2011-12-15T19:45:27.665-08:00
There poses a question that challenges Idea Theory. The question regards the difference between 'reality' and the 'Idea'. If everything is physical, and thus it can be detected with the correct technology, how is it that everything is not just reality? How is it that an Idea is not reality itself? This is good. It leads me to explain that everything really has the potential to be a reality. Ideas are reality (because you are reading this paper) thus realities come from realities and the only real "Idea" is the Master Idea, the origin of everything. The reason why realities are called 'Ideas' is because they fit the category for being the origin of realities that don't fit the category as well. There is a PATTERN. The most important types of Ideas are The Master Idea, Ideas of Life, such as DNA, and the Ideas of Free Will, or what goes on in our minds. Also, one of the conditions of reality is that it must have 'feedback'. Otherwise, it is not a reality. This is why not everything can be called a reality, unless you have already come in some kind of contact with it, but I'm sure there are things that we have never even touched that would not be a reality in our cases. However, it still may exist.
XJ Randall
Monday, February 29, 2016
XJ Corps: The Master Idea Exists (TIME) Edited Version
The Master Idea Exists (TIME) Edited Version
2013-06-27T11:35:56.536-07:00
2013-06-27T11:35:56.536-07:00
By now you may be asking, "What is The Master Idea?" In order to understand The Master Idea, we need to talk about Idea Theory. Idea Theory is basically the setup for the Master Idea. Idea Theory states that everything in the entire universe is physical, whether we can detect it or not: the sun, the earth, the world around us, ourselves, and most specifically, our minds. The mind is the focalization of all things physical pertaining to our bodies and it holds the physical ideas that we have before they become a reality. Not only that, but Idea Theory states that everything that is reality must have come from an idea in the first place. That is, an Idea is the thing from which reality originates. This will have awesome implications in the future, especially in studies of the mind, because if everything is physical, we will soon be able to detect and project ideas from the mind to an external audience. From this, scientists will be able to synthetically engineer ideas to freeze or store them for later use. That's the gyst of Idea Theory. Everything comes from an Idea, and the grandaddy of Ideas is, you guessed it, The Master Idea, which basically is the origin of the whole Universe.
Now, you're probably getting a little tense at this moment because you might think that I'm a Christian or an Atheist here to prove a point. No, I am not an atheist, not that there's anything wrong with that. I think that the God that I believe in and the God that everyone else believes in is the same thing. But because of the Master Idea, though, I have to think of God differently. So, if you think you might be offended by this, you might want to stop reading. However, if you are an Atheist or a Christian you might want to continue.
And people who believe in God will do things that will reaffirm their Ideas as reality. And some people might say,"Well just because you believe doesn't mean God exists."
It doesn't matter whether you believe in God or not. Idea theory tells us that God exists regardless just because other people believe God to exist. The fact that people discredit God means God exists, because if God didn't exist, the nonbeliever wouldn't be talking about God in the first place. So in essence, just by bringing up God, the nonbeliever is discrediting his own stance on the issue. If you talk about God (feedback) whether you 'believe' or not you are contributing to the entity of God. It is FACT that God exists because people speak, build, and create God into existence. Of course there's the argument that if everyone stopped believing in God then God would cease to exist. But names are arbitrary, and God would inevitably continue to exist even if people had to call God by a different name (whether it be in science or any other religion). And so God is the Master Idea. The Master Idea and God are one in the same. Regardless of what other religions call God, or even what Atheists call God or consider God to be.
The Master Idea has been around and will be around until the end. And we will always derive our realities from the Master Idea. Aetheists might not be happy when they hear this. The Master Idea Exists. It is. Continually giving life to everything on earth. And if It wasn't, then we wouldn't exist. At this point, the Master Idea is constant. It is like a blueprint on a table that feeds the changing world above it. It DOES NOT move on a timeline, however, with Idea Theory, it proves that TIME DOES NOT EXIST. Idea Theory tells us that there is no time and what we percieve to be the past are repeated physical memories. Time is a fallacy. Everything changes in the NOW. We can have memories but even those are constantly changing. But it is possible to predict the patterns of reality.
