also adding additional estimated time for how long it took a raven to deliver the Pink Letter, and everything has to be pushed even earlier.
That is to say: if we said it takes two weeks for word to reach Jon before Jon VII, I would say now the "battle" in the Pink Letter has to happen weeks earlier to account for raven time.
Skipping a moon before Jon VIII
We could add a month in between Jon VII and Jon VIII, where Jon VIII is not the waxing half moon following Jon VII’s new moon, but the one after that. Instead of one week, this is a ~5 week gap. The major issue with this is: we’ve lined up Jon VII roughly with the beginning of Stannis’ march, and Tycho still hasn’t arrived at Castle Black yet. If we place Jon IX right after Jon VIII again, then Tycho has ~2.5 weeks to catch up with Stannis’ host, reaching both Deepwood Motte and Winterfell along the way. This seems unbelievably fast, but that doesn’t even matter: since this doesn’t change our earlier estimate of how long Jon has left to live after Tycho’s departure (~2.5 weeks), that still means Jon dies roughly around the same time Tycho arrives. (This could be a convincing timeline if you wanted to argue that Stannis wrote the letter, give or take a few days, but there are obviously major issues...)
One obvious logical issue here is that this argument requires a scenario where Jon, who heard five weeks ago that Stannis is marching on Winterfell—which is apparently a two-week march—still sent Tycho to Deepwood Motte to catch Stannis. Why would Tycho go to Deepwood first, and not Winterfell, if Jon learned Stannis marched five weeks before Tycho left? It's true that it happened to work out, but Jon wouldn't have known, at this point, how snowed in Stannis is.
The Val takes three weeks version
Alternatively, here everything is spread out more, which is closer in spirit to what the Unofficial Timeline suggests.
We can try to give both Val and Tycho a little more time before Val's return, but we’re always trapped in a moon cycle between Jon VIII and Jon X because otherwise Val’s promise to return at the full moon doesn’t make any sense. The best way to do this is to imagine that Val leaves on a waning half moon, rather than waxing half moon. This means that Val has three weeks to travel, and that Jon VIII happens three weeks after Jon VII (and therefore ~3 weeks into King’s Prize).
(However, this is counterintuitive—it’s easier to imagine that being shown a half moon following a new moon would mean the waxing half moon. Also, I believe it goes contrary to the actual description: Jon notes the moon was “but half full,” and the “but” makes it seem like it will be half-full soon, not that it just was. But again, we can allow it. This also means that when Val looks at the half-moon and says: look for me at the first week of the full moon, she doesn’t mean next week, she means in ~3 weeks from now—after the moon has gone to new and then back to full again. Once again, this feels very counterintuitive, but it gives us more time.)
In this version of events, Tycho and Alys can still arrive as early as right after Jon VIII, and therefore that Tycho left Castle Black ~3 weeks after Jon VII. (Once again, this doesn’t make too much intuitive sense to me: why does Jon send Tycho to Deepwood Motte three weeks into a two-week march?)
This doesn’t change our count of time from Jon X—Jon XIII (a generous ~1.5 weeks) but now we’re saying say that Tycho left Castle Black three weeks prior to Jon X, so this gives us 4.5 weeks between Tycho’s departure and Jon’s death.
This solves the issue of the teleporting banker: Tycho leaves ~3 weeks into Stannis’ march and has ~4.5 weeks to make the trip, so he’s faster than Stannis but not impossibly fast. However, this still only adds a month here for the moon to align, we still have Tycho arriving roughly the same time Jon dies.
Mystery Month+
Since we're trapped into a vague schedule by Jon's noted moon cycles, the only remaining option is to assume that one of the above is true, and that Jon XIII happens at least two weeks after Jon XII. That would also make the timeline work.
However, to me, this all seems highly counterintuitive and unlikely…
And that’s before we factor in the accounts of the weather.
Yes, I have one more piece of evidence to propose, although this is a bit more debatable.

The Snowstorm

Asha sets out from Deepwood Motte, and four days later, the snows begin. By a week into the march, the host has begun to separate, and slow to a crawl.
Around this time, or a little later, the Bolton scouts see the Stannis host struggling, and turn home to report back. Several days later, accounting for vague travel time, they report this to Roose, and it begins to snow in Winterfell, too. Let's say, roughly, it begins snowing at Winterfell around ~2 weeks after Stannis departs, though possibly later.
In Jon VII (roughly where we believe the King's Prize began) the weather is clear—clear enough that Jon heads north of the Wall. If we're aligning these moments, this seems to be true for Stannis, too.
The first we hear of snows to the south in Jon IX ("moved off to the south"), and in Jon X, we hear that south of Castle Black the "kingsroad was said to be impassable" from snowstorms. In Jon XIII, Yarwyck points out that the Wall is getting snow blown against it because the "wind's from the south". All of this points to this being the storm at Winterfell.
If we go back to my original timeline, where Stannis leaves Deepwood Motte a little before Jon VII, and where Jon X occurs two weeks later…. then those reports of impassable snows to the south line up exactly with when the snows appear to have hit Winterfell, from our estimation of the sync between King’s Prize and Turncloak. If we go back to my original timeline, this is four or five weeks before Tycho Nestoris arrives. Then, a week later, in Jon XIII, when the winds from the south are only getting worse… that fits, because Asha and Theon have another three or four weeks of snow to go. And Jon is dead.

The End

But what could I possibly be saying? I don't even really know, although I will say that this feeds into my desire for the Wildlings to make a surprise appearance in TWOW.
In my proposed timeline: Tycho leaves ~1 week after Stannis does, he takes ~6 weeks to make it to the Crofter’s Village, and Jon’s already been dead for a month. So, there's been a month since.
We know from AGOT that it usually takes ~3 weeks to travel from Castle Black to Winterfell. That means that a Wildling host would have a month, or maybe a little longer, to have marched from Castle Black to Winterfell afterward, and could arrive at Winterfell right as battle begins. It could work that way. I'm not getting into any other logistics here.
On the other hand, as much work as this was, I’d love to be proven wrong here! It's all in the name of science, if by science I mean obsessive analysis of fiction. If someone has a detail I’ve missed, please let me know.

TL;DR:

Comparing Jon’s tracking of the moon, Asha’s tracking of the days, and accounts of the snowstorm around Winterfell all lead me to believe that Jon dies four weeks before Tycho Nestoris reaches the Crofter’s Village. Jon sends Tycho to Deepwood Motte one week after learning Stannis is marching, and Tycho takes six weeks to arrive, both of which are more believable than any other timeline I have seen.
Edit: thank you to AC on the discord, who has rephrased my post in a much more clear way and makes a great TL;DR: Jon 7: day 0. Jon 8: ~day 7 Jon 9: ~day 10. Tycho leaves CB. Jon 10: ~day 17 (Val’s arrival in half a month from Jon 7!). Jon 11: ~day 18. Jon 12: ~day 21. Asha King’s Prize end: day 34. Asha Sacrifice end: day 53. Jon 13: 60 or so at bare minimum. [to make the Pink Letter work]
And the point of my post is: I propose it makes more plot-related sense if we place Jon 13: ~day 30. But that would mean Jon's dead far too early for the Pink Letter to be an honest depiction of events.

On both DebateReligion and this subreddit u/Informal_Patience821 (Exion) has been making a series of posts that make claims about translations of the Hebrew Old Testament. On DebateReligion there were enough people who know enough about Hebrew to debunk Exion’s claims showing both Exion doesn’t know Hebrew and is an unreliable source of information. Unfortunately is seems most people on this subreddit aren’t familiar enough with Hebrew to see the problems in those posts so I will be addressing them. I’ll start with a summary of a just a few issues from their earlier posts and then dig into their most recent post on Haggai 2.
In https://www.reddit.com/DebateReligion/comments/1c9e54z/songs\_of\_solomon\_are\_prophesying\_muhammad\_moses/ they cited the first word of Songs of Solomon 1:2 as ביִשָּׁקֵ֙נִי֙. The problem is the first word doesn’t have the Hebrew letter ב, that’s actually the verse number. To illustrate how bad this is it would be like copying an alphabetized list with an entry “b chicken thighs”, removing the space making it “bchicken thighs”, and then trying to translate bchicken as if it’s a real English word. In that post several comments noted this issue, and Exion acknowledged it. However, when copying their post to https://www.reddit.com/Quraniyoon/comments/1chuul3/songs\_of\_solomon\_prophecies\_of\_muhammad\_moses\_and/ they failed to fix this known issue.
This also isn’t the first time they’ve done this. In https://www.reddit.com/DebateReligion/comments/1c0x8sp/revisiting\_isaiah\_53\_the\_prophecy\_of\_the\_false/ they made claims about the meaning of ישוחח. They also cited a Hebrew dictionary to defend their claim. The problem I noted in my comment was their source listed two different verb forms which had slightly different meanings. Exion took the meaning of the Qal form but the word was actually in the Polel form. This is problematic enough because even with basic Hebrew one should know to use the meaning for the correct verb form since it changes the meaning. However after acknowledging my command the next day they copied the post to https://www.reddit.com/Muslim/comments/1c2onfa/the\_old\_testament\_says\_because\_they\_will\_think/ without fixing the error.
Another problem is their citation of a fictitious source. u/c0d3rman, u/arachnophilia, and myself tried to find the citation, weren’t able to, and pressed Exion on this. Exion claimed to have the book in their possession but refused to take a pic of the citation to prove it’s real after being called out on the citation not existing. Details can be found at https://www.reddit.com/DebateReligion/comments/1cae1we/comment/l0tr043/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button, https://www.reddit.com/Quraniyoon/comments/1ccdm3z/comment/l18l6v9/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button, https://www.reddit.com/Quraniyoon/comments/1chuul3/comment/l25i39p/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button, and https://www.reddit.com/Quraniyoon/comments/1cjbaue/comment/l2nm56j/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button. Since they won’t provide proof of the source and no one else can find it it’s clear the source doesn’t exist.
Another issue from previous posts is they don’t understand how possessive suffixes on nouns work. There are several comments explaining this, https://www.reddit.com/DebateReligion/comments/1cae1we/comment/l0ueou2/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button, https://www.reddit.com/DebateReligion/comments/1cae1we/comment/l0rt0q7/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button, https://www.reddit.com/Quraniyoon/comments/1ccdm3z/comment/l17gxya/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button, and https://www.reddit.com/usec0d3rman/comments/1cd80ho/an\_explanation\_of\_possessive\_noun\_conjugation\_in/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button. Despite the lengthy explanations and even a pic of a Hebrew grammar book they insisted we were all wrong. However, they never offered a full explanation of how possessive suffixes work on Hebrew. To get at this issue I asked them to translate his thigh, his thighs, their thigh, and their thighs into Hebrew but they’ve refused.
Time for their latest post, https://www.reddit.com/Quraniyoon/comments/1cw5vq2/i\_discovered\_a\_new\_biblical\_prophecy\_about\_islam/.

"Now, pay attention from this day forward, before setting God's stone in the temple of Yahweh."
Obviously the the Kaaba and the Back stone. However, the Masoretes, added diacritics and transformed the phrase "אל" (which means "God") into "אֶל" (which means "to") and had successfully covered up this prophecy. It originally says "God's stone" when omitting the diacritics

The first obvious problem is they never explain why we should accept their diacritical marks over the Masoretes ones. No justification from the context of the text, or any reference to either pre Masoretes on post but non Masoretes influences sources that agree with Exion’s translation.
More importantly, Exion ignored that “stone” in the Hebrew occurs twice. If we take אל to be God and take it as the construct state (the ‘s) then it would be “before setting stone’s God’s stone”. That doesn’t make sense hence why Exion dropped the first occurrence of אֶ֛בֶן in their translation.

while it is today saying "Before setting stone to/upon a stone," a statement that makes very little sense.

It makes perfect sense with the rest of the verse “in the temple of Yahweh.” It’s talking about before the building of the temple which involved setting stone upon stone.

Verse 23 says: "And it shall be from new moon to new moon, an end to His Sabbath shall come. All flesh shall come to bow down before me, said the LORD."

That’s not Haggai 2:23, it’s Isaiah 66:23. Sure it’s 23rd verse of it’s chapter but it’s a different chapter in a different book.
It’s also an untenable translation. In the Hebrew even without diacritical marks we have “מדי חדש בחדשו ומדי שבת בשבתו”. This is two parallel phrases “מדי חדש בחדשו” and “ומדי צשבת בשבתו”. The second phrase begins with ו which is the Hebrew conjunctive indicating the two phrases are connected. They also have parallel structure. The first word is the same in both. Both are followed by a second word with 3 consonants with those same consonants appearing in the third word but with the prefix ב and suffix ו” This parallel combined with the conjunctive tells us the phrases should be interpreted similarly. The traditional translation “from new moon to new moon and from sabbath to sabbath” keeps the parallel but Exion’s translation breaks it showing they aren’t being consistent with their translation.
A more serious problem is they take Sabbath as the subject of the verb. This isn’t possible. To make the consonants שבת the verb to cease it would be the Qal perfect third person MASCULINE singular. However, the noun Sabbath in Hebrew is feminine. The gender of the subject and verb need to match but since they don’t we can’t take שבת as a verb.
Another issue is their translation has “shall come” twice but the verb only occurs once in the Hebrew.

The phrase: "שבת בשבתו יבוא" is literally translated as "An end to His Sabbath shall come." But they interpreted "שׁבת" as "Sabbath" and also (for some weird reason) the term "בשבתו" simply as "Sabbath" as well, while it grammar speaks a different story:

The problem is Exion translates the first phrase as “from new moon to new moon” which has the same prefix and suffix on the noun. Either it’s a problem for both phrases or neither. Since Exion takes it as not a problem for the first phrase but a problem for the second their wrong about at least one of those cases.
Edit: there is one other issue with Exion’s translation of Isaiah 66:23 I forgot to mention. There is another parallel between those two phrases. The new moon tracks months and the sabbath tracks weeks. The parallel is that both track time. It’s an idiomatic way of saying “from month thanks month and week to week”. Exion’s translation breaks this parallel.

