Fooey.

They know the future.

They are creating variables.

Defining variables.



The variables are the short-form description for a notion I have described before as 'time-traveler effect variables.'

3 + a = 7

The variable a would equal 4.

Or it could be that a = 1 + 3.

a = b + c

Those are variables.



An example of this half-baked notion is my so-called "fooey" incident from a few years ago.

Here's how it all went down:

At some point in the past few years, I acquired the DVD for the 1990 film "Gremlins 2: The New Batch." I don't see an amazon.com listing for it in my email archive so I guess that is one of the few I actually purchased at a bookstore. Most of my meager collection of DVDs were purchased on the internet from amazon.com and I still have those reciepts. Anyway, I cannot recall now precisely when I purchased that DVD. But I had it for a good while before I decided to watch it for the first time.

The first time I watched it was just after I watched an episode of "NCIS" titled "Ignition." That episode was about US Navy jetpacks. The episode broadcast new on television, according my blog journal, on 05 January 2010. There was dialog in that episode by one of the co-starring characters about "fooey" or actually as I recall he was saying "F.U.I." as in "flying under intoxication."

Only after watching that "NCIS" television episode did I decide to watch for the first time the "Gremlins 2: The New Batch" DVD and I thought about that "fooey" dialog from "Kate Beringer" in that DVD.

See, I had referenced before several times that scene where she says "fooey" but the captioning source I was using for reference did not include that word "fooey."

Only after watching for the first time the DVD did I learn that "Kate Beringer" says "fooey" in that scene.

I wrote about that in my blog at some point but I do not now recall when, without looking it up, which I haven't done.

So anyway, after watching the "Ignition" episode of "NCIS" did I decide to watch for the first time the "Gremlins 2" DVD and that is when I heard the "Kate Beringer" dialog about "fooey."

What does that prove? I don't know. I just thought a lot about how that seemed compelling to me that I would decide to watch that day for the first time the DVD for "Gremlins 2."

And somehow there is supposed to be a point here I was trying to make and that I was trying to make yesterday but a certain level of the profound has faded from my mind over the past few minutes.

The notion is about my so-called "time-traveler effect variables."

3 + a = 7

If every detail was documented here in my journal then there isn't any room for the variables.

One example I was thinking of in the short while is about how I document here a notion and then I look back in some tangible medium and I find something consistent with that notion and that is possibility not just a simple coincidence. I have documented some of those notions in my private journal but I don't want to describe here because as I wrote earlier when you post your home address on the world-wide internet then you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Thus you cannot sue for damages when you lose your privacy which is reasonably expected in the United States of America.

So anyway, there is a notion I have to describe in my journal. The people in the past, who are the recipients of my time-traveler journal, are then defining variables that produce a result.

If I describe the result then what is the point of that?



- posted by H.V.O.M - Kerry Wayne Burgess 8:50 PM Pacific Time Seattle USA Wednesday 15 May 2013