Which brings me to Technology and Innovation. Since the Master Idea is the beginning and the end, it has always been around, only our technology allows us to believe that there is an original idea. Inequality leads to 'innovation'. History repeats itself because history is now.
People 1000 years ago were just as smart and intelligent as people today. It's just that their technology was different. Had they been born in our era, it is arguable that there would still be a 'McDonald's'. Because we know that time and human intelligence has no effect on the outcome of the fate of human kind, we can assume that some part of the fate of mankind really relies on how technologically advanced we get.
This points to the reasonable argument that man was created as man, it's just that technology determined what man was able to do with his intelligence. This also explains why history repeats itself... The past doesn't repeat itself. If there is no time, there is no past, our ideas 'today' are the same ideas as 'yesterday' just with a different technological approach. We are the same intelligent beings we have always been. And collectively, we subconsiously share the same ideas that have ever been around since the beginning. That is the essence of the Master Idea. The original idea is only a realization of the shared subconscious that is broadcast to each person from the Master Idea. Hence, there is no original idea, only original realizations of the Master Idea, which is shared by all.
This brings me to my final point. I am not the only person who thought of "The Master Idea". Someone, over 120 years ago had the same idea as me (except he explained it differently). This is fascinating to me, because by indirect convergence this means that The Master Idea Exists!
-XJ Hall
How to Get Rid of Acne, From a Pro and a Veteran
Ever looked into the mirror and seen something you didn't like? That's called your face. Haha no, but all jokes aside acne can be a really huge problem especially if you're already ugly. Okay, I said I would quit with the jokes. But seriously, take it from me; I had acne for years until i went off to college and made some drastic life choices. Choices that companies like Clearasil and Proactive don't want you to know. No, it won't kill you. If your face is a pizza, or a slightly less degree, here is what you can do to get rid of acne for good.
1.) SHOCK your system with MIXED VEGATABLES. Eat 2 cans of mixed vegetables everyday. You see vegetables, especially green and yellow ones contain phytochemicals that help to reduce the build up of insulin in your bloodstream. Insulin buildup leads to clogging of pores. They also carry other nutrients that help your skin. There are whole websites that list the nutrients vegetables have.
2.) SHOCK your system with JUICE. Drink 3 LARGE glasses of juice everyday until acne has ceased to exist. Juice, along with vegetables, also have nutrients that are vital for great skin. These include, vitamins, minerals, phytonutrients and fiber. Besides that, it will keep you healthy and your system flushed.
3.) DO NOT BINGE on sugary stuff. Again, studies have purported that insulin buildup in your system leads to acne on yo FACE! Chocolate does not affect everyone, but it sure as hell effected me. That's because it's almost like you are eating table spoons of oil, very rich oils. That's why you want it more. BUT the sugar isn't good for your face. And besides that you probably feel like spit when you binge on kisses. Hahaha no pun intended. But seriously, you can get diabetes from binging.
4.) DO NOT SPEND A BIGILLION DOLLARS ON spit THAT DOESN'T WORK. Take it from me, if you are SHOCKing your system everyday with vegetables and juice, the only thing you will need, which is proven to work because I use it and BELIEVE in it, is Cetaphil Daily Facial Cleanser. This stuff, is the bomb. I have been using it for years. It keeps your skin feeling fresh and it was actually prescribed by my doctor. And the best part is, you can get it at WALMART, at your convenience for only about $5. No waiting for stupid mail orders. yep.
5.) HYGIENE. Basically what it says. But make sure you don't over do it. That can leave your skin dry and red. And if you use Cetaphil, your face should be not too dry but not too oily the whole day through.
So there you have it, basically all you need to get rid of your ugliness so that you will be the prettiest dude or most handsomest chick in town. Just make sure you get the juice and vegetables, keep away from binging, and buy Cetaphil - it's prescribed by doctors. Give it some time, like a year or so. If that still doesn't get rid of your ugliness then maybe you're just ugly by default... and you'll be healthy too ;)
-XJ Randall
The Error in Presuming Stress Levels by XJ Randall
The Error in Presuming Stress Levels
Original published article found here.