(Edit: fair warning, this is a game centric theory so no Andrew or jake or anything. I am simply posing ideas)
So,
In the Curse of dreadbear DLC, the titular character is an obvious play on frankenstein’s monster: specifically the one popularized in the 30’s film adaptation.
And what exactly happens in that film? A scientist named Henry creates a monster composed of multiple combined dead things, then vows to destroy it in a fire.
Once laid out like that, it’s a pretty obvious hint. It lines up with Henry’s story in virtually every continuity, at least half of it. Desk guy (also from a Halloween DLC) was theorized to be Henry and his whole deal is that he made Baby, regretted it, then died. Book henry made baby, regretted it, then committed suicide. Who’s to say that pattern doesn’t extend to game Henry as well?
Basically what this boils down to is that Henry made the funtimes. Ryetoast talked about it in a video, in the insanity ending he goes on to describe molten MCI pretty much verbatim. With the added support of Henrystein, it’s very possible the “prisons of my making” were the funtimes. What is Ennard if not a monster made of several dead things stitched together?
It’s very likely that Henry had no idea what they were for. He said that he “unwillingly helped to create” them, and that he “doesn’t know how those tiny breaths of life came to inhabit those machines”.
The funtimes are The only things that you could reasonably trace back to Afton given what they’re for and the huge ass bunker with his name plastered on everything. A strong connecting thing throughout the short stories is the idea of fazbear entertainment hiring out independent roboticists to make animatronics. What if Afton was pulling a Steve Jobs?
Afton is cited as a “local entrepreneur” in the canceled due to leaks teaser, and seems to derive a great amount of pleasure in being the genius behind the beloved characters. William made Henry make the funtimes and took all the credit. But why stop there?
In the novels there is a bunker directly under Henry’s house, similar to the sister location facility. That facility is also where the twisted animatronics are stored, which are essentially the nightmares. That is everything detailed in the sister location building map all belonging to Henry. It would also make a ton of sense for Henry, someone characterized by being too wrapped up in his work to be a present father, to want to have surveillance on his children. It’s also a point that in both the movies and the novels Henry, or someone equating Henry, has a bigger family while Afton only has one daughter. In game as well, Elizabeth has green eyes and red hair while Mike, BV, and Charlie have darker hair. All this to say, Elizabeth has some rare traits that would be recessive if she was really Mike or BV’s sister
You know what other game has a Halloween DLC? Fnaf 4. You know what other game has a Halloween DLC containing the aforementioned desk guy with the same general arc? Fnaf world. Both games largely dealing with the memories of the bite victim. There is this weird connection between Halloween, bite victim and Henry. It likely has something to do with Fallfest.
Speaking of fallfest, Carnie is just a reskinned rockstar Freddy. This leads me to believe that the rockstars as models are old as hell. And with old as hell models, they may be springlock animatronics. The 5 fingers would certainly suggest that, though their endos are pretty barebones. My own mechanical dissection of springlocks aside, look at the nightmares and the rockstars side by side.
You can definitely see it with rockstar foxy, ditch some of the pirate decorations and the face shape is nearly identical, including the lighter ring around the eyes. Same with Bonnie and Chica, same chunky face shape with similar eyeholes. Same jaw mechanism. That, plus the 5 fingers and 4 toes (except for rockstar chica for some reason). You can see how the rockstars could be reasonably warped into the nightmares.
The one outlier here is nightmare Freddy, who doesn’t have a solid look alike. Rockstar Freddy looks more like nightmare fredbear, complete with purple accessories. Rockstar Freddy also has a darker recolor with strong connections to the puppet in LEFTE. If the rockstars (or at least a model using their molds which likely would have been mass produced) and the nightmares are one in the same, that would mean that Henry made them too.
Furthermore: the Twisted animatronics, which are one in the same with the nightmares, were explicitly made to kidnap people from their homes. We litterally see them in the opening screen coming out of the woods towards a house. The trailer for fnaf 4 also says “what have you brought home”. This would imply their aim was not too dissimilar to the funtimes, but they’re their own thing. I raise you: yendo.
Yendo is a very oddball character, which very well might not even be canon. He is an endoskeleton of Funtime Freddy who was made to store kids in his stomach. What do we see on nightmare fredbear and nightmare? A stomach mouth.
Nightmare Fredbear and yendo also behave in ways similar to golden Freddy. Throughout the various books spirits are also known to induce audiovisual hallucinations. What if instead of illusion discs, or whatever, bite victim: Henry’s son, had his supernatural properties weaponized by Afton in an early attempt to automate the kidnapping of children. Afton had Henry make a prototype for Funtime Freddy, and dressed it in a rockstar costume.
I’d also really like to shout out this theory by dual process theory, I think they hit the nail on the head: https://youtu.be/7ykDrYPAkkw?feature=shared
Summary: altered text/bite victim’s name is Cassidy, Charlie is faded text, and Mike is the vengeful spirit; pissed enough to literally reanimate his own corpse and hunt down Afton in order to put him through the same stuff he tricked him into doing for all eternity, all the while taunting him with the visage of Cassidy. The HW2 death order as the MCI and Charlie dying in-between the week when when Cassidy was bit and when he died; this gives William the info necessary to conclude that throwing Cassidy into fredbear will bring him back. 10/10, no notes in my book. Though, the SL night 4 springlock suit being fredbear is a bit of a stretch imo. Just kinda copy paste the bits that fit.
He starts with Henry’s oldest and only remaining child: Michael. Bite victim’s spirit would contort onlookers perception of the frame into how he remembered the characters in the week leading up to his death: scary, grotesque, and full of teeth. Afton would exploit the spirit’s desire to get revenge on his brother, to lure him out and capture him.
Henry was now belligerent from losing 2 children in the span of a week, and being convicted for the disappearances of 4 more. Not only that, but Afton was completely undermining him and taking over his robotics company while he did all the work. His life was falling apart at the seams. He had been keeping a close eye on Mike to ensure nothing happened to him as well. At this rate he couldn’t stand another tragedy, even if he did blame the kid.
Mike was lured out to the visage of fredbear, and ran out to his brother’s unmarked grave out of repentance. It was there the thing captured him and took him to the nightmare chambers. Henry assumed he would be back soon enough, and that he’d be sorry when he got back.
From there, Afton would use nitrous oxide (as seen in RUIN and the gas canisters all around the sl facility) to sedate Mike and make him more susceptible to hallucinations. He would use the rockstars to conduct experiments on the effects of prolonged fear à la Dittophobia. at the end of it he could brainwash mike into believing that he was his father, everything was his fault, and he needs to do everything he says to atone.
At this point, Henry assumes mike is dead. Out of his grief for losing all 3 of his children, his reputation, and his whole livelihood, he made Baby in the likeness of Charlie with the intent to kill himself with it (see Fuhnaff’s video on baby being a recreation of Charlie). He doesn’t, but he abandons robotics altogether and falls off the face of the earth Until Fnaf 6.
At this point for Afton it was only a matter of hiring technicians to reverse engineer yendo and baby, as well as add a few of his own modifications, to create the Funtime series of animatronics. Elizabeth dies, etc. etc.
Id also like to stop and appreciate the narrative depth this adds to the story.
(Edit: I originally said some stuff in support of frights fiction, I removed it because I don’t want people to fixate on it. TLDR: I think it’s a cool meta way for the stories to remain In a vacuum while maintaining their utility as providing anchor points and a glossary for the more supernatural stuff, this is a game centric theory after all)
Also, mike being vengeful spirit gives such a cathartic ending for this character we’ve been playing as for most likely all of the previous games.
I also really like the Afton that this story paints. It keeps in line with his novel characterization of trying to surpass Henry, going so far as to steal his entire family. He is this ever present perverting force, it’s allegorical in a way. He’s a caricature of the power hungry CEO: sitting at the top, pushing ideas in the name of reckless expansion and innovation regardless of the consequences. extinguished the spark of life that his partner was able to imbue into his creations, so he took it upon himself to recreate that spark by any means necessary: substituting metaphorical soul for literal soul. He takes a keen interest in his legacy, he believes he is on the brink of discovering the secret to immortality. The ends justify the means but his means are deeply flawed. He’s not a tragic father. He expands, infecting every part of the company (figuratively and eventually literally) like a virus.
This theory props up something I like to believe: spring lock suits were William’s idea. Henry simply had to make them despite his better judgement; a brilliantly executed absolutely terrible idea by a man trying to save money. It adds even more potency to William’s death, because he was so insistent on them. He was killed by his own hubirus more than anything else.
Henry also becomes a far more poignant character. His passion to create was being actively used to sap everything away from him. All of his incredible advancements in artificial intelligence and Servo motor technology being used by one greedy man looking to prolong his life and legacy. His creations were accomplices in the murder of his family and so many others. And all for what? We don’t even know if William recorded the results of any of his “experiments”, he just kept literally industrializing the production of agony in a business supposed to produce joy. He was unknowing of the full scope yet complicit on the promise that he could regain his children. He held onto that tragedy, as many else did. He let the memory fester and tear him apart. It would take years to realize, but it’s best to move on. Let it fade, as the agony of every tragedy should.
Frankenstein has to deal with obtaining forbidden knowledge. While I don’t feel like we as a society shouldn’t pursue that knowledge, Scott probably intended it as Mary Shelly did. We shouldn’t play god, especially in pursuit of profit or glory.
Is Scott a good writer? Who knows, I could be completely wrong.

A Daily chronicle of AI Innovations May 20th 2024:

🫠 Google's AI panic looks like Google+ fiasco
🎤 OpenAI pauses Scarlett Johansson-like voice for ChatGPT 💸 Snapchat focuses on AI with $1.5 billion yearly investment
🍏 Apple and OpenAI plan major announcement at WWDC
🤖 OpenAI's "superalignment team," focused on the AI risks, is no more
🚫 Sony Music warns over 700 AI companies not to steal its content 🦎 Meta's Chameleon AI sets a new bar in mixed-modal reasoning

Enjoying these daily updates, listen to our AI Unraveled Podcast at https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/ai-unraveled-latest-ai-news-trends-gpt-gemini-generative/id1684415169

🫠 Google's AI panic looks like Google+ fiasco

Scott Jenson, a former Google employee, criticizes the company's AI projects as poorly motivated and driven by panic, comparing the situation to the Google+ fiasco. According to Jenson, Google aims to create a Jarvis-like assistant to keep users within its ecosystem, driven by fear that competitors might get there first, similar to Apple’s strategy with Siri and OpenAI. Many of Google's AI projects revealed at I/O 2024 are still experimental or limited in availability, with uncertain value, and features like "AI Overviews" in Google Search have received criticism for potential copyright issues and misinformation.
Source: https://the-decoder.com/ex-googler-says-companys-ai-panic-is-like-google-fiasco-all-over-again/

🎤 OpenAI pauses Scarlett Johansson-like voice for ChatGPT

OpenAI is pulling the ChatGPT voice known as Sky, which sounds similar to Scarlett Johansson, due to concerns about mimicking celebrities' voices. The company asserts that Sky's voice is the natural voice of a different professional actress and not an intentional imitation of Johansson. The decision to pause Sky's use follows recent enhancements to ChatGPT's voice mode, part of the new GPT-4o model, which aims to make the assistant more expressive and capable of reading facial expressions and translating spoken language in real-time.
Source: https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/20/24160621/openai-chatgpt-gpt4o-sky-scarlett-johansson-voice-assistant-her

💸 Snapchat focuses on AI with $1.5 billion yearly investment

Snap's CEO, Evan Spiegel, announced a major investment of $1.5 billion annually in AI and machine learning to improve Snapchat's features and competitiveness. After successfully revamping Snapchat's advertising model, the company will now focus on collaborating with tech giants like Amazon and Google for cloud partnerships to enhance AI product innovations. With growing ad revenue and new successful ad campaigns, Snapchat plans to expand content offerings and augmented reality experiences, enhancing user engagement and competing with platforms like TikTok.
Source: https://www.newsbytesapp.com/news/science/snapchat-ceo-announces-shift-toward-ai-investment/story

🍏 Apple and OpenAI plan major announcement at WWDC

Apple and OpenAI plan major announcement at WWDC Apple and OpenAI plan major announcement at WWDC[/caption] Apple and OpenAI are planning a major joint announcement at WWDC, focusing on integrating OpenAI's technology into iOS 18, according to Mark Gurman from Bloomberg. Apple aims to improve its AI capabilities with this integration, including enhancements to Siri and features like automatic summaries of notifications and transcription of voice memos. While Apple acknowledges it is behind in AI and lacks a chatbot like ChatGPT or Google Gemini, the company believes the collaboration with OpenAI is a sufficient, though temporary, solution. Source OpenAI's "superalignment team," focused on the AI risks, is no more
The team's co-leads, Ilya Sutskever and Jan Leike, have resigned from OpenAI. Several other researchers from the team and those working on AI policy and governance have also left the company. Leike cited disagreements with OpenAI's leadership about the company's priorities and resource allocation as reasons for his departure. Source:
The team's work will be absorbed into OpenAI's other research efforts, with John Schulman leading research on risks associated with more powerful models.
Why does this matter?
The "superalignment" team was for ensuring the artificial general intelligence (AGI) that OpenAI claims to be working on doesn't turn on humankind. This dismantling raises questions on the company's commitment to AI safety and ethical standards.
Source: https://the-decoder.com/apple-and-openai-plan-major-announcement-at-wwdc/

Sony Music warns over 700 AI companies not to steal its content

Sony Music, home to superstars like Billy Joel and Doja Cat, sent letters to over 700 AI companies and streaming platforms, warning them against using its content without permission. The label called out the "training, development, or commercialization of AI systems" that use copyrighted material, including music, art, and lyrics.
SMG recognizes AI's potential but stresses the need to respect songwriters' and artists' rights. The letter asks companies to confirm they haven't used SMG content without permission or provide details if they have.
Why does this matter?
The battle over music copyright and AI has intensified across various platforms, from YouTube's strict rules for AI-generated music to the recent standoff between Universal Music Group and TikTok. As AI voice clones and music generation tools become more sophisticated, artists question control, compensation, and actions against copyright infringement.
Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/sony-music-group-warns-700-companies-using-content-train-ai-rcna152689

Meta's Chameleon AI sets a new bar in mixed-modal reasoning

Meta AI introduces Chameleon, a family of early-fusion token-based mixed-modal models that understands and generates images and text in any order. Unlike recent foundation models that process text and images separately, Chameleon unified token space allows it to process interleaved image and text sequences.This approach allows seamless reasoning and generation across modalities.
Meta's Chameleon AI sets a new bar in mixed-modal reasoning Meta's Chameleon AI sets a new bar in mixed-modal reasoning[/caption] Meta researchers introduced architectural enhancements and training techniques to tackle the optimization challenges posed by this early fusion approach, including a novel image tokenizer, QK-Norm, dropout, and z-loss regularization. Remarkably, Chameleon achieves competitive or superior performance across various tasks, outperforming larger models like Flamingo-80B and IDEFICS-80B in image captioning and visual question answering despite its smaller model size.
Why does this matter?
Chameleon opens up new possibilities for more natural and intuitive human-machine interactions, similar to how we effortlessly communicate using both modalities in the real world.
Source: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.09818

Trending AI Tools May 20th 2024:

✍️ Paperpal - AI writing assistant offering grammar checks, paraphrasing, predictive text, and plagiarism detection. Use code RUN30 for 30% off* https://paperpal.com/
🗣️ ElevenLabs Audio Native - Add human-like narration to your blog or news site https://supertools.therundown.ai/content/eleven-labs
💻 Framer - Generate a responsive website with no code
🚀 Glitter - Turn any process into a step-by-step guide https://supertools.therundown.ai/content/glitter-a
⚡TestSprite Beta - Automate end-to-end software testing with AI https://supertools.therundown.ai/content/testsprite-beta
🤖 Buffup - AI assistant that learns your intent, powered by GPT-4o https://supertools.therundown.ai/content/buffup

New AI Job Opportunities on May 20th 2024:

🧱 Databricks - Director, Field Engineering https://jobs.therundown.ai/jobs/60342628-director-field-engineering
🖥️ Palantir - Web Application Developer https://jobs.therundown.ai/jobs/60275738-web-application-developer-defense
♾️ Meta - GenAI Program Manager https://jobs.therundown.ai/jobs/60281023-genai-program-manager
🏋️ Weights & Biases - Software Engineer, Engineering Productivity https://jobs.therundown.ai/jobs/60198936-software-engineer-engineering-productivity-remote

What Else Is Happening in AI on May 20th 2024❗

🤖 Google launched open-source Model Explore to visualize and debug complex AI models
It uses advanced graphics rendering techniques from the gaming industry to handle massive models. The tool offers a graphical user interface and a Python API for integration into machine learning workflows. Model Explorer lets developers identify and resolve issues quickly, especially for AI deployed on edge devices. (Link: https://venturebeat.com/ai/google-launches-model-explorer-an-open-source-tool-for-seamless-ai-model-visualization-and-debugging )
🇬🇧 The UK's AI Safety Institute is opening an office in San Francisco
The institute aims to be closer to the epicenter of AI development, companies like OpenAI and Google as they are building foundational models. This new office would open this summer, giving the UK access to Silicon Valley's tech talent and strengthening ties with the US. (Link: https://techcrunch.com/2024/05/19/uk-opens-office-in-san-francisco-to-tackle-ai-risk )
📂 The EU demands Microsoft to provide internal documents on Bing's gen AI risks
The Commission suspects Bing may have breached the Digital Services Act (DSA) due to risks like AI "hallucinations," deep fakes, and potential voter manipulation. Microsoft has until May 27 to comply with the legally binding request for information. Failure to do so could result in fines of up to 1% of Microsoft's total annual income or worldwide turnover. (Link: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscornedetail/en/mex_24_2681 )
📸 Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel focuses on AI and ML for better UX and personalization
As its ad revenue increases, Snap plans to expand content offerings, improve recommendation algorithms, and integrate Stories with Spotlight. The company is also investing in augmented reality and sees it as a way to bring people together in shared physical environments. (Link: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-19/snap-ceo-evan-spiegel-focused-on-ai-machine-learning-push )
😏 Researchers in the Netherlands have developed an AI sarcasm detector
The AI was trained on text, audio, and emotional content from US sitcoms, including Friends and The Big Bang Theory. The AI could detect sarcasm in unlabeled exchanges nearly 75% of the time. Further improvements could come from adding visual cues to the AI's training data. (Link: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/may/16/researchers-build-ai-driven-sarcasm-detector )
Enjoying these updates, check out our Apple Podcast at https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/ai-unraveled-latest-ai-news-trends-gpt-gemini-generative/id1684415169

