I had been offered an academic position already by the time I was working at SENAI/CETIQT. I unfortunately could not take that one because they killed our doorman and I felt really involved in the story, as I have already described on a blog somewhere. On the other hand, that was just one more thing: I actually had always planned to leave Brazil, this since I am really really young, actually five years old. I never wanted to remain in Rio de Janeiro for any amount of time. I was actually dragged to it by my mother, as I probably have already said on one of my blogs too.
Rio de Janeiro is a place of marginals: All we have is people who are malandros and therefore who think that they are in this world to take advantage of others. They may say they love us, they may look as if, but, if they were born in Rio de Janeiro, we can be sure that won't last for long, even if it seems to be the cake deal (what I nowadays classify as Barbie and Ken's case for very special reasons). Basically, they are into betraying people, into top disloyalty, when it comes to intimate relationships. It is a place where they dispute over who betrays more the other, basically: Wife or husband.
I hated Rio de Janeiro and cariocas before I ever visited the place because, as I told mum, this when I was nine years old, I had enough sample of their natives to be sure that it was worth doing anything not to be there. We actually had two cariocas in what I call Our Small Family.
They are monsters: They never had any group spirit, regardless of what type of group we consider (nation, men, women, academics, etc.). All they can think of is today and now, basically. They are the most unscrupulous people I have ever had contact with in my life. They literally are able to kill father, mother, and little sister for the money those have made out of their work or luck.
I was stretching my stay in the place because my father had just started to buy an apartment for me and him to live in when he died and Our Small Family imposed the load to me: I was the youngest, had no kids, etc. They decided that I was going to take care of the place whilst it was not paid for, what basically meant that I would be paying the rest of the installments in the name of the family, like out of my pocket, and I would still be taking care of it as if it were exclusively mine. I think it was missing some twelve years of installments when he died (1991). That far, we were living in Tijuca together, but the property was a rented property. We were finally becoming friends, which is what I really really missed: First of all, having a father, and second having a male who I could get true advice from.
My father was a superpower in himself: He knew a bit about everything, basically. I think there is no sport that he could not master or practice, quite sincerely. His intelligence was multifaceted and he could realistically enter anything he wanted, which must be why I am so talented myself when it comes to intellectual matters.
He was the person who made me wish for having good marks at school, for instance. All that seemed to matter to him was that my marks were good and that I knew all I could know. I still remember him putting me to sit in the middle of his legs in the car he was driving, with me unfortunately, but wisely, thinking of a lot of crap because of my mum and grandma (like he is going to do something sexual or whatever), and me finally, after relaxing, for succeeding in, for instance, never having my body touching his, enjoying. I simply adore driving because of my father. He was the most magnificent driver I have ever met: He could drive anything. He had ridden motorcycles, old and new (like the very simple models, which they call scooters in Australia and the most advanced, with automatic ignition), he had driven UTEs and sports cars, etc. Oh, my daddy was REALLY REALLY someone.
I am sure, and I did tell Trevor Skinner that, in that end of 2001, that if my really Cool Daddy were alive in that 2001 and were, let's say, some twenty years younger than he was, he would have gotten me my two PhD titles (one from UQ and another from VUT) and my academic job, on top of generalized apologies and that, per se, would have saved my entire life, head, and body, believe it or not.
Oh, well, I think he was the only male I have ever met who really praised my intelligence, who really listened to me and appreciated my advice, my tokens of wisdom, insight, and all else, and by appreciating I mean valuing them to the point of returning something, being grateful, really becoming my friend. I see myself absolutely always contributing in the most meaningful way as possible, and quite spontaneously, to the life of everyone that deals with me and I realistically never see is gratitude, quite sincerely. Rather the contrary: I have been enduring the worst world atrocities for more than fourteen years as a thank you token for, for instance, having basically saved the life of Antonio Newlands, being responsible for his transference from a horrible and purely administrative sector to an almost purely intellectual sector. This man attacks me with really serious crimes now for more than fourteen years in a row and he had already attacked me in Brazil after he got transferred. This is just a selected example. That is not what is missing, unfortunately. I proved to Priest, with one sentence, that his Ontological Paraconsistency was inconsistent, and that was in the year of 2000. Instead of being applauded, I got punished. It is never ending. He however did not write about it probably because of me and my arguments.