The Problem - To begin with, I started thinking about this while I was making some rice on the stove. I accidentally spilled some rice over the counter, and knowing that the flu was going around decided to throw away the excess instead of putting it back into the cup. Then, I thought of that saying "Think of the starving kids in..." That's when I began to go crazy with thoughts. I have had a lot* of stress in one month, and I began to wonder how I could compare my stress to someone else's, specifically the starving kids in nowheres-ville. After a long discussion with myself I concluded that there is no way to accurately determine or compare one person's stress level to another person's.
The Logic
1) Stress is like art. It is conceptual. There is no way to accurately measure stress because it is unique in each person's mind.
2) Stress is an authoritarian word, being created for the purpose of defining an abstract idea to the masses that, of course, agree to it's purpose and definition. The authority would be the collective majority of those in a higher position of power, ie. Drs + Therapists + Psychiatrists, etc.
3) Stress can be measured physically on relative terms, using meters and such to measure heart beat, blood pressure, sweating, etc.
4) Everybody's unique in that people have their own experiences and everybody is different, physically and psychologically. The two actually go hand in hand when it comes to stress because one can alter the other.
The Presumption
Based on the mass agreement of the definition of stress, I can guess that a lot of people feel fairly accurate when they are measuring their stress with someone else's. This is typical and an example would be when an Engineer from Purdue says he's had a lot of homework stress from labs and such and the Biology major he is talking with agrees with him/her. Note that even though they are in different majors, the concept of "labs" is so similar that they both can safely guess, and accurately compare their stresses to be relatively similar. This can also work the other way. When a HS student complains that he/she has had a lot of homework to a Grad Student at Purdue, the Grad student will probably not show any sympathy because he/she knows that their work is far more challenging than HS. This would be based on the common knowledge of the hierarchical school system and the notion that higher levels in the hierarchy require more physical and mental work and-or time. Again, the grad student is using relativity as the base measurement stemming from the mass agreement of the definition of stress. Going back to the rice I wasted by throwing it out - I can say that I had little stress or conflict with myself after throwing away what seemed to be perfectly good rice. But based on that saying, "think of the starving kids in...", I can guess that those starving kids would not feel the same. Therefore, I can presume that those starving kids have a lot less opportunities than I do, and therefore have a lot more stress.
The Error
Here is the error. Stress is only relative to the mass definition. But Actual Stress is conceptual and based on our own experiences, NOT someone else's. An ideological way of thinking about it would be to think about drinking alcohol. A lightweight and a heavyweight go into a bar (sounds like a joke). Just because they drink the same amount does not mean that they both have the same stress. And just because they drink different amounts of alcohol does not mean that their stresses will be different. Each drinker has stress that matches their own body, regardless of how much they drink compares to the other.
How does this apply to those kids? Those kids just very well may have a lot less opportunities than me. But stress-wise, we have very different ideas of what is most stressful and what is least stressful. Take an imaginary scale of 1-10: 1 the least amount of stress, 10 the highest. On that scale to me, a 10 might be relationship troubles. A 10 to a starving kid might be not finding food for the third day in a row. But logically speaking, they ARE BOTH 10s! This proves that the catalysts of stress may be drastically different for two different people, but the reactions/stress levels can be near equal.
Another example that I have commonly seen or heard people talk about is suicide threats. The person who feels they have superiority, ie. more stress but are able to handle it better (Person A) than the person who is making the suicide threats (Person B) may dismiss that knowledge in disgust or a jokingly manner. "They won't do it." or "...all because they dumped that person?" What Person A doesn't understand is, that although the stress seems like a 4 or 5, to Person B the threat is a 10. The only way to accurately measure the two peoples' stress is to get them both to the same point on the scale. That would be a 10. This would mean that Person A would have to become suicidal as well. Let's say Person A went bankrupt and lost their business, house caught on fire, and $1,000,000 Lamborghini was not insured after it got pummeled by a hailstorm. Proving my point, Both Person A and Person B are now at 10, but their experiences that drove them there are totally different.
