Responding (Belatedly) to Noteworthy or Offensive or Peculiar or Baffling or Surprising or Distracting Comments from Others

I am convinced that it is not necessary to have the "perfect spontaneous rejoinder" or the "perfect unrehearsed comeback" or "tactful response" to a perceived insult or injurious comment or very sobering or haunting or very thought-provoking comment or criticism of myself that another person verbalizes to me in person.

What I instead like to do is to reflect to myself on the comment that I initially perceived as offensive or very sobering or rather haunting to myself, and then develop a thoughtful and non-sarcastic reply that guides myself as a human being, even if I don't share my belated response with the person. This reflection then helps me to prepare for and maintain composure on the next occasion in which another person verbalizes a comment to me that offends me or surprises me or offers criticism of me I had not expected to receive.

AMONG THE MOST THOUGHT-PROVOKING OR NOTEWORTHY OR INSULTING OR OFFENSIVE OR SURPRISING OR PECULIAR OR IRKSOME OR HAUNTING OR DISTRACTING COMMENTS (APPROXIMATE QUOTES) THAT OTHER PERSONS HAVE VERBALIZED TO ME IN PERSON OR ON THE TELEPHONE IN MY LIFE SO FAR ARE:

---"You are much more incisive in your writing than you are in person!"
My response to that today: "I feel that I have an honest and benevolent face, which enhances my ability to communicate an observation to someone in person. I would also like to ask you how it is that you can make this observation about me based on having spoken with me for no more than five total seconds. We have never spoken before this graduate-student party, and you have been doing all the talking in the conversation we're having right now. Since you are a graduate student from Northern Ireland who has been in the United States only a matter of weeks or months, and I have never visited Northern Ireland and I have made no phone calls to Northern Ireland, I think I'm very fair in raising this question about you."

--"You overestimate your emotional effect on others!"
My response to that today: "I would like to point out that you just slammed down your end of the phone line immediately after making that irate comment to me on the phone in our long-distance phone conversation. It seems that I have had an emotional effect on you, in that you exhibit a significant amount of surprising anger toward me. I would like to politely remind you that the state penal code of Texas, the state where you reside, does prohibit any illegal conduct of any type on your part toward another person --- myself, for instance. This is so regardless of whether you yourself are significantly angered by myself. And of course, your capricious and rather nasty reaction to myself on the telephone does remind me to never again have any further involvement of any type with yourself. If you impinge on my own privacy rights in any way, or if you attempt to contact me at any time in the future, I will have to file a lawsuit against you or press criminal-law charges against you at the earliest opportunity. I value my own legal right to lawfully and in a civil manner permanently exclude you from all aspects of my own life."

---"As an attorney member of the State Bar of Texas and as a University of Texas at Austin Law School alumnus, I can tell you today during this 1997 meeting inside my law office in downtown Austin, Texas, that if a scenario is in fact occurring in Austin, Texas, in which you as my legal-services client are yourself being subjected to continuous anonymous verbalized communications from others on a year-round basis involving electronic media of some type, that would be all the legal evidence I would need to conclude that SOMEONE IS TRYING TO KILL YOU, JOHN!"
My response to that today: "Thank you again for that courageously incisive legal opinion you helpfully verbalized to me through a very dramatic oral statement you made to me inside your law office during one of my in-person legal consultations with you in 1997. I hope you won't mind my asking you at this time whether you as an honorable attorney in Austin, Texas, ever considered actually helping me to file criminal-law charges in Austin, Texas, against the alleged source of those citedly continuous and anonymous verbalized communications that I definitely have not wanted, have never authorized, and do not want.
"I raise this additional point today because you yourself have acknowledged to me that the conduct I described to you comprised a violation of the state penal code of Texas victimizing myself, a cited client of yours back in 1997. I would also like to point out that I know of at least one first-rate medical physician, an ear, nose, and throat specialist based in northwest Austin, who has determined for me over a multi-year period of examining my hearing capacity inside his medical clinic that noise pollution in Austin, Texas, that I myself did not generate, has inflicted significant permanent damage to my own hearing capacity, that kindly ear, nose, and throat specialist has concluded."

---"The primary intent of manipulative circumstances in your own life in Texas these days is for your own intellectual development."
My response to that today: "You may be forgetting that I never requested any educational services intrusive upon my own privacy rights, and I strongly oppose any such circumstance in my own life. I was Salutatorian of my high school graduating class, and I was a National Merit Scholar in college. Also, I earned a 3.7 out of 4.0 grade point average in each of the three institutions of higher education that I attended. One University of Texas professor commented to me as recently as December of 1990 that I myself have a public reputation for intellectual brilliance, he told me in person that month."

---"A lot of Texans are involved in manipulative circumstances in your own life during this period, the early 1990s, that are designed to straighten you out."
My response to that today: "Your comment ignores the fact that I already was consistently law-abiding, and in fact I have no criminal-conviction record. Your comment to me from Dallas also ignores the fact that I myself lead an illicit-drug-free, tobacco-free, and alcohol-free lifestyle, and I myself have never been addicted to any of those substances. Your comment also ignores the fact that I am consistently honest and conscientious and clean-talking. So inevitably I find myself wondering whether you yourself are being straight with me, when you talk to me this way on the telephone. Is there some other explanation that you have chosen to withhold with me?"

---"You are being subjected by others to manipulative circumstances in Texas that are designed to make you anti-sexual."

My response to that today: "Your comment to me during an in-person conversation we had in Big Spring, Texas, in 1989 or early 1990 ignores the obvious fact that I myself have been completely celibate on 99.7 to 99.9 percent or more of all my 24-hour days as a single adult gentleman. It is obvious that I already have high platonic aptitude, and that I am platonically polite toward yourself and others. I am clean-speaking and law-abiding and civil, and I have no criminal-conviction record. So tell me, which government agency or government-sponsored institution has somehow permitted ANY individual or ANY group or entity operating in Texas, to allegedly sponsor maniuplative circumstances allegedly aimed at making me myself anti-sexual, when I definitely did NOT request any such anti-sexual circumstances and I myself strongly support a single adult person's legal right to enjoy a pre-marital or non-marital sex life that is strictly mutual-consent in nature."

---"If you write me any letter of any type from your current city of residence, Pampa, Texas, I could kill. However, you are free to continue making long-distance phone calls to me at my private residence in west Texas, and I will be willing to talk with you in a cordial manner in those phone conversations."
My response to that today: "I am still baffled as to why you phrased your comment to me that way on the telephone back in 1993. Your 'I could kill' comment has prompted me ever since then to wonder which individual you were citing as your intended victim. I myself am very opposed to violent conduct, as you well know, and I myself had never verbalized any threats to yourself at any time. Nor did you yourself ever state to me at any time that you disliked me, or that you have any type of cited conflict with me. I find myself wondering today whether you possibly exhibit some degree of continued antipathy toward me, and if so, why?"

---"You will be subjected to a long and difficult process that will be very painful to you."
My response to today: "How would you know about any manipulation of my own living conditions or life circumstances by others? You have never once even stated to me that you are aware of any impingements upon my own privacy rights by anyone."

---"Your political and religious philosophy make you offensive to both conservatives and liberals. That also explains why you are excluded by virtually everyone."
My response to that today: "Is it possible you are over-generalizing? There may well be some conservatives and some liberals who like elements of my political and religious philosophy, at least. And after all, I am a friendly gentleman who strongly supports the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion rights of others."

---"You have a massive inferiority complex!"
My response to that today: "I just met you an hour or two ago here in Cambridge. You are apparently basing your comment on the fact that I chose to read a fictional short story, 'The Big Blonde' by Dorothy Parker, while you and everyone else in your party listened to the 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' and found it very entertaining. Are you suggesting that my preferring to read alone during that particular period comprised an inferiority complex on my part?"

---"The one trait that's most noteworthy about you is that you are a person with unfulfilled desire. That, to me, sums up who you are as a human being more than anything else."
My response to that today: "So tell me, what have you identified my desire to be, in very specific terms?"

---"During this time period in the mid-1980s, you are being subjected to manipulations of your living conditions here in Quincy, Massachusetts, that are designed to subject you on a year-round basis to intense sexual deprivation while you are being subjected to various forms of temptation and titillation by others. The whole intent of those manipulative circumstances is to then inspire you to strive for creative intellectual accomplishments. That's my own insight on your circumstances in my role as a Unitarian Universalist clergyman based here in Quincy, Massachusetts."
My response to that: "What you are describing to me in person inside your ministerial study in Quincy, Mass., in 1986 or 1987 does not sound like a well-rounded or happy life for myself. Nor does it describe living conditions I would ever agree to for myself. Do you happen to know who might be sponsoring manipulations of that type in my current living conditions here in Quincy, Massachusetts?"

---"A psychologist friend of mine here in Austin has told me that he regards you as being narcissistic. As for myself, I am not altogether sure that I as a Unitarian-Universalist clergyman here in Austin, Texas, agree with my psychologist friend about you."
My response to that today: "Thank you for offering me factual evidence in person in 1988 inside your Unitarian church's ministerial study in Austin, Texas, that someone in Austin, Texas, may have violated my own privacy rights. Since I myself do not have any current relationship with any psychologist anywhere in the world, I can make the observation that your psychologist friend may be at risk of having his license revoked. Please let me know the name of that psychologist friend of yours, so I can file a legal complaint against him with help from an attorney member of the State Bar of Texas."

---"What is a nice guy like you doing in a place like this?"
My response to that today: "Doesn't the very fact that you have chosen to patronize this place yourself as a law-abiding customer here, suggest that you also like it here?"