All I chose in life was to hopefully deal with only men because I think women are coward, criminal, parasitic, and stupid since I am five years old. I cannot really stand their decisions, ways, and thinking. My own mother disappointed me a never-ending number of times and she was, by far, the most brilliant woman in Brazil. It starts with going to Rio and abandoning our dear home in Ipanema and it ends with letting Angelo Ricci be involved in my life in Australia. I never had real fun with any woman, I think. I had some moments of entertainment with Julia Sawyer, and it was fun, but that was like absolutely exotic. I don't know, they just don't have the same brains. We were at SENAI/CETIQT, for instance, and we had jokes we all laughed at together. It sufficed that we told Anna and it all would kinda die, like she really had a very different sense of humor or so it seemed. I can't stand them. I saw Tony Milone in 2001 and I wanted to run away, for, first of all, her first name was Tony and I only went because I thought it was a man. You see, two of my worst complaints were against lesbians, or women who would probably say they are bisexual, but, what they really like, in my humblest, is women. The last thing I wanted was speaking to a woman. Out of politeness and respect for the laws, since I thought it could be discrimination refusing her, like for some reason, I stayed and I then endured the consequences of speaking to a woman and not to a man. Basically, I think I am sure nothing that happened would have happened were it a man. First of all, there is an ethical code that is mandatory for the profession of Psychologist and, even if you are a counselor, in case you offer psychological advice, you are obliged to obey the code, in my humblest. There is nobody who does not know that they cannot keep secrets from us and act as they please in what regards our destiny. Yet, this woman simply did whatever she wanted and, fourteen years passed of her primary violation of my basic rights in that relationship, I still have no damn idea of what she actually did, despite having tried every possible avenue, thinkable and unthinkable (council, herself, FOI, all you can imagine). The minimum thing we need to survive on earth, to have a chance, is obviously information, and there is no way on earth people can deny information about ourselves when what they do may destroy us forever, which is precisely what has happened to me. That woman was absolutely obliged to tell me what she said and to whom. Her actions are to be blamed for the death of quite a few people since back then and I myself could easily have died several times during all these years. They have a different brain, prone to basically do sh.. that is like unimaginable. As I keep on thinking, women like her created prostitution, promiscuity, table manners, etiquette, and all that destroys us, since this all has been created by women.
Anyway, realistically, there should be a way in which we don't pay for their mistakes in their professional performance in case they commit them, but I am paying for those with my only life, career, and body for more than fourteen years in First World Democracy. I am also paying for the absolutely unwise choices of my mother, who, despite being always on her own when raising me, was told several times that my aunts, for instance, the two worst ones, most evil and harmful to me, were attacking my basic rights. I begged her to converse in a very serious way with them, and I am sure she never did that. Because she never did it, these women are responsible for all the atrocities I endure since at most 2003, when of my so unfortunate visit to Brazil.
I think I am absolutely sure a man would never do what they do, would never have started it.
Oh, well, that said, I am left wondering about what has actually caused my subtraction of the academic métier. In my observation and careful scientific or logical analysis, it was actually Judith Cook, the Equity branch, as I said on many blogs. I cannot tell for sure what they did themselves and how they moved people in the way they did, but I am sure they are the cause for all.
Graham Priest was used to give me professional reference, since I asked him about that in 2000 and he said yes. After I spoke to Tony Milone about him giving me too much unwanted attention and too little wanted attention, which is actually the definition of harassment that I most like, she did something that ended up making him become at most a provider of personal reference, since he offered me a letter containing a personal reference in that 2001 after I asked her to intervene and kindly change his orientation, so that he could be giving me the attention that I thought I still needed and would stop the attention that I was disgusted he was giving me, which culminated with him telling me he had split from Pattricia in that end of 2001 via e-mail.