Similarly, this idea can be applied with the HS student and the Grad Student. The grad student expects his work to be harder and more laborious, therefore more stressful based on the mass definition of stress, enforced by the authorities. But in ACTUAL STRESS, based on each person's own experiences, each person may or may not have a different number on the scale. On the stress scale, the HS might have a 10 with homework and the Grad might also have a 10. This means that there stress levels are equally matched, therefore they both have the same amount of psychological and physical trauma. But also, the high schooler may even have more actual stress than the Grad, ie. the high schooler's scale = 10 and the Grad's scale = 7 because the grad student has become so accustom to writing Papers it has become second nature. This proves once again that stress is based on experiences, not the quantitative amount of work performed or measured.
The Conclusion
In conclusion, there is no EXACT way to measure stress. Stress is 'inner', it is like our thoughts and cannot be taken out of our bodies, although it does cause physical and psychological reactions, both interacting with each other. To measure one person's stress with another doesn't make sense because people have different, unique experiences that determine their own stress levels on the scale, regardless of whether they are or are not in the same scenarios. A true measure of stress may be finding similar if not unmatched reactions from two different people, but that measure would only show similarity in reactions and not overall differences in stress levels or the catalysts behind them. Therefore, the stress level from one person should not be presumed when solely basing it on tangible evidence.
* 'A lot' is a term used to describe a significant amount.
-XJ
The Problem - To begin with, I started thinking about this while I was making some rice on the stove. I accidentally spilled some rice over the counter, and knowing that the flu was going around decided to throw away the excess instead of putting it back into the cup. Then, I thought of that saying "Think of the starving kids in..." That's when I began to go crazy with thoughts. I have had a lot* of stress in one month, and I began to wonder how I could compare my stress to someone else's, specifically the starving kids in nowheres-ville. After a long discussion with myself I concluded that there is no way to accurately determine or compare one person's stress level to another person's.
The Logic
1) Stress is like art. It is conceptual. There is no way to accurately measure stress because it is unique in each person's mind.
2) Stress is an authoritarian word, being created for the purpose of defining an abstract idea to the masses that, of course, agree to it's purpose and definition. The authority would be the collective majority of those in a higher position of power, ie. Drs + Therapists + Psychiatrists, etc.
3) Stress can be measured physically on relative terms, using meters and such to measure heart beat, blood pressure, sweating, etc.
4) Everybody's unique in that people have their own experiences and everybody is different, physically and psychologically. The two actually go hand in hand when it comes to stress because one can alter the other.
The Presumption
Based on the mass agreement of the definition of stress, I can guess that a lot of people feel fairly accurate when they are measuring their stress with someone else's. This is typical and an example would be when an Engineer from Purdue says he's had a lot of homework stress from labs and such and the Biology major he is talking with agrees with him/her. Note that even though they are in different majors, the concept of "labs" is so similar that they both can safely guess, and accurately compare their stresses to be relatively similar. This can also work the other way. When a HS student complains that he/she has had a lot of homework to a Grad Student at Purdue, the Grad student will probably not show any sympathy because he/she knows that their work is far more challenging than HS. This would be based on the common knowledge of the hierarchical school system and the notion that higher levels in the hierarchy require more physical and mental work and-or time. Again, the grad student is using relativity as the base measurement stemming from the mass agreement of the definition of stress. Going back to the rice I wasted by throwing it out - I can say that I had little stress or conflict with myself after throwing away what seemed to be perfectly good rice. But based on that saying, "think of the starving kids in...", I can guess that those starving kids would not feel the same. Therefore, I can presume that those starving kids have a lot less opportunities than I do, and therefore have a lot more stress.
The Error
Here is the error. Stress is only relative to the mass definition. But Actual Stress is conceptual and based on our own experiences, NOT someone else's. An ideological way of thinking about it would be to think about drinking alcohol. A lightweight and a heavyweight go into a bar (sounds like a joke). Just because they drink the same amount does not mean that they both have the same stress. And just because they drink different amounts of alcohol does not mean that their stresses will be different. Each drinker has stress that matches their own body, regardless of how much they drink compares to the other.
How does this apply to those kids? Those kids just very well may have a lot less opportunities than me. But stress-wise, we have very different ideas of what is most stressful and what is least stressful. Take an imaginary scale of 1-10: 1 the least amount of stress, 10 the highest. On that scale to me, a 10 might be relationship troubles. A 10 to a starving kid might be not finding food for the third day in a row. But logically speaking, they ARE BOTH 10s! This proves that the catalysts of stress may be drastically different for two different people, but the reactions/stress levels can be near equal.