START OF THE INTERVIEW
Thiago: We want to welcome you and acknowledge your participation in this interview.
Luu: Thank you for inviting us to this interview. We are honored to participate and answer your questions, comrades.
Thiago: When was the Serving the People (Vietnam) blog created and what are its objectives?
Luu: The blog was created in December last year. With 4 main objectives, to digitize and archive texts from China, in particular texts of Chairman Mao, the Gang of Four and the Cultural Revolution, in addition to other Marxist texts such as documents from the Great Debate, Stalin, Kalinin and other works from countries like Brazil and the Philippines, in Vietnamese, so everyone can access them for free. We also want to push for the reconstitution of the Communist Party of Vietnam as a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party and encourage the masses to practice and organize, in the north and south of the country.
Thiago: Which groups represented the left line of the Vietnamese Communist Party from 1956 until the total restoration of capitalism?
Thang: There was a rise of the right-wing opportunist line, by the group called "Nhan van-Giai Pham", which attempted to restore capitalist culture through what is called "literature for literature's sake". President Ho Chi Minh was the main defender of Marxism in this struggle.
In the Great Debate between Leninism and revisionism, Ho Chi Minh occupies the middle line. But this line was a serious mistake, because it created fertile ground for the rise of revisionism and opportunism and for the restoration of capitalism in Vietnam later.
Overall, in the history of the Communist Party, the left line was defended mainly by Ho Chi Minh, but he also indirectly liquidated this line by moving to centrism, creating a vacuum that allowed revisionism to take power.
After his death in 1969, the Left line was completely liquidated. The remaining Party leaders fell into centrism or revisionism, and no significant group represented the left line in Vietnam.
Thiago: How did the restoration of capitalism and bourgeois dictatorship occur in Vietnam? How do the State, the Party and the Vietnamese economy work today?
Thang: The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in Vietnam began after the death of Ho Chi Minh and the seizure of power by the revisionist clique, transforming Vietnam into a semi-colony of Soviet social-imperialism. The complete restoration of capitalism in Vietnam began in 1986, when the Doi Moi reform transformed Vietnam from a semi-colony of Soviet social-imperialism into a semi-colony of American imperialism and Chinese social-imperialism, strengthening thus the semi-feudal state.
(Additional note from Luu based on Thang's response: They, the revisionists, adopt the theory of productive forces, similar to that of Deng Xiaoping in every way. This liquidated the Party, turning it into a lap dog of foreign imperialists Vietnam is currently a police state, a bourgeois dictatorship. The economy is heavily controlled by the Yankee and Chinese imperialists, the state also maintains friendly relations with foreign companies and imperialists, as they cooperate with them against the people. in general and the proletariat in particular)
Thiago: What are your criticisms of Ho Chi Minh's centrist deviation and subsequent adoption of "Ho Chi Minh Thought" by his successors? Were there any prominent leaders “to the left” of Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam?
Luu: We must criticize Ho Chi Minh's centrism and recognize that he liquidated the left line. We recognize that centrism is a very dangerous thing, even if it is not overtly anti-communist like the right line, but it creates an opening for the right line. We could compare his errors with those of Kim Il-Sung and other leaders who adopted the same positions: at his death, in his will, he did not say to defend Chairman Mao's line, but wanted " not to intervene in the affairs of other nations", although he was sympathetic to Albania and China, he also did not attack the right line, but he nevertheless refused conciliation with the Americans and the policy of capitulation that the Khruschevists were trying to impose on us. However, Vietnam fought nothing else.
Concerning "Ho Chi Minh Thought", those who claim it are dogmatists, taking its centrism as dogma, focusing on its revolutionary morality and asserting that the People's War was a contribution of Ho Chi Minh and not of Mao Zedong. They denied the influence of Mao Zedong Thought on Ho Chi Minh Thought, distorting Ho Chi Minh Thought, claiming that it is influenced by reactionary religions and ideals, transforming it from a revolutionary theory into a reactionary theory. There were no representatives of the left line, only opportunists.
Thiago: What do you think of President Gonzalo and his contributions of universal value? How are anti-revisionism and Maoism perceived in Vietnam?
Thắng: As Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, we cannot but recognize the role of President Gonzalo and his significant contributions to Marxist theory. He identified Maoism as the third and highest phase of Marxism, stating that Maoism is the Marxism-Leninism of the era of imperialism and modern revisionism. In addition, he made important contributions to Maoist theory, such as the militarization of the Communist Party, the theory of Jefatura [“Great Direction” in French, editor's note, cdp.] and the theory of concentric construction of the Party. These contributions are not only valuable for the Peruvian revolution, but also have universal relevance for the international socialist revolution. We must not forget this.
As for the influence of President Gonzalo and his ideology in Vietnam, initially, it was only mentioned through campaigns aimed at degrading his reputation by the government in place. In recent years, with the rise of the communist movement in Vietnam, the Gonzalo question has become an important issue among communists in our country. The revisionists, Trotskyists and pseudo-Maoists always seek to deny the role of President Gonzalo and use the propaganda tools of the imperialists to oppose him. Additionally, government loyalists and liberal forces are participating in this “campaign.” Thus, revisionists, reactionaries, and anti-communists created a sort of “sacred alliance” to oppose Gonzalo’s thought and contributions. Therefore, the immediate task of Vietnamese communists today is to wage a line struggle to defend President Gonzalo, uproot the weeds of modern revisionism, and advance toward the reconstitution of the Vietnamese Communist Party.
Thiago: How is the revolutionary movement developing in Vietnam and what are the current struggles of the masses in urban and rural areas?
Thang: The current “leaders” of the organized revolutionary movement are petty bourgeois. There are so-called “Marxist” groups, such as the “Red Flag League” and the “Young Marxists of Vietnam”. These petty bourgeois groups use memes to propagate and agitate, which is an action to ridicule Marxism, because Marxism is a revolutionary science and cannot be expressed through memes. This action is particularly remarkable among the Young Marxists of Vietnam.
There are also fake "Maoists" like the "Red Flag League", who deny Gonzalo and "defend" the Marxism-Leninism of Mao Zedong Thought, denying the advancement of the revolutionary struggle. They also engage in unnecessary debates online. These guys are also trying to make money by organizing readings of Chairman Mao Zedong's quotes instead of making them universal for the masses.
Luu: There are many strikes and disorganized revolutionary movements within the proletariat, which speak out against their conditions of exploitation. Many peasants are in conflict with the state over land issues. There was a recent revolt in which peasants attempted to reclaim their land by armed methods, such as during the Dong Tam revolt, but they were quickly and brutally suppressed by the so-called state “socialist”. Many uprisings have also taken place in the Central Highlands, but some of them have fallen under the influence of foreign reactionary terrorist groups and are not spontaneous like others. The masses are ready to fight for the revolution, but they are still disorganized.
Thiago: What is the general impression that the masses have of the Communist Party? What daily problems do the masses face and how are they exploited by capitalism and semi-feudalism in Vietnam today?
Luu: Within the petty bourgeoisie, there are two main camps, there is the opposition camp and the loyalist camp. The loyalist camp is generally made up of children of bureaucrats and people who know little about the state. The opposition camp is mainly represented by South Vietnam loyalists, all anti-communist, while the loyalists appear to be communist, but they leave communism aside, being only pro-state and anti-West.
Among the peasants and proletariat, we are not sure, but from what we see, the majority of them do not openly support the state, being rather neutral about the situation. However, the opposition of these classes, notably peasants and indigenous peoples, who took up arms and rose up against the state, was brutally repressed by the police forces. The only indigenous armed groups that carry out terrorist attacks are those sponsored by the United States and CIA agents, but they do not represent all indigenous movements and peasant movements that oppose the state.
The condition of the proletariat in Vietnam is not what one would call good, as even the state claims that many workers live in poverty and misery. The examples are numerous: their salary is not as good as the revisionists claim, and they barely earn enough to survive, as capitalism dictates. Even though schedules are not as strict and conditions are not as bad as in laissez-faire capitalism (like in Bangladesh or other Asian countries), state-controlled unions do the bare minimum to support the workers and seek to make them accept their crumbs and not to organize them.
A friend (who was 14, illustrating child labor) and a family member of mine worked in sweatshops and currently are in poor health, have difficult living conditions, work long hours and are not not paid enough for their efforts.
Thiago: What is the semi-colonial relationship that Vietnam maintains today with North American imperialism and Chinese social-imperialism?
Thang: That’s a great question! The relationship between the Vietnamese bureaucratic capitalist government and the Yankee and Chinese imperialists constitutes one of the most peculiar international relations for the Vietnamese state. First, the state called their relationship with them a "comprehensive strategic partnership", established with China in 2008 and with the United States in 2023. They export capital and goods to Vietnam, establish factories and monopolize the market . This relationship deepens the exploitation of capitalism and the semi-feudal condition of Vietnam.
Additional note from Luu: In terms of industry, citing data from the General Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of Science and Technology, about 75% of Vietnam's technology and equipment come from foreign countries, this technology and equipment mainly come from developed countries and regions such as the United States, South Korea and the European Union, which have shown a slight upward trend in recent years (2022 data). Therefore, Vietnam is unable to develop many important industrial technologies (such as oil refining technology, metallurgy, shipbuilding, etc.), because Vietnam's industry is heavily dependent on foreign capitalist conglomerates.
Additionally, Vietnam is a “global sweatshop” with abundant resources and cheap labor. Therefore, Vietnam has become an ideal location for capitalist conglomerates from the United States, China and other capitalist countries to export capital, establish factories and enterprises, invest and control commercial capital in our country. The working class must endure hardship with low wages and difficult living conditions, without enjoying the fruits of their labor, which are instead seized by the capitalist class.
Moreover, the export of goods from the United States and China has disrupted the Vietnamese market, as the revolutionaries of the Dong Kinh Nghia Thuc movement once said: "If our products are not purchased from the Chinese, they are bought from the West.”
Vietnamese agriculture relies heavily on Chinese traders, as agricultural products always depend on the purchasing needs of traders. Therefore, many difficulties are often encountered if China imposes border closures. Furthermore, the question of the “lease system” persists in certain small localities in central Vietnam, Vietnam still having feudal characteristics.
Thiago: How is the history of Vietnam, the international communist movement and Marxism taught in Vietnamese schools and universities?
Thang: There was a push towards nationalism and nationalist propaganda in Vietnamese schools by the revisionist clique, they masked Vietnamese settler colonialism against indigenous people and other minorities under the idea of ​​"expansion of territory through the recovery of wild lands” that they were formerly Champa and Chenla (Kampuchea Krom Region). This colonialism was called the “Nam Tien” march south and lasted for centuries. The revisionists also liquidated and erased the history of the struggle for autonomy of ethnic minority groups, supported by Ho Chi Minh.
Luu adds: There were autonomous zones in the North and Northwest mountains, and there was also the Autonomous Mountain People's Movement within the National Liberation Front.
The revisionists have omitted many important parts of the international revolutionary movement. They also dogmatically teach Marxism as a theory without practice in universities, leading students to label it a "nightmare" and only study it to succeed in college, instead of viewing it as a scientific view of the world. They present the Great Debate as a simple “Sino-Soviet split” rather than an international struggle against revisionism. They try to get people to “believe the Party line” without reservation. They immaterialize and trivialize Marxism in general.
Thiago: What is your opinion on Democratic Kampuchea [ Cambodia, editor's note, cdp.] and Laos? Is there a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist movement in these two countries today?
Luu: This is a delicate question for us. We recognize the national liberation of the people of Kampuchea led by the Communist Party of Kampuchea against the military dictatorship and the American imperialists. We maintain a neutral view of the policies implemented under his government, but we understand that Pol Pot betrayed the Cambodian revolution by supporting the revisionist clique of Deng Xiaoping and arresting the so-called "Gang of Four."
Pol Pot fell into revisionism in his later years. We also oppose the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea and the Chinese invasion of Vietnam; which was just a repeat of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. It was a war that only served the profits of two social-imperialist blocs.
Laos today is a semi-colony of Chinese social-imperialism. This country owes China around 25 billion dollars and has had to destroy many lands and rubber plantations. In 2021, the Laos–China (Vientiane–Kunming) high-speed railway line entered service. In addition to tourism needs, this railway is also used to transport timber, rubber, food and minerals from Laos to China. This railway is part of the so-called “Belt and Road” proposed by the Xi Jinping clique.
The People's Revolutionary Party was formed after the Second Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam. In the 1950s, they were not a puppet of Soviet social-imperialism, but became one in the 1960s, falling completely into revisionism after the war and after gaining independence. , being occupied by fifty thousand Vietnamese soldiers, which signifies their dependence on revisionist Vietnam and the social-imperialist USSR. After the fall of the USSR, it became a semi-colony of China.
We have no further information on the Communist Movement in Laos and Kampuchea, so we cannot say anything further on this matter.
FINAL NOTES:
Thang: We are very grateful for this interview, it not only marks the solidarity between the Vietnamese and Brazilian proletariat, but also serves as a great example of proletarian internationalism in the class struggle, the national liberation struggle against imperialism and revisionism. Red salute from Vietnam!
Source : https://valedospomares.wordpress.com/2024/04/06/entrevista-com-o-servir-ao-povo-vietna-comunistas-em-um-pais-revisionista/

Conversation about Adrian Veidt (Ozymandias) on this subreddit tends to be really limited, with many people taking at face value the "smartest man in the world" claim (which was published in a magazine Veidt owns!) and interpreting the ending as a moral quandary over whether killing millions is worth it to avert nuclear war.
But that's not how Veidt's character is written. Veidt is written, instead, to show how ego, anxiety, and detachment from humanity can drive people to do horrific things.
I collected examples from the text on several facets of Veidt's character, hoping to highlight how -- both through analogy and through plot -- Moore worked to paint a complex picture of Veidt as a person driven mad by anxiety and impotence, his fears fueled by isolation and obsessive media consumption, who did something unthinkable and unnecessary.
Is this post, itself, a bit obsessive? Yes. But I hope that people can link this post in the future the next time someone inevitably asks: "Was Ozymandias right?"

I. Veidt is mentally unwell.

• Dan: “I mean, who’s qualified to judge something like that? This is the world’s smartest man we’re talking about here, so how can you tell? How can anyone tell if he’s gone crazy?” (Chapter XI, page 3).
• Veidt: “By day I imagine endless faces. By night… well, I dream, about swimming towards a hideous… No. Never mind. It isn’t significant.” (Chapter XII, page 27)
• Veidt tells his life story to a bunch of dead bodies. (Chapter XI)
• Veidt: “I don’t mind being the smartest man in the world. I just wish it wasn’t this one.” (Chapter XII, back matter)
• Veidt is mirrored by the mariner in the Black Freighter, who has visibly gone mad by the time he embarks on the raft and is raving by the time he arrives home.
• We see a reference to Tarkovsky’s iconic film The Sacrifice (Chapter XII, page 31), which also features a character going insane in an attempt to prevent nuclear war.
• Veidt’s plan is, in essence, a form of projection: the squid makes people go insane, have constant nightmares, and kill each other out of fear. The squid is, itself, a nightmare given form.
• Graffiti (Chapter I, page 24) reads “One in eight go mad.” Of the eight Minutemen, Mothman was put in an asylum. There were eight attendees of the Crimebusters meeting. After 11/2, the graffiti has been modified (Chapter XII, page 31) to read “One in three go mad.” Only three of the attendees remain: Veidt, Dan, and Laurie.
• Just look at his expression while killing the Comedian. (Chapter XI, page 26)

II. Veidt is detached from humanity.

• In present day, we only see Veidt in his personal skyscraper or thousands of miles from New York at his private Antarctic fortress -- never on the street.
• Pulling at the Tales of the Black Freighter parallels again, the mariner is marooned and goes mad because he has nobody else to talk to.
• Veidt refers to “stepping back” from humanity: “My first step was to stand back as far as I could, to view the problem from a fresh perspective, my vista widening with my comprehension. [...] I took another step back, and thought again.” (Chapter XI, page 21).

III. Veidt is obsessed with media and pop culture, and it deeply influences his worldview.

• Veidt is constantly engaged with his “multi-screen viewing” (Chapter XI, page 1), which we see originating in 1963 with just a few screens (Chapter XII, page 18). For 20+ years, Veidt has been gleaning a lot of his understanding of humanity from obsessively watching TV.
• The squid is straight out of sci-fi, with Veidt literally hiring famous artists, writers, etc. from literature, comic books, and so on to design the squid and the nightmares planted within it.
• We also know that Veidt has read Tales of the Black Freighter, not just because he hired Max Shea to help with the squid, but also because he references it twice: “I dream, about swimming towards a hideous…” and “I know I’ve struggled across the backs of murdered innocents” (Chapter XII, page 27). The mariner literally sails on the bloated corpses of his innocent crew, and at the end, swims towards the Black Freighter.
• Veidt makes frequent media references: William S. Burroughs (Chapter XI, page 1), Man From UNCLE (Chapter XI, back matter), a bunch of musicians (Chapter XI, back matter) -- there are definitely more.
• Nova Express, heavily implied to be owned by Veidt, is another Burroughs reference.
• Veidt takes personal investment in forming narratives in his advertising, micromanaging plots in TV shows, toys, etc. (Chapter X, back matter).
• Veidt is mirrored by Bernard, the newsstand owner. Both Veidt and Bernard’s parents moved out of Germany during Hitler’s rise to power. Both Veidt and Bernard think they understand the world because they see a constant stream of media (Veidt with his TVs, Bernard with his newsstand) and are terrified of impending war. Both cite popular culture as evidence of impending war despite themselves selling to those audiences (Veidt via his advertising and publications, Bernard via his newsstand). Note Veidt’s obsession with finality and Bernard’s frequent refrain: “... inna final analysis.”

IV. Veidt undercuts his plan for his ego.

• Veidt is careful to distance himself from most of his assassinations, but kills the Comedian by hand -- something he’s not prone to doing. (Dan: “This is Adrian, for god’s sake! We know him. He never killed anybody, ever.” [Chapter XI, page 3]) This immediately clues in both the detectives (“No way this is a straight burglary… somebody really had it in for this guy.” [Chapter I, page 3]) and Rorschach.
• Veidt does this because of his ego: “Recognizing me, he attacked anyway, ‘mistaking me for a criminal.’ I studied his limitations: skillful feint, devastating uppercut; little else… He won. In the short term. [...] I also swore that when next I met Blake or any other foe, though perhaps not on my territory… it would certainly be on my terms.” (Chapter XI, page 19).
• Veidt makes his password “RAMESES II”, leaves lots of clues (“Pyramid Deliveries”), and only teleports the squid when he sees Dan and Rorschach approaching (Chapter XI, page 4). The title of Chapter XI is “Looks on my works, ye mighty”. Veidt wants an audience of his peers. If he had teleported the squid earlier, Rorschach likely would have died.
• Along similar lines, Veidt leaves the Comedian alive for as long as possible and doesn’t kill Rorschach -- sloppy choices, born out of his need for peers who know his plan.