I then, after going through an extraordinary sequence of crimes, civil crimes, of the RMIT academics against me in 2002, crimes that I never formally denounced for several reasons, got in my idea once more what was in it in that end of 2001: I actually should need to get at least one paper with Priest, so that the rest of the academic community would think we had no problems and everything went normally. That is the only reason why I was seen writing to Priest in that end of 2002: I was trying once more, this time using a new style of discourse, to get him to produce a paper with me. Nothing worked, unfortunately. That counselor, Tony Milone, seems to have broken our bond forever and she actually made him go from best friend's sort of mood to mortal enemy's, to the mood of someone who knows of all crimes that I endure and does nothing, absolutely nothing, to help, this even in terms of giving me a chance of fighting.
I love Science, I adore what I was doing in 2001 at VUT, and that is my normal life, without Academia, like that is what I always did, thanks to also my father, grandmother, and mother, who were all very connected to knowledge, Science, learning, etc. I said that was all for me when I spoke to Trevor and that was the only reason why I was kinda voluntarily (but not really, lots of crimes) subjecting myself to several things in that end of year, including accepting this Trevor in my personal life, my intimacy. It was all priceless: my contact with Priest, a top researcher, considered great genius of modernity by plenty, my contact with Sever, another top researcher, considered great genius by plenty, being at an Australian university, where they had all resources I had always dreamed of but that Brazil would never have, and all the opportunities I had dreamed of my entire life.
I offered about seven original ideas to that Trevor, on top of all I did, which included making him company in public (escort's stuff), and those ideas were all worth millions of dollars, such as Deal or No Deal, and I never needed to offer not even one, for they had absolute obligation of saving me from Brazil, Brazilians, and any sort of aggressor, regardless of where they are from or where they are located, but, my passion for my Science, my Academia, was that huge. I offered all that to have a PhD title and an academic position, this even if I did not have merit on that occasion, as I told Trevor, since all I really needed was the job to be able to be well from there onward and I was sure one was owed to me in Australia since at most 2000. That was just justice, equity, and that is the place from VUT that has generated that damn Trevor.
I don't really understand anything, but I got to the point in which I think that they are all really criminal: They seem to know very well of all crimes I endure and realistically do nothing to help. At this stage, and for long, actually since 2005, I don't get offered not even a tutorship position in Australia despite my efforts. I am stuck with the place, given that Brazil/Brazilians are attacking my rights massively from Brazil all these years and coming back there would be suicide. I cannot go anywhere else because I do not have citizenship in any other Country and I think marriage is something too serious to become a tool of removal from one Country and settlement in another. More than anything else, I do not have not even a way to communicate with anyone from any other Country that be not criminally sabotaged to the highest levels since that end of 2001, sabotaged by these Brazilian marginals plus a few local ones. I don't get my post at a rate of 95% since 2005. Without communication lines that work, it is really impossible, but I still have the problems I mention here, such as no paper with Priest to say it was all OK, no paper with Asha, and other problems (my CV is extremely long, this already in 2001, and I find it difficult to clean it myself, like I really do not like CVs and have resistance, first of all, but it also keeps on increasing and being hacked, it is all electronic, etc. On top, when I pay for services, and they have to be Australian for one reason or another, all criminal, they are all incompetent, so that I trust them and apply for jobs, but I then, all of a sudden, get wrong pieces of information, wrong English, etc. Basically, services to the same level of those of the counselor, the equity woman, and their police).
I know that people cannot commit crime against others, not even of the type telling other people about our privacy, and telling things that we never told them, imagine making sure we do not even get information about where conferences, workshops, presentations, and others are happening in the university that is close to where we live? That is however what is happening to me for long.