Another example that I have commonly seen or heard people talk about is suicide threats. The person who feels they have superiority, ie. more stress but are able to handle it better (Person A) than the person who is making the suicide threats (Person B) may dismiss that knowledge in disgust or a jokingly manner. "They won't do it." or "...all because they dumped that person?" What Person A doesn't understand is, that although the stress seems like a 4 or 5, to Person B the threat is a 10. The only way to accurately measure the two peoples' stress is to get them both to the same point on the scale. That would be a 10. This would mean that Person A would have to become suicidal as well. Let's say Person A went bankrupt and lost their business, house caught on fire, and $1,000,000 Lamborghini was not insured after it got pummeled by a hailstorm. Proving my point, Both Person A and Person B are now at 10, but their experiences that drove them there are totally different.
Similarly, this idea can be applied with the HS student and the Grad Student. The grad student expects his work to be harder and more laborious, therefore more stressful based on the mass definition of stress, enforced by the authorities. But in ACTUAL STRESS, based on each person's own experiences, each person may or may not have a different number on the scale. On the stress scale, the HS might have a 10 with homework and the Grad might also have a 10. This means that there stress levels are equally matched, therefore they both have the same amount of psychological and physical trauma. But also, the high schooler may even have more actual stress than the Grad, ie. the high schooler's scale = 10 and the Grad's scale = 7 because the grad student has become so accustom to writing Papers it has become second nature. This proves once again that stress is based on experiences, not the quantitative amount of work performed or measured.
The Conclusion
In conclusion, there is no EXACT way to measure stress. Stress is 'inner', it is like our thoughts and cannot be taken out of our bodies, although it does cause physical and psychological reactions, both interacting with each other. To measure one person's stress with another doesn't make sense because people have different, unique experiences that determine their own stress levels on the scale, regardless of whether they are or are not in the same scenarios. A true measure of stress may be finding similar if not unmatched reactions from two different people, but that measure would only show similarity in reactions and not overall differences in stress levels or the catalysts behind them. Therefore, the stress level from one person should not be presumed when solely basing it on tangible evidence.
* 'A lot' is a term used to describe a significant amount.
-XJ
Sunday, June 14, 2015
Social Dysfunction: Evil and the Perception of STDs
House 29 © 2014 XJ Corps
Social Dysfunction: Evil and the Perception of STDs
by XJ Randall
Sunday 14 June 2015
19:46 EST
Often times I hear what people say. I hear the ideas that concern what people say, and I notice that sometimes the logic that created those ideas is flawed. When it comes to understanding diseases and 'supposed' disorders and the popular connotation or view of them, it seems that the dogma in their sphere of influence needs to be altered or corrected. This would apparently be true in the mental health and health 'industries' of the United States. In this brief explanation, I intend to address and correct a certain category of this argument, a social stigma known as, "sexually transmitted diseases", or 'STDs'.
Our history has shown a pattern and inequality that will lead to innovation. A brief and logical analysis of the current situation, from our past, allows an educated and open minded individual to argue that a (or 'the') sexual stigma exists because of and for 'illicit' purposes: a power and control complex that is rooted in the nature and/or 'spirit' of evil. Because it is what one does that defines who they are and sometimes who they are is what defines the nature of the definition.
Evil is a seemingly harmless remark, simply because it was done in vain. It counters health, or goodness, which refers to the way we are able to heal ourselves or adapt after 'anti-survival'. A large part of the populous behave in a fashion that is not ethically or morally healthy for the social status of the United States. The underlying problem that we deal with is not the physical disorder(s). It is not AIDS, HIV, HERPES, or any other sexually transmitted disease. These are symptoms of the actual disorder, a sexual dysfunction existing beneath the surface of societal activity that affects everything above it. This implies that the root of the symptom is a disorder of a corrupt and immaterial social 'mind'.
Thus, an immaterial problem requires an immaterial solution. We start by getting to the root. In order to cure an acne, a cancer, we change our diet, our 'blood chemistry'. In order to change a bad habit, we change our thought process. We perceive a situation in a different way. We change our social mind.