V. Veidt’s plan is doomed and ill-conceived.

• Veidt idolizes Alexander the Great, who failed. Veidt: “Amongst [Babylon’s] ruined ziggurats, I saw at last his failings… He’d not united all the world, nor built a unity that would survive him.” (Chapter XI, page 10)
• Veidt named himself after Ramesses II (aka Ozymandias), famous from the Shelley poem about the impermanence of greatness, which the comic also references. (“And on the pedestal, these words appear: / My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings; / Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair! / Nothing beside remains. Round the decay / Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare / The lone and level sands stretch far away.”)
• Dr. Manhattan: “Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends.” (Chapter XII, page 27)
• Tales of the Black Freighter shows the mariner accidentally attacking his home to save it from a threat he thinks has already arrived, only to discover that the threat was in his head and he had become the thing he feared. Veidt, similarly, was so terrified of nuclear war that he became the threat.
• Rorschach’s journal is the last panel, implying that Veidt’s artificial peace will soon begin to deteriorate.

VI. Veidt's relationship to the Comedian is crucial, and Veidt may be the comic's true "comedian."

• Veidt’s complicated admiration for Blake extends to early in his career, in the mid-50’s: “As intelligent men facing lunatic times, we were very alike, despising each other instantly.” (Chapter XI, page 18).
• Rorschach says of the Comedian: “No one else saw the joke. That’s why he was lonely.” (Chapter II, page 27). But Veidt did: “Too cowardly to confront my anxieties, I had life’s black comedy explained to me by the Comedian himself [...] [He] opened my eyes. Only the best comedians accomplish that. [...] I swore to deny his kind their last black laugh at Earth’s expense. [...] I would trick [the world]; frighten it towards salvation with history’s greatest practical joke. That’s what upset the Comedian: [...] professional jealousy.” (Chapter XI, pages 19-24)
• In fact, though, it ends up being Blake who doesn’t get the joke. When Blake confesses to Moloch, he says of Veidt’s plan: “I mean, this joke, I mean, I thought I was the Comedian, y’know? [...] I mean, what’s funny? What’s so goddamned funny? I don’t get it. Somebody explain… somebody explain it to me.” (Chapter II, page 23)
• Veidt’s likely namesake is Conrad Veidt, perhaps most famous for his haunting, insane-looking grin in “The Man Who Laughs”.
• We see the relationship between comedy/laughter and mental instability explored in Rorschach’s joke: “Man goes to doctor. Says he’s depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says ‘Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up. Man bursts into tears. Says ‘But, doctor… I am Paglacci.’” (Chapter II, page 27). On the surface, this appears to be about Blake -- but by the end, we can see that it applies just as much, if not more, to Veidt.

VII. Veidt is a Hitler analogue.

• Veidt is a German immigrant whose character design is straight out of a Nazi propaganda ad.
• Veidt idolizes Alexander the Great, a Greco-Roman would-be world conqueror. Nazis frequently invoked Greco-Roman design motifs and obviously had similar goals of conquering the world.
• Dan: “He’s such a caring, conscientious guy. He’s a pacifist, a vegetarian…” / Rorschach: “Hitler was vegetarian.” (Chapter XI, page 15)
• Veidt: “Hitler said people swallow lies easily, provided they’re big enough.” (Chapter XI, page 26)
• 11/2 is Veidt’s personal Holocaust. Over the scenes of carnage in New York, we see the Madison Square Garden sign: “KRYSTALNACHT” (Chapter XII, page 2). Highlighted among the millions of dead: the concertgoers (alternative/punks), Joey and Aline (lesbians), Bernard (whose father fled the Nazis), and a number of Black people (Malcolm, Gloria, Bernie, and the watch salesman). Joey’s posted for Gay Women Against Rape features the band Pink Triangle, a symbol which originated as a badge to identify gay people in Nazi concentration camps.
• Veidt, fundamentally, is obsessed with finding a “final solution” to bring peace -- even if it costs millions of lives.

I have been thinking how to characterise the position of the mainstream Bahá'í church (shortened to "Bahá'í church" in this text for convenience) in the Bahá'í faith and religion and came up with what appears to be a rather accurate naming: it represents a religious monopoly.
To explain, I will start with what a traditional monopoly is. A monopoly is a situation on the market where one particular kind of goods can only be obtained from one supplier. This might be enforced, for example, by the state, by a high barrier of entry into the market, by the monopoly owning all resources, or by the monopoly actively working to destroy any competition.
All of the given examples can occur in the context of a religion. For example, the Catholic Church held a monopoly over the Christian faith for a long time in the past, enforced by both temporal rules and the Church itself. State-enforced monopoly is, obviously, not relevant in the case of the Bahá'í faith. However, the rest of the given examples apply. In the rest of this text, I will show how the Bahá'í church is a monopoly in context of the Bahá'í faith.
Let's start with the first one: high barrier of entry. The Bahá'í faith is not well-known and studied academically, 99% of the available resources like translations and books are affiliated with the Bahá'í church. Furthermore, the Bahá'í church has produced an enormous amount of resources compared to the size of the faith; any alternative views will get lost in the high number of them. Also, to newcomers, it is hard to explain that you are a marginal community of an already small religion and why they should join your group and not the mainstream one.
As of the monopoly owning all the resources, this one is obvious. The Universal House of Justice, the head of the church, collects all religious documents, including holy texts and sacred objects like photographs of the holy figures, and restricts access to them as they please and as it is convenient for themselves. A prominent example of this is the photograph of the Báb. Another, less obvious example is the church intentionally delaying the spreading of holy texts:
Regarding the question of capital punishment, provision is made for it in the Aqdas, but this is not the time to go into details. When the Aqdas is promulgated and the House of Justice comes into being will be the time to go into these matters in greater detail. For the present they should be given no publicity.
(Source: https://bahai.works/Messages\_to\_the\_Antipodes/1956)
Another measure pertaining to make sure the Bahá'í church owns all the resources is mandatory review of scholarly publications done by Bahá'ís. The very existence of such practice, regardless of the actual conditions on which a publication is "not recommended", leads to the self-censorship of Bahá'í authors following the church, thus letting it maintain the monopoly. A related issue is guidance on so-called "provisional translations" opposed to "authorised translations" (i.e. verified by the church) of the holy texts. Note how the monopoly is engraved in the language itself: authorised translations are authorized from the church's authority.
Now let's get to the last example: actively working to destroy any competition. This sounds like it would be the main way the monopoly is maintained but actually in the case of the Bahá'í church it is not. The Bahá'í church possesses two strong hammers to deal with internal opposition: institute of Covenant-breaking and disenrollment. Both take advantage of the monopoly itself: you are threatened with expulsion and, thus, losing your connection with the Faith and, in turn, God. Also, you will be shunned by people close to you, if they refuse to shun you, they also risk being shunned; this is a clear cult-like characteristic.
The strong hammers are mostly not used though, only in rare cases: this might be the benevolence of the church but it is more likely to be attributed to the inner climate within the community. Questioning the interpretation of the Bahá'í church? You are breaking the Covenant! Questioning the view of the Universal House of Justice? You are breaking the Covenant! Even if you are not a member of the church, you are told to be wary of this "out of respect" since "the Covenant is important for Bahá'ís". This small hammer of "Covenant smashing" is not that easily noticeable but it is the primary means of enforcing control.
Less dangerous individuals, like the scholar Sen McGlinn, are only disenrolled from the faith, being cast out of the Church. This is still quite a severe measure, since the church intertwines itself with the faith.
There are many additional resources to this topic that I will not cite for the sake of brevity; feel free to ask for the sources of the experiences above.

This post was made in the UFOs subreddit in August of 2023. The post was quickly locked and then deleted. The account that made the post was also deleted. I managed to salvage the post through archives and recreated it as accurately as possible. There is a TLDR at the end.
Most of rUFOs has probably not heard of Dr. Amy Eskridge. You should. This post is long, but this is a rabbit hole worth going down. Amy was an amazingly promising 34-year old woman working in Huntsville, Alabama, and was one of the worlds most promising anti-gravity researchers in the public domain.
She unfortunately died on June 11, 2022.
There have been major speculative claims surrounding how exactly Amy died. I do not have any evidence to support those claims. I don't even personally find those claims believable. I do, however, suggest it might be worth taking a second look into how she died, and exactly what is going on relating to anti-gravity research Huntsville, Alabama. Ross Coulthart appears to agree. Below is my initial research into this topic.
Background facts about Amy Eskridge:

• Amy received BS in chemistry and biology from the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and then went on to receive a PhD in material science from the University of Alabama, Huntsville.
• She was the co-founder and President of The Institute for Exotic Science, a Public Benefit Corporation international research institute, described by Amy herself as "an international research institute specializing in propulsion, quantum gravity, material science and other related fields of cutting edge technology."
• She was the CEO and President of HoloChron Engineering, an anti-gravity startup "developing novel technologies leveraging quantum phenomenon." HoloChron's specialties are listed as: "Superconductors, Gravitomagnetism, Research and Development, Electroceramics, and High Voltage Pulsed Power."

Most notably from those points, at the time of Amy's death she had started "The Institute" which was a high-caliber research institute intending to research anti-gravity technologies in public. She notably was intentionally not working on anti-gravity as part of a "black project", or through the DOD/DARPA or even NASA (although they partnered with NASA). This was because she wanted the technology to be public, benefit all of humanity, and thought there was massive world-changing potential from a variety of promising research.
Amy's 2018 HAL5 Presentation:
When Amy was initially starting "The Institute" she gave a talk about it at the HAL5 conference. The full set of slides from her presentation are available here, and you can watch a video of her presentation in full here. It's a very interesting presentation, and makes a compelling case for anti-gravity research having some promise. There are a few key specific call-outs in this presentation that are worth noting.

• The audience of her presentation appears to be mostly composed of aerospace research scientists, people who work at defense contractors, NASA, and the like.
• The intent of the presentation was to make her institute known to the audience, to try to recruit them to come conduct research for her. Towards the end of her presentation she spends a lot of time detailing how she has "several billionaires" lined up, prepared to fund a wide variety of anti-gravity research in the public domain. She was using those funds to to recruit scientists to come work for her.
• In her presentation Amy details a variety of prior anti-gravity research. She specifically notes that these researchers published initial promising anti-gravity research in the public domain, and appear to stop publishing on the subject immediately following their first promising result.
• "Promising results always seem to disappear" (38:28)
• Amy calls out a prior Huntsville, AL based anti-gravity researcher named Ning Li who had been publishing promising anti-gravity results in the 1990s, and then "disappeared".
• She presents some prior researchers' work on anti-gravity, for example, noting a 2001 publication by "Torr, Vargas and Datta" that looked promising. The audience comments "I think they got some SBIRs... and then they disappeared." to which Amy responds, "yeah there's some evidence that they got some funding through a SBIR and then they kind of just fell off the map just like Ning Li did."
• She presents a variety of other research where typically what happens is there is an initial, promising anti-gravity result published in academia, after which the researcher stops publishing on the subject entirely. There seems to be a pattern of that happening.

While notable, the commentary from the audience is more interesting than the actual presentation from Amy herself. She had a Q&A section of the presentation at the end. I have transcribed some key Q&A moments from the audience below. The audience implies the "black-world" (secret research projects) is well aware of anti-gravity, spends a ton of money researching it, and basically forces any promising results to go dark/recruits the researchers to work for the "black world." If the researcher refuses, the audience seems to think the researcher runs a real risk of "disappearing."
2018 HAL5 Presentation Audience Q&A portion:

• Audience: (53:53) "You talked about funding, and uh, that seems to be the common denominator in all this stuff. Funding or lack of. Who is... where is there any money that you know of? Are you aware of any private money that's being spent on this? Is anyone talking to angel investors, or, that sort of stuff?"
• Amy: (54:14) "Let me give you the down-low on the money situation. So, you've got your black budgets. That obviously is well funded. And then you've got your academic budget which is non-existent because they think it's hokey. And then you have your random billionaires, who have a hobby, and they made their money doing something else. But they're applying their money towards weird anti-gravity stuff because they want to be known for something other than what they made their money in. So there's several, there's a handful of random billionaires running around, who fund these types of things. The Churches Chicken Fried billionaire funded the Hathaway Lab. The American Best Inn and Suites billionaire, Robert Bigelow, of course is Bigelow Aerospace. There are some others that I know of."
• Amy: (55:05) "But, we're really trying to address that problem with The Institute that we're doing, because I've seen government research, I've seen academic research, I've seen private research, and money is always the problem. The technology is never the problem. The technology is there. And the talent is there. So what we've done with the institute is we've sort of assembled some of these random people, with big budgets and a hobby, and we've said 'hey can we pool money into a big stable pot of money' so that we can have a safe well-funded sandbox for smart people to play in, and not have to worry about government election cycles affecting their budget, or tenure effecting their budget, or even when you find your billionaire sometimes the billionaire runs out of money, or loses interest, or disappears. So you can't just be dependent on one wealthy investor. You need a big pot of money that's stable, that isn't going anywhere. So that's what we're trying to do with the institute. Just fund the institute. And then pick projects that we think are promising, and then fund those. So we're kind of creating a new vehicle for funding this type of research. That's the approach I'm taking right now?"
• Audience: (56:40) "Is there any possibility of... I know this is probably hard, if not impossible to do... but cross-over between black-world and the illuminated world? Because frequently things move from the illuminated world into the black-world. And they disappear."
• Amy: (56:51) "Yeah. We've noticed that."
• Audience: (56:56) "But, I mean it's to the black-worlds advantage to keep the illuminated world going, because, that acts as a spawning ground for ideas that they might not have. The black world. So, it's not necessarily to their advantage to keep it completely stagnated. And potentially, since Griffin is now at the pinnacle of the group that controls DARPA, and he has a history that goes through UAH, there would seem to be possibly some fertile ground for some conversation..."
• Amy: (57:43) "Yeah, um, I've thought about that. The combination of the private and the public-private institution, and working with the 'blacker budget'".
• Audience: (57:56) "A quote from Griffin. 'NASA is no longer, by any means, a research organization.'"
• Amy: (58:04) "That is a Griffin quote."
• Audience: (58:06) "Yeah, that is a Griffin quote."
• Amy: (59:09) "Yeah, I imagine there are some strong opinions about Griffin in the room."
• Stuff gets awkward in the audience at this point, and Amy moves onto talking about corporate structure and why it's structured the way it is.
• Audience: (01:02:53) "SO WHAT ABOUT THE INNOVATOR WHO IS AFRAID OF DISAPPEARING?"
• Amy: (01:02:57) "Well, that's a whole 'nother problem. audience laughs I think doing it in the public is better in that case. That's a different..."
• Audience: (01:03:11) "That doesn't mean you won't disappear. Even if you do it in the public, that still don't mean the inventor won't disappear for lots of reasons."
• Audience: (01:03:20) "Like Ning Li!"

A few takeaways from this 2018 HAL5 conference audience Q&A:

• Both Amy and the audience imply, repeatedly, and take very seriously as if it's a "known-secret" amongst those in the know, that anti-gravity research moves from the "illuminated world" (public research) to the "black-world" (secret project) on this subject all the time, but not the opposite direction. They even reference the black world keeping the illuminated world "completely stagnant."
• Amy implies states that the "black-budgets" in this area of research are well funded. So the government is working on this, actively. Which government organization has a headquarters in Huntsville, AL? NASA.
• The audience states "frequently things move from the illuminated world into the black-world. And they disappear," which Amy acknowledges. This implies that the government swoops in, as soon as there is any promising research on anti-gravity, and takes it for themselves/forbids further public publication of it.
• The audience openly asks the question about inventors of anti-gravity research getting personally "disappeared" themselves which they all seem to think is a real problem. They take it serious. The room is filled with nervous laughter. They seem to think it happens. Amy thinks working on it in public will help, the audience disagrees. What does "disappeared" mean in this context? Murdered? Forced to work for the secret project? Something else? We don't know. The audience is uneasy about it.
• The "Griffin" they refer to I believe is Michael D. Griffin. At the time, he was the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. He previously served for the Strategic Defense Initiative, and was the Administrator of NASA from 2005-2009. Apparently, Amy and the audience are familiar with the direct quote from Griffin, stating "NASA is no longer, by any means, a research organization." If NASA is not a research organization, what is it?
• Amy and the audience both specifically, repeatedly refer to a previous Huntsville, AL based anti-gravity researcher, Ning Li, who "disappeared" after publicly publishing promising anti-gravity research in the 1990s.

So who exactly is Ning Li?