I don't know, all I can do, realistically, is the best to ignore the fact that they all know even from watching the crimes I endure and do nothing to help or stop them, and then apply in a distant way or talk without showing friendship, since it all became a hostile environment. I am sure I can still work, and could have been working all these years in Academia, and just working inside of it would have given me extraordinary power to fight, power that I cannot dream of for more than one decade. For instance, I would definitely have reliable fax, telephone, and postal lines. I would never have missed the GW12 or the WSEAS. From where I see it, they employ even prostitutes: Women who simply had sex with them when they were married or whatever. They know nothing, they don't have any true pertinence to Academia, and they have an academic position. I have dealt with a very large number of academics who had basic mistakes in the most basic pieces of knowledge of their discipline, so that the mistakes that I eventually committed for enduring the worst world atrocities since that end of 2001 cannot be a justification for not giving me an opportunity.
I think that we can always do something, regardless of how impaired we may become because of the nature or amount of crimes we suffer, so that there is realistically no excuse. I can certainly mark, for instance. I have applied for that with the Adelaide University for a few years now and got nothing. It is like generalized crime and they seem to guarantee that I have no chance of fighting against the atrocities I endure now for more than fourteen years in democracy.
It is all very shameful.
I have just been to something I was accidentally calling workshop, and Dr. Eagle calls it colloquium instead. I am there trying to do the best that I can for the second time, but, sincerely, I don't know what else to do because Academia for me is work. I can accept that I have wonderful results only according to my own head, like they all think it is all crap, but I cannot accept that none of my extraordinary results so far is something admirable. Some of them are pretty incontestable, such as the change from two to one in the dimensions of the definition of both Convexity and S-Convexity. There had to be a limit to be disloyal and criminal in Science, quite sincerely, to basically then be unethical and unprofessional. Not even a mention?
They can perhaps say that I finally became unethical because I now talk about almost everything in the open, but they would have to accompany that with we are all committing extremely heavy civil crimes against her for more than fourteen years, so that the ethical code is actually not valid in her case: She is excused to breach ethics in Academia until she stops suffering crimes that we ourselves caused, namely John Shepherd and Kathy Horadam.
I now know that they could have accused me of breaching ethics in 2000 because Hyde was actually doing research on The Sorites Paradox, having published about gluts and gaps, for instance, perhaps as an intro to something about the paradox. On the other hand, I trusted the words of Priest, who was a researcher of about 100 papers in the Philosophers' Index and still a HOD, my supervisor, and a man who had English accent. He said, in that 2002, that Hyde WAS NOT a researcher of the problem (Sorites). I have no means to know, was just starting, and obviously should trust his guidance. The relationship between supervisor and supervised has to involve trust: I was obliged to trust him because of some tacit ethical code between us. I am not breaching ethics if I don't know what I need to know to believe that I am, is it not?
Hyde sounded like a creepy and insane person after he got convinced that I solved The Sorites: He left the teaching room, where we were all together, me, him, and a few students, went to the corridor, practically dragging me to it, and then said that if I solved it, then it was going to take my lifetime to write my solution because he had spent his entire life studying the problem and he had found no solution for it. The man is a freak and scared the crap out of me: I took that to be a death threat, quite sincerely. I then thought he was simply crazy.
Many years later, in seeing his research with other eyes, and in seeing it, since I had seen none of his work in 2000, just at most the work of others according to his interpretation, I understand that I may have looked unethical because he did not accept being my consultant or supervisor or co-supervisor and I insisted in basically working on his problem. We all know that the problem is not his, but we must respect his research and his time to do things, so that if he had started something, I could not be simply entering that whilst working at UQ, like I needed his permission, right? On the other hand, Priest had also worked on the problem, according to the own Priest, and he gave me permission somehow. It is unethical and it isn't, and therefore it isn't. My theory had nothing to do with anything that Hyde would ever agree with, and that was clear since the beginning: He really wanted to stick to mathematicizing language and I said that was not OK, basically. How much a query can belong to us in research? Priest had himself worked on the problem.