From the day we are born we begin to die. This 'transition' is likely the most infamous inevitability that we cannot escape. It is appropriate to blame a person for killing with a weapon. It is appropriate to charge that person with a grievance. But to blame a person, to be evil to a person for the inevitability that is not in their control is not appropriate, not right, and not even logical. Evil was not created by man. It was found by man and used by man to control man. And man using evil must not know that Evil is the one using man.
If you ask me in person, I will tell you what I know to be true in my heart. In this paper, I decline to explain what I mean when I say that the United States is "gravely disabled" when it comes to correcting the 'homosexual-evil' pervading the weapon that is the broadcasting media. However, people are people, and as people, according to law, they have the right to pursue happiness. Honestly, sex is like any other pursuit and in action is like any other happiness. People should not be tortured for an evil they did not create just because they chose to fulfill their right to pursue that happiness. I think it is easy to understand what I mean when I say this.
To behave evil is to be evil itself. In solution, we should know that just because one has a disease, regardless of what type or kind of disease it is, it is not the disease that makes that person evil. His or her actions are what should be accounted for and our actions should be based off of this truth. Consequently, the only disorder or disease we should fear is evil itself.
XJ Randall
John Edward Hall
XJ Corps
313 Perrin Avenue #3
Lafayette, IN 47904
USA
-XJ
Social Dysfunction: Evil and the Perception of STDs
by XJ Randall
Sunday 14 June 2015
19:46 EST
Often times I hear what people say. I hear the ideas that concern what people say, and I notice that sometimes the logic that created those ideas is flawed. When it comes to understanding diseases and 'supposed' disorders and the popular connotation or view of them, it seems that the dogma in their sphere of influence needs to be altered or corrected. This would apparently be true in the mental health and health 'industries' of the United States. In this brief explanation, I intend to address and correct a certain category of this argument, a social stigma known as, "sexually transmitted diseases", or 'STDs'.
Our history has shown a pattern and inequality that will lead to innovation. A brief and logical analysis of the current situation, from our past, allows an educated and open minded individual to argue that a (or 'the') sexual stigma exists because of and for 'illicit' purposes: a power and control complex that is rooted in the nature and/or 'spirit' of evil. Because it is what one does that defines who they are and sometimes who they are is what defines the nature of the definition.
Evil is a seemingly harmless remark, simply because it was done in vain. It counters health, or goodness, which refers to the way we are able to heal ourselves or adapt after 'anti-survival'. A large part of the populous behave in a fashion that is not ethically or morally healthy for the social status of the United States. The underlying problem that we deal with is not the physical disorder(s). It is not AIDS, HIV, HERPES, or any other sexually transmitted disease. These are symptoms of the actual disorder, a sexual dysfunction existing beneath the surface of societal activity that affects everything above it. This implies that the root of the symptom is a disorder of a corrupt and immaterial social 'mind'.
Thus, an immaterial problem requires an immaterial solution. We start by getting to the root. In order to cure an acne, a cancer, we change our diet, our 'blood chemistry'. In order to change a bad habit, we change our thought process. We perceive a situation in a different way. We change our social mind.
From the day we are born we begin to die. This 'transition' is likely the most infamous inevitability that we cannot escape. It is appropriate to blame a person for killing with a weapon. It is appropriate to charge that person with a grievance. But to blame a person, to be evil to a person for the inevitability that is not in their control is not appropriate, not right, and not even logical. Evil was not created by man. It was found by man and used by man to control man. And man using evil must not know that Evil is the one using man.
If you ask me in person, I will tell you what I know to be true in my heart. In this paper, I decline to explain what I mean when I say that the United States is "gravely disabled" when it comes to correcting the 'homosexual-evil' pervading the weapon that is the broadcasting media. However, people are people, and as people, according to law, they have the right to pursue happiness. Honestly, sex is like any other pursuit and in action is like any other happiness. People should not be tortured for an evil they did not create just because they chose to fulfill their right to pursue that happiness. I think it is easy to understand what I mean when I say this.
To behave evil is to be evil itself. In solution, we should know that just because one has a disease, regardless of what type or kind of disease it is, it is not the disease that makes that person evil. His or her actions are what should be accounted for and our actions should be based off of this truth. Consequently, the only disorder or disease we should fear is evil itself.