• Ning Li was an anti-gravity researcher living in Huntsville, AL in the 1990s. She worked at University of Alabama Huntsville, and theorized that proper use of a superconductor could produce some anti-gravitational effects.
• A 1999 "Popular Mechanics" article was written about her. In 1999 she left UAH to form the "AC Gravity, LLC," company to continue anti-gravity research (this company still exists today). This company was awarded a $500K DOD contract in 2001, and then not much is known about it since. Publicly, Ning Li stopped publishing any further research and effectively "went dark." Nobody seemed to publicly know where she was, had heard from her... nothing. Amy even mentions this in her presentation, and nobody in the room appears to know what happened to Ning Li either.
• There was a lot of speculation about what exactly happened to her. Some popular theories included (a) that she had been killed, (b) that she had moved to China and was researching anti-gravity for the Chinese government, (c) that she was still in Huntsville, AL, and had continued her research but only sharing her findings privately for the US government/defense industry.
• From an article that came out in the "Huntsville Business Journal" three days ago, where a reporter contacted her surviving son, we now know the answer. The correct answer is (c) - she never left Huntsville, and worked on anti-gravitational research until she died in 2021, in Huntsville, AL.
• Her son confirmed "Dr. Li never left the DoD and never left the country to work for the Chinese government."
• Ning Li died in 2021 from very normal causes (nothing nefarious at all): complications relating to Alzheimer’s. Apparently Li continued to work at Redstone Arsenal every day until 2014 when Li was struck by a vehicle while crossing the street on the UAH campus, which caused permanent brain damage, potentially leading to the Alzheimer’s.
• Her son also notably commented he "noticed change in his mom after leaving UAH for the private sector. He says all the secrecy that comes with the job began to change her demeanor and behavior over the years." ... "When she was at University, she loved to publish her findings,” he recalled. “But after she got her top secret clearance, she wasn’t allowed to share anything anymore with anyone. She became much quieter. She would return from work looking worn down with her makeup messed up. It wasn’t like that when she was at the University."
• From the sound of it, "going dark" may not have been Ning Li's choice. It's possible the DOD compelled her to work for them if she wanted to keep researching anti-gravity.
• While I know absolutely nothing about anti-gravity technology and how it relates to superconductors, the patent for the "room temperature superconductor" LK-99 in the news this week cites a Salvatore Pais patent for a "Piezoelectricity-induced High Temperature Superconductor." Salvatore Pais is very same U.S. Navy scientist who patented the UFO anti-gravity craft and a high-frequency gravitational wave generator. You can find his patents here. Notable.
• In the 177-page document released a week ago, there's a statement about Ning Li made by AATIP scientist Robert Baker. "AATIP scientist Robert Baker who specialized in high frequency gravitational waves (HFGW) stated he hadn’t heard from Li in “several years.” She was working on HFGWs and superconductors for the US Army at Redstone Arsenal with AC Gravity, and Baker states she “never presented them with a final report” on the contract. Baker did not know where Li went or why she didn’t finish her contract. Baker also states he is working with Fangyu Li of Chongqing University on HFGW research at this time. In 2019, Baker clarified he was on the Army’s oversight committee for Li’s contract and that Li never delivered a final report not due to nefarious reasons, but because she “didn’t quite get around to it.” Baker states he has communicated with Li since then and she “would play a role” in his current HFGW research."

2020 "The Institute" Anti-Gravity Research Publication Blocked by NASA:
Following her December, 2018 HAL5 conference presentation Dr. Amy Eskridge did in fact launch "The Institute" doing exactly what she said it would: research anti-gravitational systems. Amy stated they had recruited several scientists from NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (located in Huntsville, AL). Over the next several years "The Institute" appears to have been making progress with their research, refining some work that had previously been done at NASA and other research facilities, and was potentially producing meaningful results. In September 2020, "Falcon Space" was attempting to present some of their own research at the "Estes Park" conference, and Amy Eskridge sent them a cease and desist order, claiming some of the material was not approved for release due to relations with NASA. Amy's statement about that C&D is below:

Amy Eskridge to Everyone: "Yes, I regret that I was unable to present the topic I had planned to. The theory and substantiating data I was planning to present is based on novel foundational work that was generated originally by a member of our team while a civil servant at NASA MSFC. This work has since then been further matured privately by The Institute. The foundational work done at NASA must first be approved by NASA for public release via their IP release mechanism before we can talk about our subsequent results publicly. A paper is currently under review by NASA for publication. We had hoped it would be approved in time to discuss here, but it is currently in the home stretch of publication. I expect it to be published within the next 30 days and I will be happy to distribute the publication to the group once it comes out."

Despite the claim the paper would be available within 30 days, I have not yet been able to find that paper. From the sound of it, both Amy/The Institute and Falcon Space wanted that research out in the public domain - they wanted to present it - and NASA was holding it up/preventing its release. It's not clear to me the paper was ever published, so if not, NASA must have permanently prevented it. If someone can find this paper, please do, and share it in the comments.
Amy's Untimely Death:
Not much more research came out publicly from The Institute or from Amy Eskridge following that September 2020 cease and desist until Amy died on June 11, 2022. The cause of death for Amy was not publicly disclosed, however, the same Twitter account that posted the C&D posted this tweet stating:

"We are still investigating the suspicious death of one of our former colleagues from NASA Hunstville, Amy Eskridge who was found dead from a gunshot wound last Friday. Expect a follow up and some interviews once we conclude our investigation."

That same Twitter later posts "'suspicious' has been downgraded to untimely and unexpected." and other replies on Twitter respond that Amy had been living in chronic-pain, stopped taking her pain medication, speculating the cause of death may have been a suicide.
If true, that's obviously a very sad outcome. R.I.P. Amy, and condolences to her family in all scenarios. The story would typically end there.
Franc Milburn Chimes In:
However, in September 2022, Franc Milburn, a retired UK intelligence officer, discussed on his podcast that he has been focusing his investigations into directed energy weapon use against scientists in the UAP field. These events are ongoing and have been reported to the highest levels of American defense & intelligence establishment. *Milburn personally knows a UAP/anti-grav scientist who was murdered. The directed energy weapons are responsible for Havana Syndrome; they can be deployed on trucks and are able to "fry" people through windows. * I do not believe Franc Milburn names the anti-gravity researcher he believed was killed using a directed energy weapon. When that podcast aired though, there was a Reddit post and a commentor surfaced Amy Eskridge's name at that time.
Last Week's 177-Page Document (Briefing?):
Then, in the 177-page document that came out last week containing UAP history, one of the entries references this claim as well. Note, the document claims Franc Milburn made claims about Amy specifically, when I do not believe he actually named her specifically on the podcast. Nonetheless, text of that document is included below: ​

(PUBLIC DOMAIN) - 15 June 2022 — Dr. Amy Eskridge, the 35 year old scientist & co-founder of the Institute for Exotic Science in Huntsville, dies in Huntsville, AL. Retired UK intelligence officer Franc Milburn claims she was targeted with directed energy weapons and murdered by a “private aerospace company” in the US because she was involved in the UAP conversation and working on advanced propulsion.
In 2020, Eskridge stated she was planning to present novel foundational work regarding antigravity but needed approval from NASA. In 2018, Eskridge and her father Richard Eskridge gave a talk on behalf of their company, HoloChron Engineering, a gravity modification R&D company, in which they discuss historical and current means of antigravity experiments and modern black projects allegedly developing triangle antigravity craft like the “TR3B.” Eskridge’s colleague Dick Reeves was also involved with the Institute; her brothers Michael Eskridge and Matt Eskridge were not.

Then, none other than Ross Coulthart is referenced in that same 177-page document, on the very last entry in the document. It references a statement from Ross from this past February.

(PUBLIC DOMAIN) - 28 February 2023 — Journalist Ross Coulthart states on a podcast that there are people “involved in high level physics” who worked in Huntsville, AL and disappeared. Coulthart says BAE Systems deserves a very close look because of “who they’ve taken over.”

Amy is a real anti-gravity researcher who actually died. We don't know how she died. Her death is terribly sad. I am NOT saying she was murdered. Please do not harass her family about this, I'm sure her family is still terribly saddened by her death. Frankly, the speculation in the 177 page document, apparently referring to the claim made on Franc Milburn's podcast, that she was murdered using a "directed energy weapon" seems outlandish to me. It sounds like a method that would attract a lot of attention, and if those energy weapons cause effects similar to "Havana syndrome," it would not be consistent with the "gunshot wound" style injury mentioned by her co-worker in the prior tweet. The only reason for using a method like that to murder someone would be to send a message to other researchers, making it very obvious to them what group committed the murder and to try to intimidate them not to disclose anything.
However, despite it being unlikely, it might still be worth researching Amy's cause of death more.
Huntsville, Alabama seems to be suspicious, generally:
Finally, on the general "anti-gravity" and/or UAP research happening in Huntsville, AL... just yesterday a story came out stating that Biden has declined to move the U.S. Space Command headquarters to Huntsville, AL. Apparently the U.S. Air Force leadership ran a study, and determined that relocating U.S. Space Command to Huntsville, AL was the right move. The USAF notably appears to be highly involved UAP crash retrievals, as well as blocking disclosure. If they think Huntsville, AL is the right place for U.S. Space Command, that raises the question of "why?" Could it be that Huntsville, AL is the "Silicon Valley" of UAP, anti-gravity, and exotic defense research? NASA has a huge HQ there, as does almost every other aerospace defense contractor. This 2013 article refers to Huntsville, AL being a "major target" for espionage, going so far as requiring the National Classification Management Society, Defense Security Service and Lockheed Martin Space Systems to host a security conference in the city. "Huntsville is a major target for foreign nationals (spies) working to obtain classified information," FBI spokesman Paul Daymond said. Perhaps the broader Huntsville, AL economic ecosystem is a storyline worth pursuing in the near future on its own.
Ross Coulthart even stated on a podcast on July 3, 2022:

A large number of the scientists are working on what's euphemistically called 'the program' in or around Huntsville, Alabama..that city has become the focus of a very intense espionage effort by overseas spy services. It had been reported to me by not one but two sources that there've been deliberate attempts to cause injury to people who are working on the periphery of that program and there was concern that some of the people are not being adequately protected….there's a concern that basically scientists working in essentially research related to ongoing antigravitics research are suffering harassment from overseas intelligence services.
“In Huntsville, Alabama, USA there’s a very black program underway that was previously run by a Chinese-American scientist called Ning Li…there is a very active anti-gravity program…I’m told there is equally an extraordinarily aggressive and nasty Chinese counterintelligence operation underway, to try to find out as much as possible through harassment and simple things like poison. There’s an espionage battle underway as we speak.”

THATS SUCH A LONG POST!!! HERE'S YOUR TL;DR: * NASA has their Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL. Many other aerospace defense contractors have HQs in Huntsville, AL as well.

• There appears to be a large number of anti-gravity research scientists in the Huntsville, AL area.
  
• Those researchers appear to be almost exclusively affiliated with either NASA or defense contractors, which apparently actually spend a lot of money funding anti-gravity research, despite academia funding virtually none.
  
• The U.S. Air Force wanted to move U.S. Space Command to Huntsville, AL, as recently as yesterday.
  
• Of the researchers that are NOT affiliated with NASA/defense, if they happen to publicly publish promising results, they tend to "go dark" shortly thereafter, and stop public publishing anti-gravity research. This has happened several times, with several different researchers, and Amy notes those instances in a presentation.
  
• It is speculated that many of those researchers are brought into the "black world" (secret projects) after publishing promising results, either by choice or by involuntarily (by force).
  
• Ning Li is an example of such a researcher, who initially published through the University of Alabama, Huntsville, but then "went dark." According to her son, she did not enjoy going dark. It may not have been her choice to go dark.
  
• Amy Eskridge was trying to change this "black world" system, by creating an organization to conduct anti-gravity research in the "illuminated" (not-secret) world.
  
• In 2018, Amy gave a presentation on this organization, to which many of the audience members were scientists. Those scientists sounded scared/wary that they would get disappeared if they joined her in this pursuit, openly commenting on this in the Q&A.
  
• Amy was blocked by NASA from disclosing her research in September 2020. NASA claimed they would allow it to come out within 30 days. It never came out.
  
• Amy then died in June 2022. There is speculation it is from a gunshot wound, and that the cause of death may be suicide.
  
• In September of 2022, Franc Milburn says he knows of an anti-gravity researcher in Huntsville, AL who has been murdered using a directed energy weapon. Reddit speculates he's referring to Amy Eskridge.
  
• In July 2023, a 177-page document is anonymously shared by Michael Shellenberger. That document rephrases Milburn's claim, stating Amy "was targeted with directed energy weapons and murdered by a 'private aerospace company' in the US because she was involved in the UAP conversation and working on advanced propulsion."
  
• That same 177-page document references Ross Coulthart stating that there are people “involved in high level physics” who worked in Huntsville, AL and disappeared. He is likely referring to Amy Eskridge or Ning Li.
  
• If this post is too long for you, just watch this one segment from her HAL5 conference. The audience question/her answer is notable.
  

I personally find the directed energy weapon claim implausible and difficult to believe. It might, however, be worth learning more about Amy's cause of death. However, even if her cause of death was not suspicious: what on Earth (or not? hah) is happening in Huntsville, AL where all of these scientists and researchers are "afraid of disappearing?" And why do they all seem to know a LOT about anti-gravity work being done by the government?

Ok so let me explain.
I turned in my essay to my writing professor, and well, I turned it in very close to the exact time it was due. That wouldn’t have changed much anyway since resubmissions weren’t allowed. But anyway..
Upon further reviewing the paper I submitted, I found that one of my citations was incorrect. The citation generator I used (I used google docs built in citation generator, it comes in handy), apparently attributed the wrong authors to the website article. It likely for some reason attributed authors at the bottom of the article who were responsible for a different article, and not the article I intended to cite. I also accidentally attributed the incorrect authors based on this incorrect citation in the text before the quote being cited..
So anyway, upon noticing this, I emailed my professor immediately. I told him what happened and I showed the corrected citation and the corrected in text citation (this is in MLA by the way). I also said how I will try to ensure this does not happen again by ensuring citations generated by a citation generator cite the sources properly..
Did I do the right thing? Is this that big of a deal? This is a big assignment so I’m a tad worried. I obviously didn’t intend to plagiarize, and I’m aware of the importance of citing sources, which I intended to do. Are professors usually understanding of mistakes like this?

Ok so let me explain. I also wasn’t sure what flair this would go under so I just picked academic advice since I needed advice.
I turned in my essay to my writing professor, and well, I turned it in very close to the exact time it was due. That wouldn’t have changed much anyway since resubmissions weren’t allowed. But anyway..
Upon further reviewing the paper I submitted, I found that one of my citations was incorrect. The citation generator I used (I used google docs built in citation generator, it comes in handy), apparently attributed the wrong authors to the website article. It likely for some reason attributed authors at the bottom of the article who were responsible for a different article, and not the article I intended to cite. I also accidentally attributed the incorrect authors based on this incorrect citation in the text before the quote being cited..
So anyway, upon noticing this, I emailed my professor immediately. I told him what happened and I showed the corrected citation and the corrected in text citation (this is in MLA by the way). I also said how I will try to ensure this does not happen again by ensuring citations generated by a citation generator cite the sources properly..
Did I do the right thing? Is this that big of a deal? This is a big assignment so I’m a tad worried. I obviously didn’t intend to plagiarize, and I’m aware of the importance of citing sources, which I intended to do. Are professors usually understanding of mistakes like this?

Asalamalekum,
I got married to my wife through arranged marriage last year. We had a 6 month engagement period prior to our Nikah. We moved to a different country after the wedding.
We get along well and I enjoy her company a lot. I love her a lot and admire a lot of her good qualities. I am very affectionate towards her and we are very active in terms of intimacy.
After the move to our home( we live alone), She got extremely homesick and due to this she would spend long hours talking to her mother daily. I didn't mind this initially but it got to a point where she would speak with her mother atleast 5 - 6 hours daily. I found this a bit abnormal and asked if she could reduce the phone time and instead speak with me about whatever is bothering her , so I can support her emotionally. She would deny there is anything wrong with this and it's quite common for brides who get married to speak with their parents since they just moved out.
I applied for her work permit in the meantime, but she wanted start working immediately without one. I told her that is a violation of her visa and provided her the tracking number for her work permit application and asked her to start working as soon as her work permit is approved. She was not happy with with me and blamed me for stopping her from working.
Within 3 months of the weddings she kept mentioning that she would like to visit her parents. I was initially against her travelling home so soon and we had a few arguments over it. Since I was going through a rough patch at work I would often work 18+ hours(I work from home). I requested her support for 1.5 month till I conclude my current project. I promised her that only if she waited 1.5 month longer, we could travel to her parents home together for a long vacation.
She got extremely angry at me for asking her to stay. Within a few days she purchased the tickets for herself with her own money and left.
Fast forward she travels to her parents home and she cut of communication for days at a time. She neither answered my calls of texts messages.
Recently,I come to find out that she wants a khula and her family is accusing me of controlling behavior, anger issues and using their daughter as a servant becuase i prevented her from working and used her for cooking/ cleaning only.
I didn't want to contest the charges and apologized to her parents and promised to do better.And i asked them to retract the khula. But no one wants from her family wants to talk to me. Her father is not replying to my calls /messages either.
My family asked a mufti to mediate the matter. During the mediation process, her father cited a risk to her life because of me and the her father says he cannot send her back to me due to this reason. He is afraid of her taking her own life due my alleged bad behaviour.
I never hurt her physically in any way, I am beyond shattered to hear this. She is blaming me for her decision to go for a khula and accusing me of using her as puppet and touching her raw neve by asking her not to speak with her mother.
I am willing to do anything to fix this but i find this very strange and sad. Any advice on how to navigate is appreciated.
Jazakallah

OVERVIEW
The Wall of Sheep would like to announce a call for presentations at DEF CON 32 in Las Vegas, NV from Thursday, August 8th to Sunday, August 11th. Packet Hacking Village Talks goal is to deliver talks that increase security awareness and provide skills that can be immediately applied after the conference. Our audience ranges from those who are new to security to the most seasoned practitioners in the security industry. We are accepting submissions from individuals and organizations on any of the topic areas, including, but not limited to, the following technologies and applications:

