Search This Blog

Yesteryear

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

September 22, 2010

           Take a close look at today’s photo. I signed up for the new BigString e-mail. This outfit has jumped the gun, the old over-promise and under-deliver situation. I’ll report on it later as long as you understand this blog focuses in the practicalities of usership over specs you might get from some magazine. BigString is the outfit that claims you can retract your emails, or even make them self-destruct after a time period or number of viewings. My earlier statements about control of my computer are wrong to an extent, as their software is reputed to work only on the email server.
           My prediction is that these recallable emails will be graphics rather than text. That is, you will get a picture of a letter rather than a letter. It would then make sense as coding for illicit purposes has always been possible by embedding it in photos where most humans can’t read it. If it is a graphic, and I think it must be, I can already crack the code. That’s why you should look twice at today’s graphic.
           I’ve found a place (to purchase and live) up on the corner, though I have not decided anything yet. I’m torn between buying an expensive house or a cheap mobile home. It is half the square footage of this place, but at a quarter of the price and everything is quite brand new inside. A full Florida room and off-street parking included. Make no mistake about it, I am done dealing with liars. Wallace has less than 48 hours to salvage this situation, but he has proven to be a master of time-wasting indecisiveness in such circumstances. He’ll sit and watch the ceiling tiles sag down but he won’t fix it or let anybody else fix it.
           Rehearsal I cancelled tonight, instructing young Jag to run through the material on the CD for the full allotted time. Last week he made mistakes, but they were the right mistakes and not the wrong ones. He fielded every nuance I threw him on stage last week without giving up. And yes, by Monday practice, he was tremendously better without me having to assign homework or complain about anything—and that is called real teaching. He is to show up directly at the gig on Friday and launch right into it.

           Normally a day of chasing around, instead I spent the entire afternoon chatting with my well-paid lawyer who was in no rush, I wonder why. Turns out his wife is a Canadian woman he met at a canoe race in Toronto. Thus, when we got to talking about Wallace said lawyer repeatedly chuckled in a knowing fashion as we described known character flaws that are considered perfectly normal up there.
           A Canadian thinks that any wild theory that pops into his head becomes a relevant fact. They also have trouble understanding when they are losing, as if they can’t believe it is happening. And once they do lose they don’t admit it, why that’s because everybody else was too stupid to understand the truth, so they didn’t really lose, see? Canadians cannot think in a straight line. I’ll bet this sounds all too familiar to some of you.
           Canadians also fail to follow logic more than one single layer deep, making every conversation a superficial bantering of idle chatter, shallow notions, and weird childhood misconceptions ad nauseam. For instance, that the Jews “stole” Israel from the Arabs or that contracts have to be in writing. To this day, Wallace does not clutch the reason he is not getting workers compensation is because he lost his case because he didn’t pay into the fund because he wasn’t paying the taxes because he was working under the table. Wallace can’t get beyond that first “because”.
           I have no such mental barriers. The lawyer and I went over the transcripts of my court appearance which he described as “stirling”. Not only was the ruling “fully favorable” to me, but all testimony against me was, hang on while I get the exact wording. Ah, here it is; the testimony of two State medical agency doctors. Quote was “given no weight because [they] did not adequately consider the claimant’s subjective symptoms or the combined effects of the claimant’s impairments”. Got that: “given no weight”.
           That’s a nice way to put it, considering they are, after all, doctors. Checkmate.

           [Author's note 2015-09-22: the last section refers to a court case I won concerning whether the insurance company had to continue paying for expensive prescriptions after my second heart attack. They complained that not only was the attack not that bad, but that the second episode meant I had a pre-existing condition. Wrong, it was all the same initial condition. And I proved it. Things have since moved on far beyond that situation, but at the time, I needed the decision urgently.]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Return Home
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++