You: >> "Conceit" Ironically, "also you": >> "My first response to this is "Nope". >> "& you're welcome I guess!" Additionally, >> "What this write-up demo

You: >> "Conceit" Ironically, "also you": >> "My first response to this is "Nope". >> "& you're welcome I guess!" Additionally, >> "What this write-up demonstrates (repeatedly) is a deep interest in one's own personal life & logic" Did you find any flaws in the logic presented? If "yes", can you please specify at which exact point(s)? If "no", then the logic is not "personal" at all. >> "do you feel like you are amenable to specific, outside feedback?" Sure. Please elaborate on either where you found a flaw in the logic presented any other SPECIFIC things. Or feel free to give whatever feedback you'd like, as I'm always open to learning new things. >> "the way of developing judgments on things" Neither the numerical values associated with the position of letters in the alphabet nor basic math nor how numbers are spelled in English is a "judgement on things" ... those are simply consensus points of various aspects of the fabric of our current reality. If you believe the numerical value of letters, basic math or how numbers are spelled are "judgement on things", please elaborate as to "how". >> "The writing continually comes back to the same general method" How does that description differ from that of a computer program? >> "Do you notice a tendency to shoot the feedback-carrier/messenger, when you get outside feedback?" Yes, often people incapable of suspending their own biases and looking at things objectively tend to offer nothing but ad hominem attacks like mindless NPCs, an unfortunate aspect of our reality. >> "Do you search out counter-logic? Or related countering phenonena? Sure, hence, this post. Feel free to provide some. >> "I'm curious to know your thoughts & respect your need to express yourself." Well thank you; what specifically would you like to know my thoughts about? Is it the Trump video you linked to? If so, I'll watch it and let you know. If not, why did you present it? But thank you for providing the link to Isopsephy, I actually didn't know this was what doing that (what was done in the document) was called and just used it as a tool intuitively. If you'd like to know my thoughts on "Gematria" ... Lookup the older "Starbucks" logo with "Starbucks Coffee" ... see the 5-pointed star on the mermaid's head? Now draw a 5-pointed star connecting the letters "O, T, B, K" and "E" on the old logo. "O, T, B, K" and "E" ... "O"bama, "T"rump, "B"iden, "K"amala" ... and "E" ... "Starbucks Coffee" gematria value: "154" Related "154" gematria value phrases: "rigged and stolen", "E Forty Seven" (POTUS) "Starbucks" and "Starbucks Coffee" also has a similar gematria value to a lot of interesting results like "Wuhan bat spell" and "vaccinate the kids" and a host of other Covid-related phrases ... not to mention things like "Biden laptop" and "Almeda Research" (FTX). "Starbucks Coffee" also has the same gematria value of "Klaus Schwab W.E.F." "Starbucks" also has the same gematria value as "New World" – as in what you do at the register when at Starbucks. With regards to your last sentiment, I would beg to differ as you would have to "shoehorn" words/phrases/spellings to get "desired results". Not exactly intellectually honest. Having said that, here's something to consider: "control the narrative" turns into an anagram of, among other things, "Fools flirt rare vaccination". Anyhow, thank you for your thoughtful response.