• AI and Machine Learning in Security: Impacts on network and operating system security; use in deploying and defending networks.
• Awareness: Security awareness program success and failure stories.
• Cloud Security: Hacks and tricks for assessing and testing services.
• Compliance: How to use regulatory compliance requirements in your favor to enhance your overall funding and security posture.
• Networking and Cybersecurity: The latest hacks, trends and technologies in networking and cybersecurity.
• Spy-level makeup art (e.g., wigs, prosthetic noses, etc.)
• Supply Chain Security: Building security into the supply chain process to reduce risk.
• Threat Defense: Advanced techniques for defending networks, systems, and services from cyberthreats.
• Tools, Techniques, and Procedures: network sniffing, intrusion detection, monitoring, forensics, DFIR log analysis, collection & visualization, threat hunting, EDR telemetry, lolbin's for defense, detecting download cradles, using the ATT&CK framework for defense, Incident response process and procedures and/or recovery, automation

DEF CON attracts a wide range of technological skill sets, presentations need to be accessible, with explanatory information to help the audience understand.
The Wall of Sheep will not accept product or vendor related pitches. If your talk is a thinly-veiled advertisement for a product or service your company is offering, please do not apply! We will also not accept talks that have been given elsewhere, including at DEF CON / Black Hat / BSides.
All accepted talks will be announced, recorded, and published by Aries Security, LLC. and DEF CON Communications, Inc. Please see our YouTube channel for all talks from previous years: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnL9S5Wv_dNvO381slSA06w and https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6Om9kAkl32dWlDSNlDS9Iw.
The Call for Presentations will close on Friday, May 31st at 11:59 PM PST. The list of talks will be finalized and published on Friday, June 7th.
SPEAKING FORMAT --UPDATED FOR DEF CON 32
Each presentation slot is 1 hour maximum, including time for Q&A. If we have time and it is in line with our goals mentioned above, then there is a good chance you will be selected.
Presentations will be part of DEF CON's new "Creator Stages". Although presenters will not receive a DEF CON speaker badge, they will receive a human badge and additional identification as village speakers. Presentations will also be recorded and shared on DEF CON's media servers and YouTube. Additionally, we do not recommend live demos. Pre-recorded demos are preferred.
To submit a presentation, please provide the following information in the form below to cfp2024[at]wallofsheep[dot]com
Primary Speaker Name:
Primary Speaker Title and Company (if applicable):
Primary Speaker Email Address:
Primary Speaker Phone Number (to contact you if necessary during the conference):
Primary Speaker Twitter name (if you want it known if you are accepted):
Primary Speaker Mastodon name (if you want it known if you are accepted):
Additional Speakers' name(s), titles, and social information:
Additional Email Addresses:
Is there a specific day or time you MUST speak by?
Name of Presentation:
Length of presentation: (20 minutes or 50 minutes)
Abstract (100 words MAXIMUM, absolutely necessary for printing purposes):
Your abstract will be used for the website and printed materials. Summarize what your presentation will cover. Attendees will read this to get an idea of what they should know before your presentation, and what they will learn after. Use this to inform about how technical your talk is. This abstract is the primary way people will be drawn to your session. CFP reviews like to see what tools will be used and what materials you suggest to read in advance to get the most out of your presentation.
Has this talk been given anywhere before? YES or NO
Speaker's Bio(s) (75 words MAXIMUM per bio):
This text will be used for the website and printed materials and should be written in the third person. Cover any professional history that is relevant to the presentation, including past jobs, tools that you have written, etc. Let people know who you are and why you are qualified to speak on your topic. Presentations that are submitted without biographies will not be considered.
Detailed Outline:
You must provide a detailed outline containing the main points and navigation through your talk. Show how you intend to begin, where you intend to lead the audience and how you plan to get there. The outline may be provided in a separate attachment and may be as simple as a text file or as detailed as a "bare bones" presentation. The better your outline then the better we are able to best review your presentation against other submissions (and the higher chance you have of being accepted). SUBMISSION NOTE: Presentations that are submitted without abstracts, outlines, or speaker bios (e.g., that have only PDFs, PPTs, or white papers attached or only point to a URL) will not be considered.
Supporting File(s):
Additional supporting materials such as code, white papers, proof of concept, etc. should be sent along with this email to cfp2024[at]wallofsheep[dot]com. Note that additional files that may help in the selection process should be included. We are not asking for a complete presentation for this initial submission. That will only be required if you are selected for presenting.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
By submitting you agree to the Terms and Conditions below. Please read and accept these terms by inserting your name in the appropriate area, otherwise your application will be considered incomplete and returned to you.
Grant of Copyright Use
I warrant that the above work has not been previously published elsewhere, or if it has, that I have obtained permission for its publication by DEF CON Communications, Inc. and Aries Security, LLC. and that I will promptly supply DEF CON Communications, Inc. and Aries Security, LLC. with wording for crediting the original publication and copyright owner. If I am selected for presentation, I hereby give DEF CON Communications, Inc. and Aries Security, LLC. permission to duplicate, record and redistribute this presentation, which includes, but is not limited to, the conference proceedings, conference CD, video, audio, and hand-outs to the conference attendees for educational, on-line, and all other purposes.
Terms of Speaking Requirements

1. I will submit a completed (and possibly updated) presentation and a reference to all of the tool(s), law(s), Web sites and/or publications referenced to at the end of my talk and as described in this CFP submission by noon PST, July 30th, 2024. Please note this is a hard deadline as presentation and details need to be sumitted to DEF CON.
   
2. I will submit a final Abstract and Biography to the Wall of Sheep by noon PST, July 30th, 2024. Please note this is a hard deadline as presentation and details need to be sumitted to DEF CON.
   
3. I will include a detailed bibliography as either a separate document or included within the presentation of all resources cited and/or used in my presentation.
   
4. I will complete my presentation within the time allocated to me --not running over the time allocation.
   
5. I understand that I will be responsible for my own hotel and travel expenses.
   

Yes, I, (insert primary speaker name), have read and agree to the Grant of Copyright Use.
I, (insert your name here), have read and understand and agree to the terms as detailed in the Agreement to Terms of Speaking Requirements.
In the case that a speaker is a child under the age of 13 years old: in compliance with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) regulations, http://www.coppa.org, any child under age 13 must have parental consent for the collection, use, or disclosure of that child's personal information by a website. Parent/Guardian Consent: I (insert parent/guardian's name here) am the parent or guardian of the minos named above. I have read and understand and agree to the terms as detailed in the Agreement to Terms of Speaking Requirements.

Contest Rules For Best Song Of The Month • Updated May 19th, 2024

Click here to see summary of changes.

Best Song Of The Month Contest

Music Or Lose It hosts a monthly Best Song Of The Month contest at this musicorloseittv subreddit community. There is no cash or monetary value prize at this time. This contest is simply just for fun. Winners earn the enjoyment of being voted the best. Winners may cite the win in their biographies and social media posts.
The moderator (mod) is available to help music creators with the entry process, eligibility requirements, and deadlines. Music creators are allowed to contact the mod to ask questions about the contest anytime and mod will reply as soon as possible.
Definitions
Music creator: refers to a solo creator, band, group, choir, orchestra, or duo.
Brand identity: refers to how a creator presents themselves as an entertainer making music for the general public. For example, Simon & Garfunkel as a duo is one brand identity. Paul Simon solo is another brand identity.

Process & Deadlines

🟡 Round 1
1) Discovery ◦ Each month, moderator keeps track of songs shared at this musicorloseittv community.
2) Notifying Music Creators ◦ When a likely eligible song is seen, the u/musicorloseittv profile or u/themusicfanman profile will notify the music creator of likely eligibility within the qualifying song’s post. The reply will indicate, “⏳ This song appears eligible for the Best Song Of The Month contest. Please provide the following information…” If the song is confirmed to be eligible by a mod, the mod will make a reply “🟨 This is confirmation notifying you that this song is eligible and in consideration for the Best Song Of The Month contest…” within the qualifying song’s post.
3) Determining Contestants ◦ The Music Fan man will evaluate all eligible songs by the month’s eligibility deadline. He will then at his discretion choose up to 5 songs to compete.
3) Finalists Post ◦ At this musicorloseittv community, the musicorloseittv profile will announce the top finalists (up to 5) in a post tiled “Contest: Best Song Of The Month Finalists (Insert Month & Year).” This announcement will be done in a post made 4 days before the final day of the month. The post will be made sometime in the morning. The songs will be listed within the post in a manner most representative of music diversity as determined by the musicorloseittv profile mod. All songs available on YouTube will be included in a playlist titled “Best Song Of The Month Contestants • (Insert Month & Year)” hosted by the musicorloseittv channel on YouTube. Songs not available on YouTube will be excluded from the playlist. The playlist will be mentioned in this post. The available playlist will help voters get familiar with the songs.
The u/musicorloseittv profile or u/themusicfanman profile will notify the music creators of qualifying for the contest in their post of the song. The reply will indicate, “✅ Congratulations. Your song qualifies for the Best Song Of The Month contest…”
4) Voting ◦ The “Contest: Best Song Of The Month Finalists (Insert Month & Year)” post will specify a duration of 3 consecutive dates during which music fans can vote for only 1 of the top finalists. Voting occurs by the voters making a reply to the post in the following manner: “🗳️ I vote for….” Failing to vote in this manner will result in vote not being counted. To best ensure vote accuracy, voters must not use the “🗳️” emoji anywhere else in the post’s comments section. Music creators may vote for another music creator yet may not vote for themselves. For music creators, it’s “word of honor” voting. The top vote earning song within these three days will become the winner.
‣ Community moderator profiles musicorloseittv and onesongoftheday will abstain from voting. Also, themusicfanman and any special judge involved will also abstain from voting - unless they’re needed to serve as a tie breaker, in the event of a tie preventing a clear winner. If themusicfanman and any special judge involved are needed as a tie breaker, they must come to a consensus to achieve tie breaking. If no special judge is involved, then themusicfanman alone will serve as the tie breaker.
🟢 Winner Declaration!
Declaration Post ◦ At this musicorloseittv community, on the final day of the month, the musicorloseittv profile will announce the winner in a post tiled “Congratulations! 🎉 Best Song Of The Month Winner (Insert Month & Year)” in a post dedicated to celebrating the song. Using the sticky-post feature, the post will be prominently displayed the home page of the musicorloseittv subreddit community for ≈ 24 hours.
Achievement ◦ The contest winner may promote their song as:
My song “Song Title” won:
🏅Best Song Of The Month By Community Vote
(Insert Month & Year)
At The Music Or Lose It Community
The winner may promote themselves and the song as the winner at venues like X/Twitter, Facebook, Threads, or their YouTube channel’s Community feed. The winner may also cite the win in their biographies online including their personal website.
🏆 Song Of The Year
A similar Song Of The Year vote will occur in December. It will be similarly organized and scheduled to conclude on the final day of the year. To determine a Song Of The Year by the end of the year, December’s monthly contest will only be ≈ 2 weeks. Why? Because we need time to conclude The Song Of The Year vote by the end of the year. Additionally, this is a busy time of year for many people. What’s more, non-Christmas music released in December is typically overshadowed by Christmas music. It seems to be a bad idea to release new-original music in late December. See opinion commentary: The Best And Worst Months To Release Music.
Achievement ◦ The contest winner may promote their song as:
🏆 Best Song Of The Year By Community Vote
(Insert Year)
At The Music Or Lose It Community
The winner may promote themselves and the song as the winner at venues like X/Twitter, Facebook, Threads, or their YouTube channel’s Community feed. The winner may also cite the win in their biographies online including their personal website.