---"I was sorry to hear that you turned into a hotel desk clerk in Minneapolis."
My response to that today: "In your own lofty vantage point as a university professor in Austin in the year 1981 or 1982, when you made that comment to me on the telephone, it must be very difficult for you to conceive of intellectually motivated persons such as myself ever being employed at a hotel. However, I can assure you that working as a hotel desk clerk at this graveyard shift job can be educational in its own way. During my training period here, for instance, I was repeatedly advised by my trainer to avoid ever renting a hotel room to members of a cited ethnic group, that trainer told me. I felt uncomfortable with that supervisory guidance, but was also determined to hold onto my job. I was advised by my trainer inside this hotel in Minneapolis that the cited ethnic group is allegedly notorious for allegedly being drunk and allegedly trashing their hotel room. As for your statement indicating that I have myself 'turned into' a hotel desk clerk, I would like to point out that I always have a human identity that transcends any particular position of employment I hold at the time. This particular job is helping me to pay my bills, at least. And nothing prevents me from eventually qualifying for a position of employment that might compensate me at a higher rate and might be more creatively rewarding for me."


---"Your being a non-Christian makes it inevitable that you will be going to Hell after you die. Your afterlife will be quite grim, and you will also be punished eternally during your afterlife for having had unresolved conflicts with this particular Christian person----myself."
My response to that today: "That in-person comment to me in 1976 was eerie in its implications. Why did it offend that person that I have chosen to resolve my multi-faceted incompatibility with that individual by choosing not to have any further involvement with that person? As for that person's cited 'Hell' scenario, I am very sure that having any further involvement of any type with that individual would have been far more convincingly hellish for me, as a human being, than any posited after-life scenario cited by that individual in regard to the time period after my own lifespan on this planet ends seven or more decades from now."

---"Your smile in that photograph makes you look like a mass murderer!"

My response to that today: "Your comment to me in 1999 was downright eerie. I would like to point out that I last physically assaulted another person during my fourth grade year of elementary school, and that male classmate of mine did not even require any hospitalization. I am consistently civil and law-abiding, and I have no criminal-conviction record. Is it possible that you derive sadistic pleasure from slandering individuals who are, in fact, honorable?"

---"The one famous person you most resemble is Stephen King."
My response to that today: "Are you aware that Stephen King is severely handicapped, and I myself am fully ambulatory?"

---"The one famous person you most resemble is Neil Diamond."
My response to that today: "Are you aware that I'm a non-drinker and non-smoker, and that I'm politically and religiously and morally a world apart from Neil Diamond."

---"You are the most boring person I have ever met!"
My response to that today: "Your emphatic verbal observation to me in 1985 or 1986 in Cambridge, Mass., has haunted me ever since. On a facetious note, maybe you could write to the 'Guinness Book of World Records' and ask the editor if he'll be willing to cite me as the World's Most Boring Person who is currently living. That would give me fame, which would give me the opportunity to offer boring quotes to publications like 'People' magazine."
An alternative response: "Do you mean to tell me that even though you are a recent college graduate in the year 1985 or 1986, none of your college professors in Massachusetts bored you more than I have?"

----"You are at dire risk of turning into a pariah to all of Austin!"
My response to that today: "That candid observation you made to me outdoors in east Austin, Texas, in 1997 or 1998, was thought-provoking. It's interesting that you can speak for everyone in Austin when you make comments like that. Did you take a recent survey of all law-abiding Austin residents to then learn from them that all law-abiding Austin residents who have met me or who recognize my name have classified me as a 'pariah' whom they always seek to exclude from their own life."

--"You remind me of Thomas Payne, who was persecuted in the United States and elsewhere."
My response to that today: "Thank you for your late 1990s observation to me in person in Austin, Texas, near the campus of The University of Texas at Austin. Are you planning to pay for my airplane ticket if I were to visit Great Britain or France and ask for political asylum there?"

---"You should not write to Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain ever again. It is too much of an inconvenience and major burden to Queen Elizabeth II whenever you write to her."
My response to that today: "I was very surprised when you offered me that emphatic advice in person in the late 1990s as we prepared to enter La Madeleine restaurant in central Austin, Texas, and have a meal there. Queen Elizabeth II is the employer of many citizens of Great Britain at her royal palace in England. I believe you are mistaken when you say that my sending a polite letter to Queen Elizabeth II would somehow take up too much of the Queen's time or be a source of great distress to Queen Elizabeth II."

---"The President of the United States has no interest in your own living conditions or circumstances in Texas. One of the great things I myself admire about our current President, Bill Clinton, is that he recognizes the limits of what the federal government should have any involvement in. It would not do you any good if you were to write to the President about your cited complaints or concerns. The only outcome might be that the Central Intelligence Agency or Federal Bureau of Investigation would send agents to interrogate you if you write a letter that is regarded as bizarre by the Clinton Administration."

My response to that today: "Your observations to me about President Clinton and myself that you volunteered to me in 1993, during a time period in which I resided in Pampa, Texas, and made a phone call at my expense to your home in Austin, were demoralizing to me. You may be overlooking the point that I myself am law-abiding and civil and honest. I would hope that any President of the United States would welcome civilly stated complaints and concerns from an honorable citizen of the United States such as myself."

---"ARE YOU an intellectual, though? As a Unitarian-Universalist clergyman based at this congregation in a suburb of Worcester, Massachusetts, I sense on this first-ever meeting with you inside my ministerial study that you are definitely not an intellectual yourself. However, I do think that you would make a very lovable romantic partner for someone older than yourself."
My response to that today: "I am definitely intellectually curious and intellectually motivated and intellectually insightful, so I disagree with your oral statement to me in 1984 that I myself am primarily noteworthy for my lack of intellect. As for your choice to add that you believe I would make a 'very lovable' romantic partner for someone older than myself, I maintain that you have no basis for attempting to dictate to me the legal-status-adult age of whomever I might ever agree to date romantically. I can tell you very emphatically, in fact, that I definitely would NEVER be receptive to myself ever dating or having carnal relations with anyone older than myself by more than one year."

---"You can stay in Austin, Texas, as many years as you like, for all the good it would do you. I know how Austin is, and you have no chance of ever developing a mutual-consent social life in Austin."
My response to that: "I find it interesting that you are a Central Texan who has chosen not to live in Austin proper, yet you tell me in 1997 on the telephone that you know how all Austinites are. So tell me, why do you think it is that my own chances for developing a mutual-consent social life for myself in Austin, Texas, are slim to none?"

---"The primary reason why I like you is because you are so weird. You are one of the weirdest persons I've ever met!"

My response to that today: "Many Americans have been described as strange or odd, and many of those strange or odd Americans were also criminals. Does it ever occur to you that my own consistent obedience of the law and consistent civility, and my consistent honesty as well, set me apart from the vast majority of the people whom you label as being strange in the year 1983 or 1984 during this two-person meeting and dining experience we are having together today in a restaurant in either Minneapolis or New Ulm, Minnesota."
An alternative response: "So tell me, what do you find to be strange about me?"
Another alternative response: "Do you know of anyone whom you don't regard as being strange?"

---"You are so self-absorbed that you probably analyze your own manure each time you defecate in your bathroom."
My response to that today: "I find it surprising that in the year 1983 or 1984, when you are making that in-person comment to me in Minneapolis, Minnesota, you don't see me as someone with a keen interest in the outside world, and in the quality of life of other persons, too. And the very fact that you have commented on my nice sense of humor suggests something other than self-absorption on my part."

---"If you get any fatter, they will have to take you out and slaughter you."

My response to that today: "Your in-person oral warning to me in 1969 or 1970 is very alarming to me. I plan to report you to the principal of this school. I regard your comment to me as very unprofessional, and it suggests that you may have ties to the criminal underworld here in Austin, Texas. If our school principal, Mr. Wiley, refuses to discipline you, I will demand to denounce your conduct at a meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Austin Independent School District here in Austin, Texas. I want the Austin ISD school board to go officially on record as opposing slanderous or defamatory comments being inflicted on an Austin ISD student such as myself, for instance, by any employee of Austin ISD."

---"All of your own problems in Austin, Texas, are self-inflicted."
My response to that today: "Since you reside in a different state from myself, how can you be sure about that comment you just made to me today in the late 1990s during our long-distance phone conversation? I would like to respectfully point out, after all, that a younger relative of yours did volunteer to me on the telephone during this same approximate time period, the late 1990s, that he as a resident of a northern U.S. state was himself privy to criminal-law evidence indicating that numerous Austin-area residents were allegedly breaking the law and exhibiting harmful intent toward me in their own conduct toward myself in Austin, Texas."

---"You are obviously an alcoholic."
My response to that: "You are making that comment to me in the late 1990s from Central Massachusetts in this long-distance phone conversation I'm having with you from my apartment unit near UT-Austin. It seems to me that you don't have any knowledge about my own living conditions or circumstances in Austin, Texas, today. In fact, I have never been addicted to drinking alcohol, my total cumulative alcohol consumption during the years in which I drank any alcohol --- 1977 until 1990 --- was very minimal, and I last consumed drinking alcohol in the summer of 1990. I have gone 19 straight years without ever once touching a glass of alcohol, and I don't even feel tempted. I enjoy grape juice, for instance, which can be quite enjoyable and healthful and refreshing. As for a possible implication from your statement that you expect me to identify with and associate with persons who are or were addicted to alcohol or some other vile substance such as an illicit drug or tobacco, I actually insist on my Constitutionally-protected Freedom of Association legal right to myself have the option of associating in mutual-consent contexts during my leisuretime with persons who, like myself, have NEVER been addicted to alcohol---or to tobacco or any illicit drug, for that matter. Those of us who are LIFELONG NON-ADDICTS tend to favor the companionship of other LIFELONG NON-ADDICTS, as I'm sure you can agree."