XJ Randall
John Edward Hall
XJ Corps
313 Perrin Avenue #3
Lafayette, IN 47904
USA
-XJ
Saturday, June 13, 2015
Message to Tom Cruise
Saturday 13 June 2015
15:54 EST
Dear Mr. Cruise,
Please help me protect and fund my copyrighted research and technology. Specifically, I was wondering if you could pay me to write a book or if you could act as a funds donor or angel investor.
Usually, most days I seem to have a niche for finding interesting information about technology, not to mention being the author and creator of my own. There is so much information and I have a unique insight into it, including my own experiences. I feel that having someone fund what is a passion and job for me would motivate me to continue finding and documenting information and ideas that might otherwise not be known ever, for the rest of the history of the world.
I have a comical-ironic or humorous style of writing as well as a technical style of writing. You can view a small portion of my ideas on my blog, "10jackofhearts" or on my twitter account, under my company "XJ Corps".
Right now I am working on a "XJ Corps Telepathic Phone Network". I don't suppose you could help me buy a new laptop could you...? I am living off of social security income and food stamps, yet the ideas I create and invest time in seem to be underfunded, under compensated, or under protected. Considering all else that has occurred, that might be an understatement.
I am sure that my ideas are very attractive to associates who wish to use them for financial gain (whether they asked my permission to use them or not). If you would like to know more about me or my technology or ideas, you can contact me at my email address: xjcorps@gmail.com. You can also write me a letter at my address below.
I will be optimistic about the outcome of the future and I hope you will invest in my company. If not, could you please forward this message to someone who will...?
Sincerely,
XJ Randall
John Edward Hall
XJ Corps
313 Perrin Avenue #3
Lafayette, IN 47904
USA
-XJ
15:54 EST
Dear Mr. Cruise,
Please help me protect and fund my copyrighted research and technology. Specifically, I was wondering if you could pay me to write a book or if you could act as a funds donor or angel investor.
Usually, most days I seem to have a niche for finding interesting information about technology, not to mention being the author and creator of my own. There is so much information and I have a unique insight into it, including my own experiences. I feel that having someone fund what is a passion and job for me would motivate me to continue finding and documenting information and ideas that might otherwise not be known ever, for the rest of the history of the world.
I have a comical-ironic or humorous style of writing as well as a technical style of writing. You can view a small portion of my ideas on my blog, "10jackofhearts" or on my twitter account, under my company "XJ Corps".
Right now I am working on a "XJ Corps Telepathic Phone Network". I don't suppose you could help me buy a new laptop could you...? I am living off of social security income and food stamps, yet the ideas I create and invest time in seem to be underfunded, under compensated, or under protected. Considering all else that has occurred, that might be an understatement.
I am sure that my ideas are very attractive to associates who wish to use them for financial gain (whether they asked my permission to use them or not). If you would like to know more about me or my technology or ideas, you can contact me at my email address: xjcorps@gmail.com. You can also write me a letter at my address below.
I will be optimistic about the outcome of the future and I hope you will invest in my company. If not, could you please forward this message to someone who will...?
Sincerely,
XJ Randall
John Edward Hall
XJ Corps
313 Perrin Avenue #3
Lafayette, IN 47904
USA
-XJ
Tuesday, June 9, 2015
Letter to the Tenants
Tuesday 9 June 2015
15:34 EST
To who(m) it may concern:
Hello, my name is John Edward Randall (Hall). I may have introduced myself to you in person and explained that I am a new tenant in the house at 313 Perrin Avenue.
To tell you a little about myself, I am a musician, a computer programmer, and a business owner. I value honesty and righteousness. Because of this, if I have a grievance, I may choose to tell you about it in person or by letter. I might occasionally do something that you might not agree with. If this is the case, feel free to be as honest, approachable, and/or conversant with me as I am with you.
My apartment number is 3. You may knock on my door or send me a letter. For serious inquiries you may also contact me at my professional email: xjcorps@gmail.com.
I hope that our acquaintance will be in good fortune.
Sincerely,
XJ Randall
John Edward Hall
XJ Corps
313 Perrin Avenue #3
Lafayette, IN 47904
USA
-XJ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)