Eligibility

Here are the rules for the Best Song Of The Month contest organized by Music Or Lose It just for fun. The eligibility rules are intended to make this contest as fair as possible to the music creator participants.
**👤 Personal: **
Requirements:
✔️ Must be an actual human.
✔️ Must be 17 years of age or older.
✔️ Must be a music creator abiding by the rules of this musicorloseittv subreddit community.
✔️ Must be a music creator posting using either your personal profile or your brand profile as a music entertainer.
Ineligible:
🚫 Profiles run by publicists, music labels, or channels hosting performers.
🚫 People posing as other humans using imitation avatar type creations by artificial intelligence (AI).
**🗿 Music creator’s stature status: **
Eligible:
✔️ Unsigned amateur or unsigned professional yet lesser known.
✔️ Lesser known music creators who have not yet achieved two different songs with over 500,000 views/listens and are signed to deals with small to medium-sized record companies or seeming one-song-per-time type distributors.
✔️ Lesser known music creators who have not yet achieved two different songs with over 500,000 views/listens and are signed to deals with to a major label.
**📅 Release date: **
Eligible:
✔️ Your song must be published and accessible to the masses anytime between November 15^th of the prior year and 5 days before the final day of the current month.
**💽 Songwriting, singing, & recording: **
Requirements:
✔️ You must be the copyright owner of the song (lyrics and sound recording) or authorized/licensed to perform the song by the copyright owner as the first original performer.
✔️ An exception is made if your song is an authorized/licensed remix or includes authorized/licensed interpolation or sampling content by the copyright owner in collaboration with any other amateur music creator(s) or unsigned professional yet lesser known music creator(s). The aforementioned release date also applies to any remix, interpolation, or sampling content.
✔️ Collaborations within the aforementioned rules are allowed so long as the song is entered into the contest by the lead. Lead refers to the first person named in the collaboration.
Ineligible:
🚫 Copyright/trademark violations.
🚫 Songs written by artificial intelligence (AI).
🚫 Songs primarily generated artificial intelligence (AI).
🚫 Cover, parody, nor artificial intelligence (AI) imitation.
🚫 Songs likely to be very divisive for political or religious/anti-religious reasons.
🚫 Collaborations within deceased music creators akin to “Unforgettable” by Natalie Cole featuring Nat "King" Cole.
🚫 Interpolations, remixes, or samplings of a song by a creator signed to a record company of any size or signed to a one-song-per-time type distributor.
🚫 Song with hard cussing. No variations of F word, S word, C word, D word, N word (er or a), ahole word(s), or sexually vulgar words.
🚫 Extremely sexual, gang promoting, violent, or especially scary/gory/maleficent/evil aesthetic content.
🚫 Songs primarily about brands. For example: “I Love Driving Such-And-Such Brand Name Trucks.”
**👂 Recording quality: **
Allowed:
✔️ Professional quality recordings (live or studio).
✔️ Amateur quality (including songs record in a bedroom, car, outdoors, etc…) yet reasonably pleasant sounding.
✔️ Demos are welcome.
Ineligible:
🚫 Live records with too much interfering audience noise.
🚫 Recordings with excessively poor sound quality (abrasive on the ears, difficult to hear).
**📏 Song length: **
Requirement:
✔️ Minimum of 01:15 minutes up to 10:00 minutes.
**💻 Distribution venues: **
Requirements:
✔️ A song published and accessible to the general public masses at a well-known music website such as YouTube, SoundCloud, or Bandcamp.
✔️ A song uploaded to a channel hosting live performances is allowed so long as the song is entered into the contest directly by the creator and so long as the creator confirms permission by the channel. Confirmation can be done in either your original upload URL link source or at this community within your posts’ body-text section or a reply to the post.
✔️ The song’s upload date must be visible at the distribution venue website.
⚠️ If you enter this contest with a Spotify or TikTok URL link, ensure you’ve provided a link for the entire song (not a teasesampler) in a manner that does not require login; ensure the publish date is visible; and be weary of looping flashing visuals necessitating a “⚠️Possible Seizure Trigger Risk Warning.” Failing to do this will result in ineligibility.
Ineligible:
🚫 Login required to access the song.
🚫 Payment required to access the song.
🚫 Uploads of songs directly to Reddit.
🚫 Links not fully available to the public such as an “unlisted” YouTube video.
**🖼️ Song’s artwork: **
Definition: artwork refers to the image/drawing/photo/visuals accompanying your individual song at a music distribution venue such as YouTube, SoundCloud, or Bandcamp. It is sometimes referred to as “cover art.”
Requirements:
✔️ You must be the original creator of the song’s accompanying artwork.
✔️ Alternatively, you must be the copyright owner of the artwork if you paid to have it made. Otherwise you must be authorized/licensed to publish the artwork as part of the presentation of your song.
✔️ Artwork primarily generated by artificial intelligence (AI) is allowed so long as you are authorized/licensed by the AI source to publish the artwork as part of your song’s public presentation. However this is advised against because public sentiment may be hostile towards AI generated content.
✔️ If your song’s artwork uses aspects of copyrighted, creative commons, or “free” material content, you must confirm you’ve got authorization/licensing to use the content as part of your song’s public presentation. Confirmation can be done in either your original upload URL link source or at this community within your posts’ body-text section or a reply to the post.
✔️ Your own logo that you own the copyright to may be displayed in the song’s accompanying artwork (including on a person wearing a hat or T-shirt).
Ineligible:
🚫 Copyright/trademark violations.
🚫 Parody notably displayed in the artwork.
🚫 Visible logos of any brand other than your own logo as a music entertainer.
🚫 Extremely sexual, gang promoting, violent, or especially scary/gory/maleficent/evil aesthetic content.
**🎥 Song’s music video (optional): **
Including a link to a music video is optional.
Requirements:
✔️ You must be the original creator of the song’s music video visuals including: animation; moving graphics; prominently featured still artwork or photos.
✔️ Alternatively, you must be the copyright owner of all the video’s visuals if you paid to have them made. Otherwise you must be authorized/licensed to publish all the video’s visuals as part of the presentation of your song’s accompanying music video.
✔️ Visuals (including: animation; moving graphics; prominently featured still artwork or photos) primarily generated by artificial intelligence (AI) are allowed so long as you are authorized/licensed by the AI source to publish the artwork as part of your song’s public presentation. However this is advised against because public sentiment may be hostile towards AI generated content.
✔️ If your song’s accompanying music video uses aspects of copyrighted, creative commons or “free” material, you must confirm you’ve got authorization/licensing to use the copyrighted material as part of your song’s public presentation within the accompanying music video. Confirmation can be done in either your original upload URL link source or at this community within your posts’ body-text section or a reply to the post.
✔️ Your own logo that you own the copyright to may be displayed in the video (including on a person wearing a hat or T-shirt).
✔️ Allowed music videos include “Official Music Video,” “Live Performance,” “Dance Video Version,” “Animated Video,” or “Lyrics Video.”
✔️ If you opt for an “Animated Video” or a “Lyrics Video,” you must be authorized/licensed to publish all the video’s visuals as part of the presentation of your song’s accompanying music video. If you hire an animator or use AI or an app/software designed to create music video lyrics, you must be authorized/licensed by the animator or AI source or app/software creator to publish the animation and/or lyrics as part of the presentation of your song’s accompanying music video.
✔️ If you opt for a “Dance Video Version,” the dancing and/or choreography must be originally created for your song’s accompanying music video. If you hire a choreographer and/or dancers or collaborate for free or for barter, you must be authorized/licensed by the choreographer and/or dancers to publish the video’s dancing/choreography visuals as part of the presentation of your song’s accompanying music video.
✔️ “Official Audio” type music videos are allowed so long as an accompanying still image complies with the aforementioned “Song’s artwork” rules. Alternatively, if the “Official Audio” music videos has moving visuals, it must comply with these above-mentioned “Song’s music video” rules.
✔️ “Live Performance” music videos may be made from your home/cafield (pretty much anywhere decent and reasonable) or from one of your well-recorded performances from a show. Be sure to avoid copyright and trademark violations in the video.
⚠️ Brief uses of music distribution venue logos at the end or start of a music video may be allowed at mod’s discretion, when the intent is to inform the viewer of venue availability of the song. This is however discouraged unless the distribution venue, at their website, specifies this is allowed. Music videos that display any trademark logos (other than the music creator’s own copyrighted logo) entirely throughout are ineligible.
Ineligible:
🚫 Copyright/trademark violations.
🚫 Notable use of virtual reality program recordings.
🚫 Notable use of filters from apps/websites similar to Snapchat.
🚫 Parody of intellectual property characters prominently displayed in the video.
🚫 Notably visible logos of any brand other than your own logo as a music entertainer.
🚫 Notable display of brand products with visible logos including but not limited to toys, stuffed animals, autos, hats, T-Shirts.
🚫 Extremely sexual, gang promoting, violent, or especially scary/gory/maleficent/evil aesthetic content.
🚫 Limitations on involving minors (under 18 yo): no minors doing dangerous stunts; no depictions of minors participating in drugs/drinking/smoking or very sexual behavior (including sexual dancing); do not prominently feature children that are not your own in the video (exception may be made if a relative only allows you to involve their children).
⚖️ Quantities:
Requirements:
✔️ One song per music creator’s brand identity.
✔️ If a music creator uploads more than one of their brands’ potentially eligible songs, the music creator must inform mod which song they prefer to be included in the contest.
✔️ A music creator may win this Song Of The Month contest up to three consecutive times. If this happens, thereafter the creator must abstain from the contest for the next month and then may return to the contest after that 1-month eligibility hiatus.
Ineligible:
🚫 Every collaboration will not automatically be considered a new brand. For example, Robert Plant and Alison Krauss collaborating one time should not be considered a brand. Robert Plant & Alison Krauss making an entire album together should be considered a brand. Music creators attempting to enter multiple songs under multiple brand names will be scrutinized. If there is no social media presence for any additional brands, their songs will likely be rejected as “also eligible” by mods. If this happens, the music creator will have to enter only 1 song.
**🖱️ Accounts you may post from: **
Requirements:
✔️ Your post must be made directly from either your personal Reddit account profile or your brand’s Reddit account profile.
✔️ If you have a medical condition necessitating aid, on your behalf, you may appoint a publicist, manager, caretaker, helper, spouse, partner, friend, guardian, or family member to post from either your personal Reddit account profile or your brand’s Reddit account profile.
✔️ If your song is from a band, group, choir, orchestra, or duo brand, the post must be made directly from either from one of the members’ personal Reddit account profiles or from your brand’s Reddit account profile.
✔️ If your song is collaboration, the post must be made directly from either the lead’s personal Reddit account profile or from the lead’s brand Reddit account profile.
✔️ If you want another song to be a part of the contest from another brand identity you are involved with, the song must be posted by a Reddit account profile for that separate brand – or one of the brand collaborators’ personal Reddit account profile.
👩🏾‍🏫 Presentation at this musicorloseittv community:
Requirements:
✔️ You must post a link to the song at this musicorloseittv community by tapping “+” on smartphone or clicking “+Create a post” on desktop/laptop. You must select the “My Song” flair.
✔️ Your post must be done by the “Title & Link Share Only method.”
✔️ The song’s URL you provide must be of the standalone song upload - not part of a playlist URL link.
✔️ You may post an audio only upload URL link (such as an individual song published at SoundCloud or Bandcamp). Alternatively, you may post a music video link from a venue like YouTube.
✔️ You may include a smartlink for the individual song (not album or playlist) within your posts’ body-text section or a reply to the post.
✔️ You may title the post whatever you want within the community’s rules and the contest’s rules. Remember: no vague titles; limit post title emojis to no more than 2 (if you decide to use them); and don’t request feedback.
✔️ Your post title may be done in the style of “Entertainer - Song Tile” (or something similar). Alternatively, the post title may be more elaborate. For example: “This Is My Latest Song. It’s About A Wonderful Time I Fell In Love.”
✔️ In your posts’ body-text section or in a reply comment, optionally you may share details about the song that you feel the audience would enjoy knowing.
**📝 Needed information: **
Requirements:
✔️ Within either your posts’ body-text section or within a reply comment at your post, provide the following information – as is:
❇️ Contest entry for your consideration:
• Entertainer's Name - Song Title:
• Published on: [Insert date & year. Refers to date published at your URL link source]
• Genre:
• I am an independent creator unsigned I am signed to [insert label name]
• Interpolations/remixes/samplings disclosure: N/A this song contains authorized/licensed interpolations/remixes/samplings [specify] of another song released since 11/15 of the prior year in collaboration with other unsigned music creator(s)[specify]. The link to the original song is [insert URL link – publish date from URL link source must be visible].
• Al disclosure: N/A. A portion of this [song/artwork/music video] is created by Al. Explanation: [specify if this applies to song/artwork/music video].
• Copyright disclosure for song: I confirm I’m the copyright owner of all the contents of this song (lyrics and recording) as it is presented including the artwork [(if applicable) and music video]
Copyrighted content I am authorized/licensed to use commercially in the promotion of my song include: [insert details]
• [optional/voluntary] Confirmation of substantial human involvement: A real human substantially arranged/compose this music. [Note: This type disclosure is strongly encouraged by creators who use instrument sounds and beats from apps/software in substation of instruments played live at the time of recording. This is especially encouraged for music creators who do not show their face and/or don’t show themselves creating the music in a music video or behind the scenes video. For music fans opposed to music primarily created by AI, this type of disclosure can be helpful and assuring.]
• Lyrics: [insert URL link or embed URL link into “Lyrics” text] [note if the lyrics are available at the upload source] [only if you're the copyright owner of the lyrics, you may entirely include them] [type “vocalized” or “instrumental” if applicable]
Ineligible:
🚫 Uploads of songs to Reddit.
🚫 No engagement pleas disguised as feedback requests in post titles nor in your posts’ body-text section. No feedback requests.
**👨🏼‍⚖️ Copyright/trademark compliance: **
‣ Important note: Aforementioned rules already state you either must be the copyright owner of the content you enter for this contest or you must be authorized/licensed to commercially use the content by the copyright owner. Aforementioned rules already state you must disclose use of copyrighted, creative commons, or “free” material. Mods reserve the right to ask for additional proof for confirmation. Suspected violations will be removed at mod’s discretion. You are strongly encouraged to upload your best, newest, utmost original content.
‣ Resources:
U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright in General https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html
What Musicians Should Know about Copyright by U.S. Copyright Office https://www.copyright.gov/engage/musicians
U.S. Copyright Office Fair Use Index by U.S. Copyright Office https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use
**🤝 Mutual Support **
Requirements:
✔️ You must be active in the musicorloseittv community regarding mutual support and engagement with other posts. You must post a comment reply to at least two other posts of any kind at the musicorloseittv community before the final day of the month. Failing to do so will result in disqualification.
Ineligible:
🚫 Posting then ghosting the community.
**😎👍 Encouraging fans to vote: **
Ineligible:
🚫 You are not allowed to ask for votes in anywhere in the musicorloseittv community’s comments section.
🚫 Music creators may not offer anything to anyone whatsoever in exchange for voting for them.
Allowed:
✔️ If you see a music fan has voted for you, you may thank them in a reply comment.
✔️ You may make social media posts at venues like X/Twitter, Facebook, Threads or your YouTube channel’s Community feed to encourage your fans to join this musicorloseittv subreddit community and vote for your song.
Example post:
My song “Song Title” is a finalist for Best Song Of The Month at the musicorloseittv community at Reddit. At [insert URL link] please vote for me and my song. Thank you.
**📜 Rules adherence: **
‣ Important note: If you are new to the musicorloseittv community as either a music fan voting or music creator entering the contest, latitude may be given as you get familiar here. It’s up to mod’s discretion.
‣ Important note: This contest is just for fun. Likewise playing boardgames or cards with friends is also just for fun yet people expect rules to be followed.
**🕊️ Truthfulness: **
Requirements:
✔️ Contestants and voters are expected to behave honorably and ethically.
Ineligible:
🚫 If anyone is ever discovered cheating or being dishonest akin to author James Frey or music entertainers Milli Vanilli, they will be disqualified and also likely be banned from this community.
Additional Info
If you do not want to be in the contest yet want to continue sharing your songs in this community, it is totally ok. Please inform the moderator. A “Message the mods” option is at the homepage.
In circumstances where uncertainty arises due to an unforeseen issue not addressed here in this outline of rules, moderators reserve the right to approve or disapprove eligibility. Moderators reserve the right to disqualify any song for any reason. Unfortunately, not every contest can perfectly satisfy all participant hopefuls.
Just do your best, don’t take it too seriously, and have fun.
Thank you.
END

I just finished the RBC Brooklyn Half yesterday, after a 12-week training program. I’d built up a lot of expectations for the race, for a whole host of interrelated reason (that I’ll unpack in the body of this thing); all those expectations, unfortunately, caused me to get carried away, and made my experience of the race overall 1) unenjoyable while I was running and 2) disappointing after I finished.
I’m a teacher, and I frequently relay this paraphrasing of a Confucius quote to my kids: “We can either learn how to act by imagining consequences and reflecting, which is best; or by watching others make mistakes, which is hard (though not for us). The most difficult way to learn is through experience, but if that’s what it takes, then that’s what it takes.” One of my top-upvoted comments of all time is in this sub, telling people to not ruin a race for themselves by over-fixating on time-goals at the expense of enjoying their race.
And yet—

Race Information

• Name: RBC Brooklyn Half
• Date: May 18, 2024
• Distance: 13.1 mi
• Location: Brooklyn, NY
• Time: 1:38:2X

Goals

Goal	Description	Completed?
A	Sub or Equal 1:32	No
B	Sub 1:35	No
C	Finally Pace Myself Properly	No

Splits

Split	Pace	Time
5k	7:04	21:55
10k	7:20	44:42
15k	7:12	1:07:03
20k	8:23	1:33:03
Finish	7:55	1:38:2X

Background Context

I started running in Oct of ‘22, and caught the bug. I ran a half in April of ‘23 in 1:47, and loved the distance. I built base over the summer to ~30-35 mpw, and then trained for the Philly Half in Nov of ‘23. Ended up getting a 1:38:0X in that race, which was really exciting. More exciting was that I approximately even-split that race — my second half took ~30 seconds longer than the first. I left that race feeling exactly how I wanted to — like a washcloth wrung out completely. I felt like that race & time represented the absolute best of my ability, given my current level of fitness; and I felt like I tried my best the whole way through.
Last important piece of context re: diagnosing this race’s disappointment: between Oct of ‘22 and Nov ‘23 I went from ~240 lbs avg to ~195 lbs average. My lowest weight dipped to the high 180s, but I stabilized around 190 pretty quickly.

Training

I used Runna to train for Philly and really enjoyed the experience. My organizational skills are pretty lacking, and I spend 100% of them in other areas of my life — so I enjoy using an app that offloads some of that cognitive lift for me, fully worth the sub during training blocks.
As far as milage, I managed:

Week	Miles (Ran / Goal)
1	25 / 33 mi mi (missed 2 runs from travel)
2	32 / 36 mi (missed 1 run b/c travel)
3	38 /38 mi
4	12 / 20 mi (deload, missed 2 runs from illness)
5	28 / 38 mi (missed 2 runs from illness carried over from previous week)
6	40 / 40 mi
7	43 / 43 mi
8	23 / 23 mi
9	50 / 43 mi (extended 2 easy runs by ~3 miles apiece)
10	43 / 40 mi
11	29 / 35 mi (missed 1 run due to illness)
12	23 / 23 mi (including race).

As I’m sure you can already see, I missed a meaningful amount of runs due to illness/other life interruption. Concurrent with all this is the fact that my wife is due with our 2nd child in, well, like a week and a half from now; so a lot of the missed runs in weeks 1-5 also reflect a dramatic net increase in my responsibilities b/c of my wife feeling out of it / not being able to get as much done as normal (no shade at all; she’s literally building a new human that wasn’t there before). Overall I got ~92% of all milage done, running 388 miles during these 12 weeks. Mistake #1: I didn’t adjust my time goals in light of missing workouts; I figured if I just worked harder to “catch up,” I would be fine.
The plan included 2 quality sessions a week — 1 tempo run and 1 interval session, and the weekend long run frequently had pace thrown in. I vastly prefer tempo to interval running — personally, I cite being ~200 lbs as the reason. Once I get going, it’s easy to keep going, but frequent stops & starts just burn energy that I can’t afford to lose. Mistake #2: as I trained, my weight went from the high 190s to the high 200s, and I raced at ~207 lbs. I wasn’t consistent w/ nutrition during training, and the associated stress of my job, as well as parenting & chores usually handled by 2 people being done mostly by me — I often used lil’ snacks as a quick dopamine fix (adhd heads out there, you know what I’m talking about.)

Pre-Race

I wasn’t sure I’d be able to run the race in the first place — my first daughter (now 7) was born at 36 weeks, and I anticipated my second needing the same (choleostasis enjoyers, rise up). Instead, though, this baby seems primed to go the distance — so I got equal parts excited and nervous to be able to deliver on all my training.
I’d cut my time by 9 minutes from my first to the second half, and tried to be conservative in aiming to cut ~5 minutes between these cycles — so I aimed to run 7:00-7:05 for the race, dipping into the 6:55s if I felt good at the end of the race, and set my A goal for 1:32, and my B goal for 1:35. Mistake #3: I didn’t have any serious qualitative goals, and my quant goals were made too far in advance to be realistic. I also wasn’t proactive in adjusting my goals based on how training was going — despite advocating for that same thing in posts on this sub.
Man, it’s so easy to say smart things, and so hard to actually do them.
About 10 days before my race, I came down with a cough thing that sapped a bit of my energy. Kept me up at night, and sapped ~10-15% of my energy on a given day. The Wednesday before my race I asked my wife, “Do you think 3 days is enough for me to be back at 100%?” And I want to say to other runners out there: if you’re having to ask that question, go ahead and adjust your goals. We’ll tag that as Mistake #4.

The Race

Gorgeous morning. I live ~1.5 miles from the race start, so I walked over to Franklin and then jogged the remaining ~1 mile to the start as a warmup. Skipped bag dropoff for the same reason I don’t like checking bags while flying, did a quick pee (quick pee, long portapotty wait time), and went over to the corral.
My whole “thing” as a runner is that I’m deceptively fast — that is, that I’m most commonly the least-fit looking person out of the people running equivalent paces to myself. When I started running, that gave me a bit of imposter syndrome; any more, I draw on it for motivation. So as I was waiting in Corral C to start, I realized I felt a lot of pressure — to be able to deliver on being fast, to prove that I’m actually fit, whatever. No one outside of myself cares, obviously. But that’s now how this stuff works.