---"What makes it very difficult to predict or control your conduct is that you are very unpredictable."

My response to that today: "I find it possible grounds for concern that you as an Ivy League graduate who wrote your senior paper on organizational psychology would in this conversation we're having in 1983 or 1984 express an apparent interest in 'controlling' my own conduct as a human being. We live, as you know, in a nation that professes to revere the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Mutual-Consent human rights and legal rights of each and every law-abiding American citizen. I am definitely a law-abiding American citizen, as you also are no doubt very aware. Why does it alarm you that you cannot predict what my next course of action will be, and that you cannot yourself control me? Were you seeking to have personal friends or associates who are mere puppets of yours, and were you seeking to become my puppeteer?"

---"Your biggest strength as a human being is that in your writing you make people more aware of their own feelings."

My response to that today: "I notice that you almost appear to be wincing with some degree of pain in your facial expression as you speak to me today in this 1984 in-person conversation we're having in Minneapolis. Would you give me an example of some published writing of mine that made you more aware of your own feelings? For that matter, would you be willing to share with me today what your own emotional response to myself happens to be? Is it possible, for instance, that your emotional response to me is not as favorable as you have sometimes indicated, particularly since the comment you just made to me was the only strength of mine you were able to identify in our in-person conversation today that we are having together outdoors on the campus of The University of Minnesota-Minneapolis."

----"I see you are into more digs at Minnesota through your published writings in Massachusetts."

My response to that today: "Your reference in your personal letter to me of 1984 or 1985 to one or more published newspaper columns of mine in Massachusetts as comprising 'digs' at the expense of Minnesota seems a bit unfair. You appear to be possibly faulting me for having ever criticized anything about my living conditions or circumstances in Minnesota. Are you suggesting that Minnesota and Minnesotans are all beyond reproach. in your own opinion, and you are intolerant toward a vantage point other than your own? Isn't it a bit censorious on your part to express any conveyed intolerance toward my Freedom of Speech-protected outlook as a journalist now living in Massachusetts? I would like to point out, incidentally, that you yourself have repeatedly stated to me that you have a very critical vantage point toward Massachusetts. I have never once criticized you for having your own Freedom of Speech-protected critical outlook toward my own new state of Massachusetts. You have dismissed Boston, for instance, as being 'a preppy city' when compared with either Minneapolis or St. Paul, in your opinion; and I myself have indicated to you that I like Boston, in contrast to yourself."

---"I have just observed you for the first time ever while you dined inside a restaurant, and it seemed to me that you looked like someone with low self-esteem who is also yourself self-destructive."

My response to that today: "I hope you won't mind my disagreeing with that 21st Century observation you made to me in Williamson County, Texas. I have been spending $1,000 per month on health insurance policies for myself. And I do that because I greatly value having a full and healthy life for myself, and I can assure you that I take my own medical health and my own quality of life very seriously. I also lead a completely illicit-drug-free, tobacco-free, and alcohol-free lifestyle because I value being as healthy and law-abiding and civil and sober as possible at all times."
An alternative response to that today: "Are you a psychologist?"
An alternative response to that today: "Why would I be destructive toward the one person from my own life whom I love the most---myself?"
An alternative response to that today: "I have often observed in the past that when another person tells me I look vulnerable or I come across to them as paranoid, this often suggests to me that that person may have possible criminal intent or harmful intent toward myself, and was projecting onto me the victim status he or she secretly sought to subject me to against my wishes. I hope that you, by contrast, are completely honorable in your own intentions."

---"That poem you wrote and submitted to me for a classroom assignment was an apparent case of plagiarism on your part. Isn't that true?"
My response to that: "I feel very flattered that in the latter 1960s, you saw some elements of my poem I wrote as a classroom assignment for you, that you regarded as being professional in caliber. The truth is that I have not read or studied many poems in my life so far. Also, I'm very conscientious and would never knowingly commit the crime of plagiarism. I take pride in being an honorable elementary school student in Westlake Hills, Texas."

---"The criminal-history record you've presented to me in 1997 at my prior request could just indicate that the state or federal agency reporting that you have no criminal-law convictions against you overlooked something. What you've shown me proves nothing, since there may have been an error by the Texas Department of Public Safety or the Federal Bureau of Investigation that explains why you have no cited criminal-conviction record."
My response to that today: "Your 1997 observation to me at an apartment complex near The University of Texas at Austin, was sobering. I have resided in Texas ever since January of 1988, most recently. This means that in the multi-decade period since
1988, for instance, the Texas Department of Public Safety and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Texas have had many opportunities for updating and, if need be, making any needed corrections to my criminal-conviction record. Is it possible you don't feel comfortable with me or you feel antipathy toward me, and you are conveying that through an indirect means?"

---"Anything you write will be light-headed, for sure."
My response to that today: "I personally feel that I have a philosophical depth to me that you have completely overlooked in your 1983 observation about myself on the campus of The University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. While I have a sense of humor, this does not prevent me as a writer from also pursuing serious, substantive, deeper insights about American society today."

---"No matter what you write, even if you try to write seriously, it will all come out as funny or amusing, regardless."

My response to that today: "That 1983 or 1984 observation to me on the telephone by a University of Minnesota undergraduate student was eerie. While I occasionally enjoy writing humorous pieces, the vast majority of my writing is serious in nature. I am offended by those who attempt to deny my strength as a serious writer who myself has serious insights."

---"The criminal-conviction record you've shown me at my request, indicating that you have no criminal-convictions against you, has not helped any. As a woman, I feel much safer about playing racquetball with other women. I don't trust men as racquetball partners, since so many men in Austin have been linked to crime."
My response to that: "Your stated outlook to me---this during the time period 1999-2001 in which I resided in the same UT-Austin-area apartment unit throughout----
that no men can be trusted as racquetball partners for yourself, may be over-generalizing. No woman and no girl from my entire life has ever once angrily accused me of having allegedly physically assaulted her or of myself having allegedly hit her or myself having allegedly struck her or deliberately harmed her on any occasion."

--"As an official of the Ethical Culture Society of Austin, I cannot accept your invitation on the telephone that I meet you for lunch and conversation. You have admitted to me that you publicly stated in a recent televised speech that you support the government-ordered closing of any and all all gay bathhouses in Austin where sex in a public place is occurring. I feel very uncomfortable with your position on that, and the other officials of my Ethical Culture Society of Austin would also be dismayed by your public position on that."
My response to that today: "Personally, I regard it as very unethical on the part of yourself and your Ethical Culture Society of Austin in the year 1997, to yourself condone any violation of the state penal code in which sex occurs in a public place such as a gay bathhouse. Thank you for at least honoring my own privacy rights, since it's obvious that your Ethical Culture Society of Austin and your membership are ideologically and legally incompatible with myself."

---"I don't support your legal right to exclude from your own life each and every one of the persons whom you have already rejected and chosen to exclude from your own life."
My response to that today: "That conveyed response to me on the telephone from a variety of persons in the 1990s and 21st Century, including when I resided in Pampa, Texas, in the early 1990s, and made a phone call one day to an Austin resident in 1993 or 1994 that elicited that alarming comment, is offensive to me and very sobering. Compelled relationships and slavery are, in fact, prohibited by the United States Constitution and the American legal system. You have never disputed my statement that I am a single adult gentleman. I enjoy the legal right to live alone for the rest of my life, if I so wish. As for my career-related options in life, the U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights and American legal system fully protect my legal right to enjoy a wide range of options as to which company or business entity or government-owned institution I might ever agree to work for or be affiliated with myself. And I have never once signed a contract with any employer of mine which stated that I am required by that employer to be a colleague or friend or roommate or spouse of any of the persons whom I have already rejected from my own life. I might add, by the way, that I also revere and fully support the legal right of any other person to decide at any time that he or she wishes to reject and exclude myself from his or her own life."

---"I don't acknowledge your legal right to lead a life for yourself in which you are NOT affiliated with the Unitarian-Universalist Association or any Unitarian group yourself."
My response to that: "The United States Constitution Bill of Rights makes it perfectly clear in its Freedom of Speech provision that I can decide for myself which religious groups I agree to have any involvements with of any type. I am not a Unitarian or a Unitarian-Universalist myself, and I made that choice for myself a long time ago."

---"You have no capacity for empathy toward others. All you ever do is project onto others something that you yourself are experiencing. You are very narcissistic and solipsistic that way."

My response to that today: "I often feel saddened by problems other persons are experiencing that I myself am not having. Many people have told me they regard me as being a kind person, and they made that comment to me partly because they apparently regarded me as being sincerely empathetic toward the individuality of other law-abiding persons. I am very mindful of the great diversity of law-abiding lifestyles that can be found in American society, and I'm very tolerant toward law-abiding forms of human diversity."

---"You as a human being are incapable of ever falling in love with another human being. You claim to be in love with another person, but you are actually just falling in love with yourself. You don't have any idea of who that other person is, because you are so mired in your own narcissism. You lack an in-depth appreciation for that other person whom you profess to love."
My response to that today: "And how can I be sure that you aren't just projecting your own narcissism onto me?"

---"You're one of those people about whom I could never decide whether I wanted to keep up with them."
My response to that today: "Since I last spoke with you in 1979, some 9 years ago, and since I never wrote to you and you never wrote to me, and since you made one total phone call to me in your entire life, I find your comment rather galling. You have had no authorized involvement in my life throughout the entire last 9-year period, as you well know. I called you today on one total occasion to simply find out whether you knew the source of alleged verbal harassment of myself and alleged public disparagement of myself occurring this year, 1988, in Austin, Texas. Since you are not offering me any insight about that question, I will call someone else instead who might offer me more helpful information."