They can never accuse me of missing ethics with Sever, since Real Analysis and Geometry were not part of his topics in 2001. Now, after many years of me enduring the worst world atrocities, Sever is, in my point of view, very unethically, working also inside of Real Analysis, and he is doing that probably because I told Trevor that that was the right area for me in that 2001. He was not doing that before. He was just working to the level of Calculus at most. His main subject was Inequalities, I believe he even created the area, and S-convexity happened to be part of a few inequalities he got interested in. My interest however was refined to the own S-convexity, and, by the way, it was the own Sever who asked me to present a talk on the topic, a talk entirely prepared by me, in that 2001. It was also his fellow, Tony Sofo, who became my supervisor after I spoke to the counselor about my VUT issues, that asked me to produce original results on S-convexity (and so I did) in that 2001.
In 2002, the paper I got from Horadam and even the so few lines of guidance were all supposed to have come from John Casti as a favor. I do think that that is what happened. This would be for me to guarantee I had a virgin topic and could keep on going on it if S-convexity and The Sorites were dry, since I had a small allowance for a mistake in calculation from my share back then, when I spoke to Trevor. Well, if things were what I asked, there is nothing there that belongs to Asha or Horadam, even because the work, once more, was all mine. Even so, I did offer, don't be fooled, to each one of those (I offered to each one of my supervisors) a share on the papers I produced on my own, this out of ethics (perhaps tacit) and courtesy (minimum thank you). As for the project with Shepherd, that SOB was supposed to simply do his job and fix the crap that Asha and Horadam had done. He never had to give me any other project to work on. Due to his absolute incapacity to hold the title of Postgraduate Coordinator, however, he never addresses the issues that I had with Asha and Horadam. I saw them both speaking to him and therefore ALSO asking his help. He did help me understand his Bubble Problem, and that was something that he did that was different from what all the others had done, most of them having no idea about everything, and he did help a lot in terms of what to do, so that he was a proper supervisor. All of a sudden, however, the guy goes crazy and decides to interfere with my personal life. Blyth had already told me to remain in NZ when I go there to get my PR, like they are both insane, to the least. He tells me things that are absolutely inappropriate and sudden, such as that he can cook and has five kids. I have nothing to do with their mental illness, as I told Trevor, but I am sure Australia, a First World nation, could never have subjected me to their mentals, basically, especially if any crucial part of my life was going to depend on them, such as my degree, my chances in life, and my job. A little medical evaluation, a little psychometric test, and I would never end up losing my perfect career, life, and body for his insanity.
I came back from Brazil and had my entire thesis revised by Liu, who did it all out of generosity. Liu did his work. I then showed to him. Liu was extremely qualified in the area and was Asian, not Brazilian, therefore something they already accepted as a person in Australia in 2002. He basically acted as if that were nothing, refused to accept Liu as part of the solution, and said he wanted to be the main author in the paper I showed him, which I had produced on my own and despite all his crimes against me, which were going on for a few years at that stage, and some of them involved my personal life. My passion for Academia was so enormous that I frequently selected not to remember the crimes they committed, ignoring them all, and even trying to restart, given the absolute absence of authority for law and order, like they are there in theory, but, in practice, both in AU and BR, they are even more marginal than the marginal we are trying to protect ourselves against or denounce, very unfortunately. I did not disagree, like I thought that if he wanted to be the main author, that was actually a very small price ot pay in exchange for at least getting one title (those were four different experiences that far, all with PhD by research in record time from my end, and no title). The thing is then that I needed to guarantee that he would give me some title because things were going in the way they were going. I then said, OK, but you are then going to give me the title, right? At least Master's (my work was to PhD level ALSO with him). He said that no, not even an Honours. Oh, then, it couldn't be, right? I did insist in the way that I could, but he then asked me to withdraw from my course in the way Cerone had done in 2001: A very threatening way. I could not risk suffering any more crime, especially on a voluntary basis, so that I did make sure I told everyone who should be an authority all that I could and I then withdrew.
Where is my absence of ethics? Would it not be precisely the opposite?
PRAY WITH FAITH AND HELP THE EMPIRE TODAY