The First 10k — Would’ve Been Great If This Was a 10k

My pacing plan was as follows: don’t exceed 7:00 pace at any point in the first 7 miles; aim for ~7:30-7:45 going up Prospect Park’s big hill; use the downhill at 10k to catch my breath; and use the last 7 miles down Ocean Ave to winch down on speed if I was feeling good, or just hold around 7:05 if I was spent.
I was able to hit the first half of this plan pretty well, as my splits up top suggest. But I could tell, starting as I ran around GAP and into the park, that I was working too hard — the effort I was expending was too much. As I reflect on it now, I realize I was probably in ~1:35 shape (~7:15 splits); but I stubbornly refused to drop down in pace. I noticed my heart rate was in the high 170s as I ran through Prospect Park, where my HM pace usually puts me at 165 on the dot. I tried to tell myself it was race excitement + caffeine. [Arrested Development Narrator Voice: It wasn’t.]
I hit the 10k mark at 45 minutes pretty much on the dot. My 10k PR is 44:0-something. This is when I realized my pacing was probably a bit on the screwed side. I’m fairly capable with distance, and am better at medium-exertion-long-distance than I am at hard-exertion-short-distance (my 10k predicts a slightly better 5k time than I currently race). I thought to myself: “Well, you can always just drop down a bit and hold. What’s the worst that can happen?”

The Worst That Can Happen: AKA You’ll Feel Pretty Silly When You Try to Tell Your 38.5 Week Pregnant Wife That Your Last 6 Miles Were Quote “Unimaginable Suffering” And It “Felt Like It Would Never End”

I had been under the impression that Ocean Ave would be a “gentle downhill,” but had never run it prior to the race. This, dear reader, is a lie. Somehow, the last 6 miles of the race are entirely uphill; or at least, that is what it’ll feel like if you go out 5% over your current level of fitness.
The sun really started to get to me; and while I’d had water & nutrition, my gut wasn’t enjoying it, and I didn’t feel energized or like any second wind was coming. I specifically remember that Mile 9 felt like it took 20 minutes to finish; the last 5k of the race simply wouldn’t arrive.
I pulled off to the side to slow down; first to 7:30, then 7:45, then 8:00, with no respite. My legs were heavy despite feeling fueled — I was just dyin’ out there. My wife had been texting encouragement during the race, and I managed to send her back from my watch at mile 9 “all goals are now out the window,” and it was just about finishing — first, to finish without walking. But I took 2 30-second walk breaks when the fatigue felt unendurable — pulling off to the side and counting down from 30, while getting passed.
That was another feature of the race that made it so challenging — that same dynamic of “being deceptively fast” that I mentioned above came back to bite me, as I got passed continuously by people who’d raced their fitness, rather than their goals, in the first half of the race. That demoralized feeling was incredibly difficult to handle. I hadn’t, before today, understood why someone would quit a race; and now, even though I didn’t quit, I get it.
As I passed mile 11, I realized that, while my initial goal was fully out the window, I could still PB the race, even though my pace between miles 9 and 11 was more than a minute off my goal pace; I’d just need to hold approximately 8:00 pace, and I’d be right up against my prior PB. That didn’t make anything any easier, but it did make me feel like the suffering had a point.
Got an encouraging text from my wife, found some other folks at ~8:00 pace, and tried to lock into that pace next to them. And then I just sort of suffered to the finish line. I don’t know what the views looked like; I’m not sure what the race atmosphere was like. I wish I’d paced myself better so I could have experienced that fully.

Post-Race: Why Don’t They Tell You That You Have to Walk Up Stairs To Get Out of Cyclone Stadium BEFORE You Go Into the Stadium?

Got medal, got water. Drank about 5 consecutive cups of water, and then exited the boardwalk. Texted my wife that it’d been really hard but I finished, and right as I did, a critical mass of finishers arrived such that cell service got knocked out for everyone. Thus began the Long Night of The Soul for me at Cyclone stadium.
I walked in, walked around, realized there wasn’t anything I wanted to do in there, and then tried to go back out; at which point I was told “Exit is out that way,” and I said, “I can’t just go back out? I gotta go upstairs to leave, after running a race? That’s the rule?” The guy who told me didn’t deserve my sass; and I deserved to not go up stairs. Oh well.
I managed to get up the stairs without cramping up (though it was close). I went and looked out over Surf Ave, at everyone walking to and from the race, and just got to sit with my thoughts for a bit. I got myself a bit choked up & had a very dignified little cry at this realization, which I think does fully distill my feelings about the race: “I feel like I tried my hardest, but I don’t feel like I did my best.” I think that we often treat those two statements like they’re interchangeable, but there’s actually a bit of space between those ideas, and my race fell into the gap between them. I both tried very hard the entire time, but also, I could have done a better job pacing myself and picking target times. That disappointment is rough.

To Do Better Next Time

So to conclude this whole long sad love letter to learning: some takeaways, ranked from Most Transferrable (re: life skills) to Most Specific.

1. Actively listen to ya dang body, fool

Self-explanatory: by setting a goat at the outset of training, and then sort of driving toward it without respect for a lot of recently-added stressors in my life, I didn’t end up running any faster — I just made the running I did do kind of miserable. Next time I intend to use HR & Effort (together!) as a better indication of the pace my body feels comfortable running during the race. We say so much “Trust the taper,” and I think here I’d benefit from reminding myself, “… buuuut the taper doesn’t make impossible things possible.”

1. Don’t invest so heavily in the quant goal

I got very invested in how proud I would be if I managed to achieve the goal, and that forward-projecting is part of what caused me to overshoot the goal in the first place. Next time around I want to have a process goal to the tune of “Enjoy the race while trying to wring out your body like a washcloth.” Or something; I have time to plan.

1. Lose 15-20 pounds.

I’m 5’9; I’m strong and I’m heavy. My running has kind of been those two vectors pointing against each other the whole time. But I think I’m at the point where, if I want to be able to sustain 7:00 speeds for more than a 10k, I need to lose some of the excess weight I’m holding onto. I could also do strength training, but I’ve got a baby on the way; heart tells me that getting 7-10% lighter will be a lot easier than getting 7-10% stronger.
So that was training, goals, and next steps. Hopefully, by seeing my mistakes, you’ll be able to avoid them yourself in the future. Hopefully!
Made with a new race report generator created by herumph.

I posted on here before that my sister Mellissa losing her kids she has 7 in total katelynne is 19 kay din is 13 Lillianna is 11 Miracle is 6 zanders are 8 and Ransom and Rytheme are 2 years old today is their birthday the whole problem started in 2019 when Melissa found her old crush from school his name is Aron.
Aron and Melissa are dating i knew from day one I didn't like him he was controlling in my eyes all he ever did was tell Melissa what to do I noticed this when we all gathered at my sister Jessica's house early for Christmas since she wouldn't be in town
Jessica is married to a Mexican who I adore his name is Andres so normally every other Christmas and summer she would go with her son to Mexico to spend time with his family we were having a good time until he began texting and calling Melissa
he had been living with her that next year in 2020 we found out some disturbing things Melissa didn't want to get pregnant again so she had an IUD inserted in her arm to prevent her from getting pregnant what Aron would do was squeeze her arm to break the IUD so he can get her pregnant
In April of 2020, I moved into my sister's house i was previously living with my mom under her landlord's radar until I got accused of stealing clothes which is ridiculous and then I got banned so I moved into my oldest sister's Jessica house
Just a few days after moving in my sister Jessica came into my room and told me that Aron had beat up Melissa and it was bad she had bruises and gashes all over her from her beating on her and DCFS had gotten involved
DCFS told her that if she did not get rid of Aron she would have no choice but to take her kids away because of what happened his kids also displayed abuse his son was violent and his daughter would sit there and watch as Zander who is Autisic was getting dressed disturbing
Then in May of 2021 Ransom and Rytheme were born Ransom was born with Cleft feet while Rytheme was normal but Aron's control over her got worse during this time we got calls from the kids more and more often asking for Jessica to come to get them because they were scared
Aron and Melissa were fighting again Melissa was also an alcoholic so they would fight when they were mostly drunk is when the fights they both wanted to run the household when it should have been Melissa since it was her house
Then 2022 started we did not hear much of Melissa leading up to this year she came over on Christmas and it seemed she was still under his control she would pick up immediately after he would call this worried us because she was pregnant
January nothing February nothing then March happened Kaydon her 12 year old called us saying Melissa was drinking again and that he found an empty vodka bottle in her trash can we told him to tell his bio dad stevie and Stevie told her case worker
this was March 2nd of 2022 that year was very eventful if you ask me multiple false police calls from her on us threats from Aron stalking us because he didn't like that we had his kids and multiple false reports to DCFS from her about us citing that we were abusing the kids
all reports came back unfounded of the course she also posted on Facebook slandering Jessica saying that she always wanted her to have her kids taken away which wasnt true she had gotten her kids taken away and then we had to immediately find babysitters for the babies
Jessica worked so did Andres and I and Jessica had a deal when I moved in that i didn't have to babysit if I didn't want to as you can tell babysitting 2 infants a 5-year-old and a 7-year-old autistic child was not an easy thing to do
At first, our babysitter Brooklyn just quit babysitting Zander saying his meltdowns were way to much and then she quit watching the babies so i took over it was from April- to October of 2022 in between that time I had given a lot of my time up to babysitting i never got a day off
on top of making sure I fed and changed the babies while making sure the older kids got to bed on time I had to also clean the house and this was proven to be too stressful on me the fact Jessica's son Zion would always contradict me this would lead to fights we had
In August of 2022, they went on vacation for 6 days and this was a saving grace for me since i got 6 whole days to myself in September of 2022 I had gotten into a fight with Zion her husband was supposed to be off that day but he went somewhere with the older kids
so it was just me Zion and the babies Zion wanted to watch tv i said no he tried to snatch the remote from me and a fight happened the fight got so heated because he kept trying to follow me around if i went into the kitchen where he was the livingroom there he was the bathroom there he was
Finally, i went outside and he tried grabbing me until the neighbor came out he then went inside and locked me out of the house twice once back inside I yelled WHAT THE HELL IS THE MATTER WITH YOU, YOU DONT HAVE A RIGHT TO LOCK ME OUT AND THERE ARE BABIES IN THE HOUSE!!!" he then shoved me so I called Jessica
Jessica sped home and she laid it on him thick saying that she was taking his game until he learned to keep his hands off of me Andres came just in time to see him try and put his hands on Jessica and he beat up Zion Jessica had to pull him off of Zion
the next two months he just went on walks until his mom would be home until October I was putting all the same colors of play dough in the same container and my vape was by the tv so I could just grab it and go outside he purposely knocked it to the ground
I asked him about it and he blamed the 5-year-old for it but there were 2 problems to this story 1 -I had it scooted back to where the 5-year-old couldn't reach the vape and 2- the 5-year-old is smarter than most and knows not to touch it
this is when the final fight happened Andres had already left for work and Jessica was already at work I didn't want to fight with him so I told him to stop but he didn't want to be kept it up he started following me around the house but this time I chose to ignore I got hungry
so I went to grab a knife and a potato so I could cut up a potato i can make myself a baked potato and he grabbed a knife of his own this made me feel threatened so I called Jessica no answer i texted Jessica no answer so then I tried his andres I called him no answer I texted him no answer this was after I told the older kids to go to the playroom
after no answer, I called the police the police came Zions Dimbass went outside with the knife to talk to the police I told the officer what happened and he told his side of the story too not long after they left Jessica came home instead of her yelling at Zion for starting a fight she yelled at me
so the next day Jerry told me he wanted me to come to the hills and talk to him and at the same time I felt like she was going to make me move out she said she would pick Melissa's kids over me every time which upset me
so I went and got papers for Indian Hills and signed them she tried to backtrack as soon as DCFS said it was unfounded but I told her I did not want to babysit anymore so she had Stevie and Jen babysit This only lasted a month so November thru December
after they quit it was Ricky Katenynnes boyfriend who babysat Kateynee came now and then to help out but she had her job and Ricky did not follow any rules Jessica had some strict rules when it came to ways to babysit the baby
such as cleaning up the mess and not vaping around the babies if one of the kids is sick keeping them away from the babies and letting the babies sleep whenever they wanted Jessica didn't want them sleeping past 5 pm so they would have a sleep schedule
After Ricky quit due to him accusing Zion of looking up porn on the internet on one of the kid's tablets and being told that maybe he was the one doing it then Jessica tried to pressure me into babysitting again even though in October we sat down in the kitchen and i told her how I felt
then she told me she understood the deal we made and that the only time that she would ask me to babysit was for school stuff and doctor appointments and when she went to the boat that's what she calls the casino so she had to quit her job at the restraint so that she didn't have to worry
January and February we were living off of food pantries and behind on bills then mom mentioned on Addus and working for Travis and so she signed up went to orientation and now she works for Travis
now for the update :
last day of court was today and they told Melissa she will not be getting her kids back She is back on medicine and she is doing her classes but the one thing she was not doing was accepting the fact that it was Aron who got her kids taken
thank you Reddit for joining me on this wild ride

Tw: discussion of death in the family
About 2 months ago, I finally blocked my parents. My aunt, my nmom's youngest sister, passed away. She was pretty young, only about 50, and that of course is very sad. I have never been close to my extended family and it had been over 15 years since I had seen or spoken to my aunt, so while it's sad, I wasn't exactly grieving. My mother wordlessly texted me her obituary with no other text or explanation, and I was wary of this.
A while ago, I think a little over a year, my grandmother died, and nmom did the same thing. I also posted about that on this page, and about my suspicion that it was manipulative, and my guilt over thinking that. In the end, I reached out to give my condolences and offer help if she needed it; which she then used to ensure access to me and pressured me into communicating with her. When I attempted to pull away, she would cite sadness from her mother dying to guilt me into staying engaged. Because of this, when I received my aunts obituary, I was worried about falling into a similar situation.
I talked to my wife and decided to take a little time and collect my thoughts before responding, to make sure it was worded well and conveyed what I meant, with little room for manipulation.
However, when my mother didn't get the immediate response she had received the last time, she started sending pictures of me and deceased aunt together, from when I was around 4 years old.
I was horrified. For everything my mother has done, using the recent death of her baby sister in order to get a response from me is a pretty disgusting low. I couldn't believe she would weaponize something like that. I have put up with a lot of abuse from her my entire life, but this was the straw that broke the camels back. I was furious, and blocked both her and my edad, because I didn't trust that she wouldn't try to use him or his phone to try and contact me once she realized that she couldn't get ahold of me on her own.
I'm still traumatized by that family, and still angry over a lot of what she did, including this, but over the past couple months I've been talking about it in therapy and occasionally forgetting my nmom even exists; and god, it's so peaceful when I do.
But then, two days ago, I received two voicemails from my mother.
Apparently, with my provider, when a number is blocked, I wont see that theyre calling, but I'll still receive their voicemails, unless I contact the provider and have someone manually block their access to my voicemail inbox. I immediately panicked and felt sick. I didn't listen to them, I couldn't bring myself to. I had theories of what they were. They were both short, around 12 to 20 seconds each (I deleted them and can't check), so they weren't some big tirade. I suspected that since mothers day just passed and I didn't call or text like I normally did for holidays, she had called to either, a) demand to know why, b) tell me how awful of a daughter I was, or c) doing the sweet and kind guilt method of asking why I would do this to her and make me question blocking her at all. I knew no matter which it was, I wasn't okay. But I was terrified that maybe something had happened to my dad, who was also blocked and is an enabler, but I have still always been closer to. I firmly believe he's also a victim of my mother who just never stood up for me, but that's another rant for another time. Because of that, I was scared to just delete them right away.
I already has therapy scheduled for that afternoon, and I talked to my therapist about it. We decided the best thing for me was to have my wife listen to them and delete them for me, and then if there was any emergency with my edad, they could tell me. When I got home we did just that, I gave them my phone and left the room, and came back when they were finished and the messages were deleted. I was tense as hell and ready for the worst.
They were pocket dials. My wife said it sounded like the Bluetooth on my mother's phone had hooked up to the car and she had called accidentally through it.
Of all the outcomes I was preparing myself for, that wasn't one of them. It completely took the wind out of my sails. I felt so stupid for panicking, and ended up just laying with my wife and crying. I just made myself feel crazy again, and went through the whole rigamarole of telling myself "see, you overreact, you weren't abused, you're just crazy," which they corrected of course. But it's so easy to slip back into that place.
I was tense and raw the rest of the night and following day, but started to feel a little better.
And then, that night, my edad left me a voicemail.
I wasn't staying at home that night because I was petsitting, but I texted my wife a screenshot of the voicemail notification and said that maybe the calls my nmom made weren't accidental after all. Either that, or my edad also pocket dialed me within 7 hours of my mother, which seemed awfully coincidental.
My wife found a way for me to forward the voicemail to them and I did, and they listened to it for me again. It was a real voicemail this time, in which my ndad called me by my deadname and then pointed out they hadn't heard from me in a while.
My theory is this: The first voicemail from my mother was an accident, hooked up to the cars Bluetooth on her way to work, which, since she is blocked, went directly to voicemail. She noticed this, and tried a second time, resulting in the second voicemail she left, confirming that her calls went straight to voicemail. Then, when she got off of work and saw my edad, she told and convinced/demanded for my father to call from his phone, to probe and see if he could get through to me, or if his went to voicemail too.
I knew I was right to block him too. I knew she would use him to get to me.
This all went down the day before yesterday, and I'm still tense and shaken up about it. I hate being so terrified of a voicemail, I hate knowing that my dad is just a tool for her, I hate knowing that even blocked she has this much power over my health. I'm just so exhausted from this whole thing.
I'm debating contacting my provider to cut off their access to my inbox, but for some reason I'm scared, and I'm also worried I might be overreacting. I'd appreciate any thoughts or advice on this.