--"I cannot take you seriously."
My response to that today: "So why did you later choose to invite me to go bird-watching with you in a joint outing we made together in 1982? And why did you comment to me after that bird-watching trip we made to a county-government nature park in Bloomington, Minnesota, or a related outing we had together, that you always felt better and calmer after meeting with me in person."

---"You are too old for me to invite you to my social party."
My response to that today: "Would you at least be willing to tell me what the maximum allowable age is for persons placed on your party's invitation list? I can then tell you whether my age is greater than that or less than that."

---"You are too straight for me to ever invite you to any social party I myself would be hosting in Austin."

My response to that today: "It's true that I'm law-abiding. Thank you for excluding me from your social party invitation list. That spares me from being subjected to criminal-law evidence at your party, which would have been very awkward for me."

----"I'm inviting you to a social party I'm hosting here in Austin this year (1997). In answer to your question you just posed to me in this phone conversation, I'm nearly certain that some marijuana will be consumed by party guests at my party. I'm hopeful that won't be a problem for you in this very mellow city of Austin, Texas."

My response to that today: "Yes it would be a problem for me. Complicity in crime is a crime in itself. If I had attended your party this year (1997) and suddenly discovered that some of the invited party guests were consuming ANY illicit drug or doing anything illegal at your party, that would leave me no choice but to leave your party. At that point, I would feel honorbound to consider calling 911 in order to report your party's flagrant contempt for the law."

---"Would you please try to recall someone from your distant past, someone who doesn't want to have ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOU, and then please try to never again have any more thoughts about that person? Would you be willing to do that for me, John?"

My response to that today: "Why would it matter to you which persons I had thoughts about? You have never directly stated to me at any time that I lack privacy rights in any way, or that I have a need for a privacy-law attorney. Also, your comment is very distracting and hurtful to me. What prevents you from simply telling me WHICH PERSON from my own distant past has contacted you and has asked you to urge me to never again have any thoughts per se about that individual?"

---"As a professor at The University of Texas at Austin, I would like to ask you at this time to direct any and all of your own thoughts away from myself."
My response to that today: "Professor, I would like to politely point out that in this 1988 phone conversation we're having, you are referring to concerns of yours about the content of my thoughts per se, and the U.S. Constitution and American legal system clearly protect the privacy of my own thought process. I am a law-abiding single adult American citizen, as you well know, Professor. I would also like to point out, Professor, that you yourself have never once cited to me any suspected or actual source of violations of my own privacy rights. So why do you express concern about privacy rights issues relating to me, when your previous letters and conversations with me have never once cited ANY concerns of yours about privacy-rights matters. Furthermore, Professor, I find it noteworthy that your only request of me today is very specifically limited to the content of my thoughts per se. I find that very peculiar on your part."

---"The one-member religion that you have yourself established is inflicting hell on this entire planet! Your alcohol-free and Prohibitionist religion sounds Fascist to me!"
My response to that today: "You are overlooking the point that my new and fully independent religion advocates consistency of civil and law-abiding conduct by its members. Fascist movements have always featured violent and lawless conduct. As for your contention that my new religion inflicts hell on this entire planet, my new religion seeks to enhance the quality of life of its members, as well as many others, in a privacy-respectful and polite and people-friendly manner."

---"I'm very surprised to learn from your phone call to me today that you are still alive. I had just assumed that you were dead by now."
My response to that today: "You overlook my very strong will to have a full and healthy lifespan and creative longevity. You do strongly support my legal right to myself enjoy a full and lengthy human life, is that right?"

---"Your stated concerns about cited possible violations of your privacy rights in the Austin area that involve alleged sophisticated electronic technology of some type, indicates to me as an attorney member of the State Bar of Texas that you are very paranoid!"
My response to that today: "I am very disappointed by your angry and emphatic statements to me inside your law firm office in 1992 that I have no legitimate legal concerns, and that alleged 'paranoia' by myself is all that's been conveyed to you today. You should not meet in person with a prospective client unless you are willing to consider the possibility that that prospective client (myself, for instance) is offering you a legitimate grievance and a truthful complaint."

---"You yourself, while good-looking, look so plain compared with that very flashy male cartoonist coworker of yours at 'The Daily Texan'!"

My response to that today: "I'm grateful that you are not my social secretary. If you were, I would never land a muutal-consent romantic date here in Austin!"

---"What makes you outstanding?"

My response to that today: "I'm very patient and polite about all the insults I get from a variety of persons every day. You've just reminded me that my patience and politeness are probably my two most outstanding traits."

----"The reason why no one is meddling in your own life, John, is that no one ever thinks about you. They are thinking about themselves instead."

My response to that today: "I'm convinced that some persons who are NOT appreciative or empathetic toward me have, in fact, meddled in my life for years. And contrary to what you may be implying, it is NOT an ego trip for me to sense that others are spying on me."

---"John, if I as an attorney member of the State Bar of Texas here in downtown Austin were to learn that someone else was spying on me, I would feel very flattered that they found me that interesting. The fact of the matter, John, is that nobody is so interesting that another person would want to spy on them on a year-round basis. I can assure you, John, that you currently enjoy full and complete privacy rights here in Austin."


My response to that today: "A stalker may claim to exhibit 'interest' in his victim, but the act of spying on someone else still comprises a crime. I am not all that interested in the cited motive of the stalker. The fact that he or she has somehow been allowed to illegally electronically surveillance myself in Austin, Texas, is an automatic basis for my filing criminal-charges against the stalker in a court of law."

---"I regard you as being a possibly likable person."

My response to that today: "I find that comment of yours troublesome. It implies that I am not currently likable, and that you regard it as a major bit of progress for me if I graduate up to the point of being re-classified as a 'Now-Likable American Citizen.'"

---"Your primary goal in Austin, Texas, is to make the transition from your being a dislikable eccentric at present into your becoming a likable eccentric."

My response to that today: "Why do you say that you regard me as being eccentric, and why do you say that you regard me as being dislikable at present?"

---"I could not say whether you are a lovable person. That would be outside my area of expertise."

My response to that today: "Have you ever heard of brotherly love between men that is strictly platonic in nature? It's obvious from your comment that you don't feel brotherly love toward me, even though we have known each other ever since our high school days."

---"You have an other-worldly intensity to you. It's as if you came from another planet. You are very paranoid!"

My response to that today: "Well, if I came from the planet Mars or Venus, for instance, maybe my intensity would be the norm on the planet Mars or Venus. Also, I did not appreciate your hanging up your end of the phone line immediately after exclaiming to me that 'you are very paranoid!'"


---"Mr. M, the assigned English paper you wrote for me in my role as a Professor of English at Washington University in St. Louis was far more obscene than the pornographic novel I had assigned you to read and then write about for me in this English Department literature class."
My response to that today: "Professor Elkin, I would like to respectfully point out that since you assigned me to read, and then write a paper for you reviewing, a pornographic novel as part of this 'Art of the Novel' course here at this private university in St. Louis, it would have been very difficult for me to not reflect the nature of the pornographic literary genre in the assigned paper I wrote. Furthermore, I did not use any profanity in my paper, as you are well aware, Professor Elkin."

----"Sure, I remember you. You're the wise ass!"
My response to that today: "Professor Elkin, I wish you had been a bit more appreciative and clean-talking when I politely approached you inside your English Department office in the spring of 1978. As you may recall, Professor, I had greeted you in a friendly manner that day and I'd merely said, 'Professor Elkin, do you remember me?' I had not made any comment to you that should have prompted any sarcasm from you, Professor."

---"Your most noteworthy personal trait is your insecurity. That is what most defines you as a human being... When I was your age, I already had two PhDs!"

My response to that today; "I find it interesting that you have never once said anything nice or favorable about me in the entire multi-year period since January of 1980. Your only compliment to me, in fact, which you chose to verbalize to me in December of 1979 on the campus of UT-Austin on your own volition, was that a housemate of yours some 35 or 40 years older than me commented to you that I was very cute at a party for my undergraduate honors seminar class that you had jointly hosted. The physical attraction was not mutual, I might point out that this time."

---"You are too critical of effeminate male adult persons. When you criticize them, it's merely a form of identification with them on your part."

My response to that today: "The U.S. Constitution protects my Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion right to criticize any person or any group of people whom I choose to criticize at any time. I am civil and law-abiding in my conduct. As for your view that to criticize another person is synonymous with identification with that person, I regard that as a very weak observation on your part. I find that I am more likely to identify significantly with someone whom I praise than someone whom I don't praise. And I do indeed find that I feel comfortable with, and am much more likely to relax around, gentlemen who have good voice modulation and a facially cleanshaven, masculine, polite, personal style. So your observation relating to my being lawfully repulsed by male adult effeminacy, could, in fact, be phrased in a much more constructive light. I am delighted by and feel a surge of energy around refreshingly masculine, facially cleanshaven (no facial hair), youthful, and very fine adult gentlemen with good voice modulation and good locution."

---"Human beings are biological creatures, and I firmly believe that you and every other human being have a biological necessity of having sex on a year-round basis. You should develop a lifestyle habit of heading for Houston every weekend, and pursuing one-night stands with a series of complete strangers you pick up from bars in Houston. You could contract a fatally injurious STD from that, but life is just a gamble, anyway."

My response to that today: "It is very presumptuous and arrogant of you to claim to have the ability to dictate to me what is best for myself in my own life. I am not like you, a point you have never acknowledged to me. I strongly disagree with your outlook that each and every single adult human being such as myself must have carnal or sexual relations with others on a year-round basis."

---"A friend of mine in Alaska went on a spree of sexual promiscuity and found it to be very liberating for him. I urge you to give promiscuity a try during this period in which you are living in New York City in 1986."

My response to that today: "I am very proud of the fact that I did not follow your very bad advice, which would have been very injurious to me. I was, in fact, completely celibate throughout my entire period of residence in New York City in 1986."

---"As a professor of Anthropology here at The University of Minnesota-Minneapolis and as an orthodox Jewish married man speaking to you today inside this classroom during this class session we're having, I'd like to disembowel you (John)!"

My response to that today: "Professor, my understanding is that if you want to pursue anthropological research on any of your current students, myself among them, you would have to first obtain my prior written consent. And I need to inform you, Professor, that I would not be willing to grant you that prior written authorization. I value my medical health and my full and natural medical longevity!"

---"I am very certain that NONE of the persons whom you have previously encountered at any time in your entire life would like to keep up with you."

My response to that today: "Gee, I find it hard to believe that you are familiar with each and every person whom I have met ever since my birth in Lincoln, Nebraska, several decades ago. What prompts you to say that you are completely convinced that NONE of the persons I've met or become acquainted with at any prior time in my life, would want to keep up with me?"

----"You will need to move to San Diego, California, in order to increase your chances of finding one prospective mutual-consent dating partner. Here in Austin, Texas, there are not enough single people potentially compatible with you for you to find any mutual-consent romantic-dating partner prospect for yourself."

My response to that today: "Your comment suggests to me that you have a low estimation of the caliber of the people residing in the Greater Austin metro area."

----"Your circumstances in Texas suggest to me that a man in the northeastern U.S. named X (specific legal name withheld) has a very low estimation of your own aptitude and capabilities as a human being."

My response to that today: "However, you also told me a year and one-half later, when I resided in Childress, Texas, that that very same northeastern man has no bearing upon my own circumstances and living conditions in Texas as of late 1991. Isn't that a bit of a contradiction on your part?"

---"I don't know of anyone here in Minnesota who ever thinks about you anymore. You lived in our state many years ago, and we are now in the year 1997. No one here in Minnesota ever mentions you anymore, based on what I've observed."

My response to that today: "Are you sure you are being completely straightforward with me?"

---"I would like to ask you to mail to my residence in Houston all the negatives of the photographs you took of myself standing beside my parents in Austin...That way, it will be like we never met."

My response to that today: "I find it very surprising that you might convey any lack of pride in your having been a friendly acquaintance of mine or friend of mine in Austin. You know that I'm law-abiding and civil. Would you be willing to at least offer me a clue as to why you now seek to eliminate any legal evidence that we have previously been friendly acquaintances or mutual-consent personal friends in Austin?"

---"No matter how promising your initial seemingly friendly acquaintanceships with each of the persons you are meeting in Yoakum, Texas, all of those initial acquaintanceships are doomed to failure from the very start."

My response to that today: "You speak as if you were a novelist who is narrating my entire life story for me. In each chapter, you announce that any new friendly and smiling acquaintance I meet who seems friendly to me will, within the next chapter or two of that novel you are authoring, choose to exclude me from his or her own life. I would have to say that you as a novelist providing me with omniscient narration services I did not request, appear to be lacking in imagination. You seem determined to replicate a fictional scene from a famous James Bond movie, in fact, in which one character (myself, for instance) suddenly gets ejected from another person's life without any prior notice on that. Wouldn't it be more creative on your part for you as the self-appointed novelist to imagine at least five morally and aesthetically straight and friendly gentlemen and ladies who do get along well with me in a mutual-consent context on a multi-month or multi-year basis? That type of scenario would ring truer to life, it seems to me."

----"Talking with you gives me a headache."

My response to that today: "It's odd that you mention that at the very time when I'm experiencing a splitting headache from talking with you in person."

---"You should stop keeping a personal journal. If you write in a personal journal, and if the residents of Zapata, Texas, somehow get access to your private journal and manage to read portions of it, they could be so angered that they would physically attack you!"

My response to that today: "You have never cited to me any restrictions on my own privacy rights. Why should I worry about the residents of Zapata, Texas, somehow reading my private journal entries, when my privacy rights in Texas are every bit as extensive as yours obviously are."

----"You have always been a pest."

My response to that today: "If you regard another human being as a pest, does that also imply that you feel compelled to look upon yourself as an exterminator? If so, I hope you are aware that American legal system strictly prohibits you from pursuing any actions that are in any way injurious to my own medical health, my own creative longevity, and my own biological lifespan."

----"The only group of Austin residents who will always dislike you, John, are the rednecks. You can give up on your ever making friends with any of the rednecks here in Austin. You have no idea of how to relate to rednecks, from what I've observed during our days as coworkers here at 'The Daily Texan' student newspaper on the UT-Austin campus."

My response to that today: "I wish you had mentioned that to me sooner, Michael. As you know, I'm just about to graduate from UT-Austin and move to Florida for a newspaper reporting job. I still don't quite understand the term 'redneck.' I'd appreciate your citing to me by name at least one specific 'redneck' here in Austin who actually dislikes me. That information would help me to figure out how I can win the redneck vote if I ever do move back to Austin and run for Mayor."

---"You are mercenary!"

My response to that today: "The term you use, mercenary, suggests that I own a weapon. I don't. Nor have I ever physically injured anyone in my entire life. I am so civil, in fact, that the last occasion in which I physically attacked another human being was my fourth grade year of elementary school. If you were to check my criminal-conviction record, you will find that I have no criminal convictions against me. I also question the implication from your statement that I am myself insincere. I am probably one of the most sincere human beings whom you have ever met. I guide myself by good moral values, and I take a principled approach to human rights issues."

---"The most noteworthy trait about you that comes to mind for me is your eccentricity and accompanying unorthodox style here in Austin."
My response to that today: "Your choice as a journalist in Austin to emphasize your perception of ME as being strange, prompts me to recall the statement you yourself volunteered to me back in the year 2000 in a telephone conversation I had with you that day. At that time, as you will recall, you volunteered to me that 'an unethical media company may be harassing you in Austin these days.' Isn't the strange or peculiar or eccentric conduct of that unethical media company, a media company you have never directly cited to me by name on any occasion, more noteworthy than your impressions about my own consistently law-abiding and civil and alcohol-free responses to that cited media company's sadistic and injurious manipulations of my own circumstances?"


---"You have subjected me to your distress for too long. Not only am I rejecting you in this letter to yourself, but I am forbidding you in this rejection letter from ever again referring to me by name to any other person. Otherwise, I will pursue legal actions against you."

My response to that today: "I of course fully honor your rejection of myself. I need to also mention to you, though, that I greatly value my own Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion and Freedom of (Mutual-Consent) Association legal and Constitutional rights. As an American citizen who was myself born inside the United States, I insist on my legal and Constitutional right to refer to you by name when I speak or write to a person other than yourself, should the circumstance justify any such direct reference to your name. As for your threat of 'legal actions' against me, I would like to point out that the American legal system will not uphold your legal right to prohibit me from ever again verbalizing your self-cited name to another person in any context. I would also like to politely remind you that my own conduct toward yourself was consistently law-abiding throughout the entire time period in which I had any involvement with you."

---"Quit your whining!"
My response to that today: "I would like to politely point out that Freedom of Speech in this nation thrives in large part because Americans find the courage and incisiveness to speak up and verbalize complaints. You and your colleagues at your one media company in Austin have repeatedly responded to complaints of mine about noise pollution in Austin, Texas, and other alleged violations of my own privacy rights in Austin, Texas, by turning a deaf ear to my concerns and complaints. That callous conduct by you and your media company inevitably raises questions about the level of integrity and level of obedience of the law by you and your colleagues at your one media company in Austin."

---"You say you work for the 'New Ulm Journal' newspaper, and that makes me laugh out loud! You work for the URINAL, that's what I call it! Your newspaper is the laughingstock of this entire town! Hey, Fred, this guy works for THE URINAL! Isn't that a laugh!"
My response to that today: "You may have been misled. My job description as a reporter for 'The New Ulm Journal' does not involve any cleaning duties inside restrooms. As for your perception that our newspaper is laughable, you might want to write a letter to the editor in which you explain to all of our readers why you feel that way."

---"You would not make a good novelist, since you lack the capacity for fictional narration. I recommend that you pursue a career as a journalism instructor, since that is the field in which you would be the strongest."
My response to that today: "Your comment to me makes me all the more determined to write fictional works involving fictional narration. I would love to prove you wrong in your impression that I can't write fiction."

---"You seem to lack any immunity to the various criticisms of yourself that other people verbalize to you. Every criticism of you that you receive from others seems to injure you, since you take everything to heart. It's as if you have no immunity system whatsoever!"
My response to that today: "You will notice, though, that I am not breaking into tears as you make this comment to me. So this suggests I have high enough self-esteem to not be devastated by your comment of today. It is true that I have been subjected to lots and lots of criticism of myself by others so far in my life. However, as you well know, I am consistently civil and law-abiding in my response to it all. I am not petty or vindictive, either, as you may have observed."

---"What sets you apart from most neurotics here in Worcester, Massachusetts, is that you seem to exhibit some degree of self-awareness. You seem to be aware that you're neurotic. Most neurotics are not self-aware, and don't realize that they are neurotic, from what I've observed."
My response to that today: "Thank you for the compliment, even if it is a bit of a back-handed compliment. And incidentally, could you describe for me what a neurotic person is like?"

---"Your most noteworthy trait is your vulnerability. You are one of the most vulnerable persons I have ever met. Even when you write a humor column for this newspaper, you are exposing your ignorance. Your humor columns often make you look like a boob, in fact."
My response to that today: "I wish you would occasionally read the critiques of your own writing that I write in my role as a teaching assistant based at this student newspaper office on The University of Minnesota-Minneapolis campus. I've noticed that you consistently ignore my posted critiques of your own writing, and you never even acknowledge that I had any insight in any of my observations about your writing. Your inability to identify any strengths in myself makes me uncomfortable around you."

---"Some of the things you have said in your thought process have been shocking and upsetting to me. Your thought process and journal writings have violated my privacy rights in Minneapolis....All of your circumstances in Texas will soon be the subject of a lawsuit in a court of law, and I'll be one of the attorneys filing a lawsuit!"
My response to that today: "You are hinting through your indignant tone of voice that you expect me to be the defendant in this expected courtroom litigation. It seems that alleged violations of your and others' privacy rights is your primary concern relating to myself and my own living conditions. Has it ever occurred to you that violations of MY OWN privacy rights and noise pollution inflicted on myself against my wishes should be major grounds for concern for you, if you truly are, as you have stated to me in the past, a friendly acquaintance of mine?"

--"Most people, when they keep a private journal inside their residence, don't have circumstances in which OTHER PERSONS ARE READING WHAT THEY WRITE!"
My response to that: "Your tone of voice, Professor, suggests that you plan to file a lawsuit against me relating to private diary entries of mine I've written that you did not like. I find that ironic, since you are a professor of Journalism, and you profess to revere Freedom of Speech! As for your hinting to me that I myself somehow lack privacy rights, you yourself have never once cited to me who the alleged source of any alleged violations of my own privacy rights might be. Nor have you ever directly stated to me at any time that my privacy rights have been impinged upon by anyone."

----"You have nice dreams about girls."
My response to that: "How do you know about the content of my nocturnal dreams during my sleep? You have never once stated to me that I lack full and complete ownership of my own intellectual property, including my own nocturnal dreams. In fact, you have never once stated to me that you were aware of ANY violations of my own privacy rights. Nor have you ever volunteered to me any legal recourse I would have, such as through filing a lawsuit, in response to alleged violations of my own privacy rights in Texas."

---"Some of the adult persons attending our high school alumni get-together in Travis County, Texas, were laughing and joking because the new religion you've founded that they read about in our high school reunion guidebook assigns top priority to helping children and other young persons under age 30. Some of the participants at our class reunion were commenting that this means you're a pederast or pedophile."
My response to that today: "I am, in fact, a consistently law-abiding and conscientious, teetotaling, clean-talking, gentleman with no criminal-conviction record. I'm also a staunch opponent of pederasty, and I'm a staunch opponent of intergenerational exploitation of younger persons. I have been an official Big Brother on two separate occasions in the state of Minnesota, and I've been an unofficial 'Big Brother' adult friend to a male youth on three separate occasions in Texas. Each of the parental guardians of those youths indicated to me that I had succeeded at helping to boost the self-esteem of those boys and at helping to inspire each of those male youths in their academic pursuits and overall lives."

---"I hope that you do eventually achieve the inner tranquility that you are seeking for yourself in your life here in Austin."
My response to that today: "I have documented medical evidence from a first-rate medical expert in Austin, Texas, who has evaluated my medical health over a multi-year period, that the circumstances I complained about to yourself and others were, in fact, significantly injurious to my own hearing capacity and medical health. Your determination to trivialize and psychologize my own law-abiding and civil response to noise pollution and verbal harassment injurious to myself and slanderous toward myself, poses a concern to me."

---"You are unbelievably straight for an intellectual!"
My response to that today: "It seems noteworthy, looking back, that you made this emphatic in-person statement to me back in 1988 in Austin, Texas, at a moment when you had no smile on your face. Is it possible that you were actually offering me a forewarning at the time that one or more intellectual Texans who are not as honest or law-abiding or clean-talking or tobacco-free or illicit-drug-free as myself, were themselves possibly exhibiting harmful or criminal or injurious intent toward myself?

---"San Francisco is a good place in which to die."
My response to that today: "I find it noteworthy that you refer to the theme of death in this telephone conversation, when I had not made any comment of my own about death. Thank you, in any event, for supporting my own legal right to LIVE. I also appreciate your supporting my legal right to myself live in whichever city or town or U.S. state where I might directly choose to myself reside."

---"From what I've seen of you lately, I wouldn't go for you, either. I can fully understand why no one is going out with you on romantic dates these days."
My response to that today: "I want to thank you for your candor on the telephone in your vantage point as a single Minnesota lady in her late 80s. Your comment does prompt me to wonder, though, what you mean when you refer to having 'seen' me lately. I have not visited your state of Minnesota or myself lived in your state of Minnesota at any time since the summer of 1984. Also, I have been assured by a friendly female attorney member of the State Bar of Texas whom I've consulted inside her law office here in El Campo, Texas, that there are NO impingements on my own privacy rights these days, she informed me. Since I am working for a newspaper here in El Campo, and I myself have never been on television in my entire adult life, how can you be so sure that I come across as unattractive and undesirable these days?"

---"I have seen you on television this year, it was a horrifying and revolting experience for me!"
My response to that today: "I have never been employed by any television station in my entire life. Also, I have never once been on television at any time during my adult life as of 1990, the year in which you are speaking to me by telephone. Also, none of the several attorney members of the State Bar of Texas whom I've consulted since 1988 in Texas has ever cited to me any impingement upon my own privacy rights. Could you please elaborate a bit, by citing to me the exact television station to which you refer, and how I could lawfully and in a civil manner terminate my own involvement with that television station or television network or media company?"

---"You have no chance of yourself ever developing a mutual-consent romantic relationship in Austin, Texas, unless you were to undergo many years of psychiatric care."
My response to that today: "I would like to politely point out that you are not a mental health professional yourself, and that I am not under any mental health care of any type, as you well know. Any such scenario would have been flagrantly illegal and injurious toward me and in violation of my Constitutional and legal rights. Your low estimation of my own mental health shows a shocking lack of insight on your part. It is a consolation, at least, that you have told me repeatedly that you have no involvement in my own life circumstances or living conditions. I must add that you are strictly forbidden by me from having any further involvement in my own life. If, however, at some future date you were to ever conclude and then acknowledge to me in writing that you had been incorrect in your low estimation of my own mental health, and that you now acknowledge me to be mentally healthy, and that you apologize for having wronged me in your previous privately-stated (as you have indicated to me) disparagement of me, I would then at least give serious consideration to being a mutual-consent friend or mutual-consent friendly acquaintance of yours at that future date."

--"You should look upon your circumstances in Snyder, Texas, in 1994 as an opportunity for you to PRETEND to yourself that you are a district attorney filing criminal-law charges against others."
My response to that today: "I prefer to look upon my adult years as a period in which to actually LIVE, rather than to merely pretend to be living. If someone has wronged me and broken the law, I as a living adult gentleman have the legal right to myself file criminal-law charges against that person. And of course, it would be the District Attorney or prosecuting attorney in this county of west Texas who would then pursue the criminal-law prosecution in a court of law on my own behalf."

---"As of 1994, during this time period in which you are living and reporting at a newspaper in Snyder, Texas, I can disclose to you in this long-distance phone conversation we're having that you have accumulated a very sizable lifelong financial wealth. You do not have current access to your lifelong financial savings, though, since that money is in a savings account somewhere that you do not know about or have access to yourself."
My response to that today: "Your comment to me in that 1994 phone conversation we had has left me wondering ever since. That comment has been very distracting to me, in fact, particularly during my many periods of major financial deprivation in my own everyday life. As you know, I have never earned as much as $20,000 in total annual gross employment-derived income from any calendar year of my entire life so far. I would appreciate your explaining to me what is currently preventing me in 2009 from my having full and immediate access to all of my lifelong financial savings. I am, after all, a very single, fully ambulatory, law-abiding, psychologically healthy, permanently alcohol-free, lifelong-tobacco-free, permanently illicit-drug-free, gainfully-employed, adult gentleman with no criminal-conviction record, as you well know. And my own quality of life a human being, including my very ability to obtain adequate health insurance for myself throughout the rest of my life and enjoy a full and natural lifespan and longevity, will benefit greatly from my having full and immediate access to all of my total financial wealth."

---"John, I hereby dub you 'Sir Dildo'!"
My response to that today: "I'm sure you may have thought you were being funny and witty when you made that comment to me during our days together at our public high school of Austin ISD. At the time, I admit that I did not know what a dildo was. So your comment was puzzling to me. Today, though, I feel a bit hurt that you as a young woman had referred to me in those terms. If you had chosen a nickname for me, I would have preferred that it relate to your enjoyment of my personality or moral values. For instance, I was notably conscientious, honest, kind, friendly, vigilant, law-abiding, very civil (I never physically attacked or grabbed or pinched anyone, for instance), idealistic, and had quite a sense of humor during our high school days together. Those were obvious strengths of mine during my high school days, as you well know. My only consolation is that you may have been alluding to my having a sense of humor when you chose to assign me that nickname of 'Sir Dildo' during our high school days together. And possibly you were hinting at that time that you saw me as a fine candidate for citizenship in Great Britain. If I were to emigrate to Great Britain and obtain full citizenship there, though, I don't believe the British Government would insist that my unofficial 'title' you dubbed me at our public high school in Austin, Texas, must be continued any further, at that point."

---"The only reason why you have never earned as much as $20,000 in total gross annual employment-derived income in your 20th Century or 21st Century life so far is that you are lacking in career-related skills and vocational skills you need."
My response to that today: "I should remind you that I have filed several complaints with the Texas Commission on Human Rights in prior years that conveyed my own very emphatic view that I've been victimized by employment discrimination in Austin, Texas, over a multi-year period. As for the implication of your statement that I am the one solely to blame for never earning as much as $20,000 in total gross annual employment-derived income for myself, I would like to point out that I have considerable experience in journalism and I hold a Master's Degree in Journalism and Mass Communications. Nearly all of the other alumni of The University of Minnesota-Minneapolis's School of Journalism and Mass Communications have probably earned as much as $20,000 in gross annual employment-derived financial income by now. And I did have a 3.7 out of 4.0 grade point average during my graduate school days at The University of Minnesota. One career-related strength I also have, by the way, is my ability to communicate semi-fluently in Spanish. Many Anglo persons do not have that career-related skill. Other job-related skills of mine are my consistency of using clean language at the workplace--a skill that seems to elude the vast majority of all single men in Austin at the workplace, I would point out to you at this time. My other career-related skills include my speed at typing; my skill at proofreading; my writing ability; my knowledge of grammar and punctuation; my strength at spelling; my ability to write headlines for a newspaper; my first-rate telephone manners; my ability to take phone messages; my data-entry skills; my researching skills; and my skill at creative brainstorming. I would thrive as an 'Idea Person' at an employer. I should also mention that I have several years of career-related experience at law-enforcement agencies, and also in the field of hospitality. Another strength of mine is my public-policy-mindedness. I definitely excel in that field. I would also say that I excel at interviewing people and at drawing them out in conversation. I enjoyed giving informal counseling to clients during my prior period as a part-time mental health worker in the Austin area. Another strength of mine is helping and befriending children and other persons under age 30, along with their biological parents, through my career pursuits."

---"It seems to me that you have very little in-depth knowledge of anyone. What you offer are mere vignettes of other human beings, since your involvement with each of them was so very minimal and superficial in nature."
My response to that today: "Your observation to me in 1985 in Boston, Massachusetts, was sobering. I was honest and open with the people I encountered. Do you believe they were honest and open with me, too?"

---"Your circumstances in west Texas during this early 1990s period are pervasively dishonest.... If you were to move back to Minneapolis, where you lived in the early 1980s, your social life would be much better for you than if you were to emigrate to Sweden. The Swedish people are not friendly enough for you. When I lived in Sweden for a year, I found the Swedish people to be very cold toward myself."
My response to that today: "You mention pervasive dishonesty in the news and information services and living circumstances to which I am being subjected in west Texas in the early 1990s. However, you do not offer me any suggestion as to which government agency in Texas I should file a complaint with that would put an immediate end to those citedly fraudulent or dishonest news and information services and living conditions in my life in Texas these days. Also, you refer to Minneapolis, Minnesota, without ever acknowledging that I have spent most of my life in Texas and I've been in Texas for several consecutive years as of the early 1990s. As for your own dislike of Sweden, I would like to point out that Sweden has a philosophical depth to it and a very quality-of-life-minded society that makes that country very special. I myself have never met a Swedish citizen whom I regarded as being unfriendly. It is possible that the individuals in Sweden whom you met during your year there responded differently to yourself than they would have responded to myself."

----"As of the year 1986, I need to tell you that a male reporter coworker of mine in 1986 at my 'Patriot Ledger' daily newspaper here in Quincy, Massachusetts, HATES YOUR GUTS!"
My response to that today: "Thank you for courageously informing me that the male reporter coworker of yours whom you choose to cite to me by name may exhibit possible alleged criminal intent or possible alleged harmful intent toward myself. As for myself, as you know, I take pride in my being consistently civil and law-abiding. I am not aware of hating anyone, though I sometimes dislike and oppose conduct by individual persons. Have you considered sharing your own concerns about your cited male coworker's conduct toward me with your office manager, or with the Quincy Police Department, or with the Norfolk County District Attorney, or with the Attorney General of Massachusetts?"

---"You have no reputation in Texas or anywhere else, whether favorable or unfavorable. The only way you'd get a public reputation is if you were to write letters to the President of the United States that were were so bizarre that the CIA or FBI might pursue an investigation of your conduct and pick you up for questioning."
My response to that: "Having no public reputation, whether favorable or unfavorable, can be very injurious and harmful to my quality of life. My ability to develop lasting friendships in a strictly mutual-consent context and to achieve financial success in my career pursuits, is dependent in large part on my having a good reputation."

---"There appears to be an attempt on the part of many Central Texans to drive you out of the Austin area."

My response to that today: "Your latter 2001 observation to me on the telephone from your Travis County Government office in Austin has prompted lots of reflection from me ever since then. In our phone conversation, you never cited to me the name of any specific individual who was allegedly seeking to hound me out of the Austin area. As you know, vigilantism is illegal; and it would be illegal for either the City of Austin or Travis County Government to attempt to banish me from Austin or Travis County. I am a tax-paying and law-abiding single adult gentleman, and I have no criminal-conviction record, as you must surely be aware."

---"You are still alive. Do you have any evidence that (a cited person) seeks to harm you?"
My response to that today: "What's eerie to me about your comment is that I had never stated to you at any time in our long-distance telephone conversation that I suspect ANYONE of seeking to harm me or injure me. Since you are speaking to me today from your home in Tennessee, what evidence did you have in mind that prompted you to allude to a hypothetical scenario involving circumstances allegedly life-threatening to me?"

---"You will be loved by a lot of people during your lifetime, and you will also be hated and despised by a lot of people during your lifetime!"

My response to that today: "I find it curious that you cite to me a world in which other persons have passionately favorable or passionately hate-filled responses to me as an individual. Are you aware that I almost never receive any personal phone calls or personal letters or personal E-mail correspondence? Are you aware that I am virtually never invited to social parties or dinner parties in Austin, Texas? Are you aware that I have never been in a fist-fight in my entire life? Are you aware that the most recent occasion in which someone definitely stated to me in person during my and their personal life inside Austin, Texas, that that individual felt love toward me occurred outdoors on the UT-Austin campus in 1978, during a time period in which I attended that university as a junior. As for persons stating to me that they hate me, I cannot recall anyone directly stating that to me inside Austin, Texas, on any occasion in my entire life."

---"You will hate me someday."
My response to that today: "You made that leisuretime comment to me, as you will recall, when we were having a meal and friendly conversation together in Austin. You had not cited any conflict with me, or any antipathy toward me, at any time during that conversation. In the years since then, I have often wondered whether your unexpected comment with no context to it comprised an implicit acknowledgement from you that you had a hidden ideological agenda of some type that you knew at the time to be in possible conflict with myself and my own religious and political beliefs."

--"I hope that my son did not poison you."
My response to that today: "I was very surprised to hear you make that comment to me over dinner inside a local restaurant with no apparent context to your comment. At the time, I assumed you were alluding to your own possible impression that you regarded me as being overly suspicious toward others, including toward your beloved adult son. Looking back, though, I am not convinced that this interpretation of mine was accurate. Maybe I should have replied to your comment by asking you, 'I would never have suspected that your very nice son would knowingly poison anyone. Has anyone ever claimed that your son poisoned themselves in the past?'"
Or perhaps my response should have been, "Tell me which type of poison your son normally subjects his victims to, so I can be doubly careful not to eat or drink anything tasting like that particular type of poison."
Another response from me could have been: "I'm very surprised by the question. Did your son ever discuss with you any possible plans he might have had to poison me?"
Or, I could have replied to that lady's comment by saying, "If you are referring to your adult son dumping salt into my glass of tea, he has never done that before. In fact, your son never pulls pranks on me, from what I've seen. He's quite the gentleman."
Another possible tactful response I could have offered that lady would have been, "I have read that acts of homicide featuring the use of poison are among the easiest murder mysteries for police detectives to solve very quickly. Your adult son is much too intelligent to ever commit a crime for which he would be quickly identified as the suspect.'
Or perhaps my response should have been, 'I assume you are referring to ideological poison, since your adult son has many critical vantage points in his sociological beliefs that he candidly shares with me. You are referring to ideological poison, is that right?'"

---"I would prefer that you not attend my wedding in Austin, since I would not want to hear any voices in the background---voices, I might add, that are definitely NOT generated by you yourself. Without your presence at my wedding, there would be none of those unpleasant and obnoxious voices in the background."
My response to that today: "I of course want you to enjoy a wedding for yourself and your groom without any unwanted noise pollution in the background at your wedding ceremony. In exchange for that favor from me of my not attending your wedding at your request, would you be willing in the near future to write me one courtesy letter in which you and your new husband are so kind as to offer me theories or speculations as to WHO or WHAT the source of the cited unwanted noise pollution or unwanted 'voices' that you directly cite to me is or are. Thank you in advance for your very kindly sharing with me that type of invaluable factual information. I can then contact a law-enforcement agency in Texas and file a formal complaint to terminate that very unpleasant noise pollution that's injurious to myself and yourself and your groom and others."

--"I definitely will not be willing to testify on your behalf in a court of law."
My response to that today: "What surprises me the most about that comment to me you made to me as we stood outdoors in downtown Austin in the year 1997, is that you volunteered that 'I won't testify for you' pledge without any cited context to your remark. During our in-person meeting and conversation we had that day at a restaurant in downtown Austin, I never stated to you that I would be filing any lawsuits against any person or entity or media company. And, I might add, I of course never once have cited to you ANY conduct of my own that was anything other than law-abiding, as you well know. I have no criminal-conviction record, and I'm very honest and law-abiding, as you should know by now. I sense that possibly some of the concerns of mine I shared with you on the day when you blurted out your 'I will never testify for you' declaration, somehow suggested to you some scenario in which you possibly expected me to myself file a lawsuit or criminal-law complaint in a court of law in Austin, Texas, against one person or group of persons or entity. Your 'I won't ever testify for you' declaration poses a bit of a concern to me, since you represent a news-media company in Austin that often emphasizes law enforcement and crime deterrence. I find it very hard to believe that law enforcement and crime deterrence in the Austin area can be adequately promoted and fostered if private citizens such as yourself each verbalize 'I will never testify on your behalf' statements to prospective or actual complainants or plaintiffs in Austin."

--"You come across as obnoxious to many Texans."
My response to that today: "Any honorable and vigilant individual who speaks up for his own legal rights can come across as 'too pushy' or 'too aggressive' in this city of Austin where mellowness is exalted by so many local residents as the personality trait they most revere. The fact remains that a scenario in which one might have to file legal charges does not lend itself to tea-party etiquette. What I can say with certainty is that I will always be civil and law-abiding, and that I will always use clean language in my communications I directly verbalize to other persons on the phone or in person or in letters I write and send to them. As for the word you use, 'obnoxious,' let me also note that that word connotes abrasiveness. In fact, I take pride in NOT being abrasive or cruel toward others. I almost never have verbal fights or angry arguments with anyone, as you are no doubt aware. So I must tell you that I definitely am NOT receptive to the outlook of those who complain that I myself come across to them as 'obnoxious' under these circumstances. I strive for politeness toward others, and I of course realize that politeness demands a sense of timing and decorum. I would point out, incidentaly, that lots of people have stated to me in person that if anything, I am TOO NICE in my personal style, they say."

---"Just wait until you're age 30. Your whole life will change very dramatically after your 30th birthday!"
My response to that today: "You refer to a time period several years into my own future. Since you are a University of Minnesota clerical employee in Minneapolis, and your job does not involve official prognostication, how can you be so sure from your Minneapolis vantage point that my own life will change very dramatically shortly after I turn age 30? Do you have a secretive involvement in my own life circumstances that you are not telling me about? If so, how do I lawfully and in a civil manner terminate that intrusive involvement of yours in my own life and life circumstances? I am making that request because the type of drama you seem to be predicting for me shortly after I turn age 30 is definitely NOT the type of artificial, contrived drama for myself that I would ever want."

---"Years from now, you will regret having expressed an initial affinity or initial attraction of some type toward a particular person who comes to mind to me right now."
My response to that today: "Would you be willing to cite that person's name, so that I could pursue some factual research and reflect on what you are warning me about today?"

---"I think you will regret the day you met him (a cited man's name)."
My response to that today: "If you are so concerned about possible illegal conduct and violations of my own legal rights by that citedly notorious individual, then don't you yourself have the legal right to yourself file a criminal complaint against him in Minneapolis, Minnesota, based on the legal criminal-law evidence that you yourself are somehow privy to?"

---"Why in God's name did you somehow permit someone who had proven antipathy and animosity toward you many years ago, to somehow obtain legal authority of any type in regard to yourself?"
My response to that today: "Your question to me in this long-distance phone call I made to you in 1994 from Snyder, Texas, will be a source of considerable distraction to me as I drive around the Snyder area this year. I hope you will keep in mind that your not citing to me any specific person by name, and your choosing not to elaborate on that indignant outburst of yours in our long-distance phone conversation today will undermine my own concentration for many months and years to come."

---"You were always a lot more aggressive than (he) was."
My response to that today: "Your tone of voice sounds possibly critical of me as you make that comment without any context to it in this 1988 long-distance phone call I made to you at your private residence in El Campo, Texas. I hope you are aware that my greater level of aggressiveness as a human being, as compared to the individual you have cited to me today on your own initiative, is fully protected by the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion clauses of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. My conduct that you call 'aggressive' is, in fact, law-abiding and commendable in nature. I take great pride in my being more lawfully aggressive than the individual whom you just cited to me by name."

---"You can take responsibility for your actions!"
My response to that today: "You have not cited to me any conduct of mine that was at all illegal in nature, or that irks or offends you in any way. What might account for your surprisingly indignant tone of voice toward myself in this particular long-distance phone call I've made to your private residence from an outdoor pay telephone in Yoakum, Texas, in late 1991? I would appreciate your offering me some elaboration, if you are willing to do that. For instance, is it your view that I as a newspaper journalist somehow have no legal right in Texas to keep a private journal or private diary during my leisuretime? If so, that would vary significantly from the legal rights accorded to all other Texan journalists."

--"Your critical vantage point toward that subculture will serve as the basis for many more years of your being subjected to hostile circumstances and verbal castigatation inflicted on you in Texas."

My response to that today: "You have never cited any illegal conduct by myself, and as you are fully aware, I am among the most law-abiding and civil of all single adult gentlemen in Texas. Has it ever occurred to you that the U.S. Constitution fully upholds my legal right to myself file a lawsuit in a court of law in Texas against any particular subculture-identified business entity or civic group or organization or media company or other entity that allegedly violates my own legal rights. Could you at least suggest to me the name of any attorney who might help me to file a lawsuit against the cited subculture that is obviously very incompatible with myself?"

---"Imagine a day in the near future when you will be at a football stadium, and when you look all around you, every one of the persons you observe at that football stadium will be persons whom you can immediately regard as your friends."
My response to that today: "What prompts you to envision that type of future scenario for myself, when there has never been any such special moment for me in the past, as you are no doubt very aware."

---"You are being persecuted in west Texas!"
My response to that today: "If you truly believe that I am being persecuted in west Texas, would you at least be willing to write me a letter in which you provide me with factual information about that persecution of myself? I can then present that letter to a private attorney or a prosecuting attorney here in Sweetwater, Texas, and that Nolan County District Attorney can immediately file criminal-law charges on my behalf."

---"You are not a MASS murderer, John. That's a hint I'm offering you in this long-distance telephone call that you made to my private residence in a northern state."
My response to that today: "With all due respect, your comment to me of 1992 has been very hurtful to me ever since I spoke with you that day from my rental trailer home in Zapata, Texas. I had never made any comment to you at any time, nor at any time since our 1992 phone conversation, about my having ever violated the law, I would also like to point out to you today that the last occasion in which I ever physically assaulted anyone was my fourth-grade year of elementary school; and that male classmate of mine did not have any need for hospitalization as a result of that incident. Furthermore, in the years since you made that very peculiar and shocking comment to me in 1992, I have held respective full-time clerical positions of employment in Austin, Texas, at three different law-enforcement agencies of the State Government of Texas. Each of those admirable law-enforcement agencies conducts very diligent and thorough criminal-history background checks on all applicants being considered for employment at that state agency in Austin. I have no criminal-conviction record, a point you seem to have been somehow be unaware of when you verbally tortured me in that 1992 phone call I made to your residence. As for your emphasis on the word 'MASS,' I would also like to point out that I am very appalled by serial killers as well as by persons who commit or attempt to commit homicide against one other human being, and I'm also appalled by mass murderers. I am frankly baffled as to what prompted you to make that shocking comment to myself in 1992, when I called you long-distance at my own expense from Zapata, Texas."

---"You are one of those people who I feel very sure will never have anything bad happen to you. It's like you are magically blessed, wherever you go, including when you move to Florida to begin that newspaper reporting job there in May of 1979."
My response to that today: "I find it curious that a matter of a few weeks after your glowing personal prediction to me in Austin, Texas, about my own future always being rosy, I was subjected to a near-fatal two-vehicle accident near Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The other driver was determined to have been at fault after he drove his employer's van through a red light and destroyed my Vega automobile. I had been driving toward my workplace that morning in order to pursue reporting duties for 'The Broward Times', but instead ended up in the hospital, unconscious. It seems that your May of 1979 prediction in Austin, Texas, of an eternally rosy future for myself was not quite accurate."

----"You remind me of the Ancient Roman Empire."
My response to that today: "Would you be willing to please elaborate a bit on that interesting observation you just made to me in person here in Austin, Texas? For instance, do I somehow remind you of any particular Roman Emperor or Roman senator or any particular Roman writer or Roman lawyer? Do I remind you of any particular gladiator from Roman history, for that matter? Regardless of which person from Roman history whom you cite as being similar to myself, I would like to do some leisuretime research to find out more about that individual. Thank you for your thoughtful observation. And incidentally, I should probably clarify one point for you. In my entire life, I myself have never earned as much as $20,000 in employment-derived financial wealth in any calendar year. My ability to emulate the Emperors of Rome through a life of luxury for me is decidedly problematic. So possibly you are comparing me to some counterpart to a priest from the Roman Empire, and I forget the term they used for their clergymen. It is possible, in any event, that members of the clergy during the Roman Empire experienced a low-income lifestyle."

--"What you are finding there in Cuero, Texas, in 1991 is that a cited man in the northeastern U.S. is finally changing his mind about whether he will permit you to continue living in Texas. It seems that he is increasingly willing to accept your legal right to yourself live in Texas for the rest of your life."
My response to that today: "Your disclosure puzzles me, since I am definitely not an associate of the northeastern man whom you cite to me by name. I have not spoken with him in person on any occasion, I have not spoken with him on the telephone on any occasion in the last five-year period, and we definitely do not exchange letters or E-mail correspondence. Why would that cited northeastern man's opinion in regard to where he would like me to reside, have any bearing on my circumstances and living conditions in Texas?"

--"Are you hearing voices at this workplace, John?"
My response to that today: "I as a coworker of yours have not mentioned to you anything myself that directly refers to the cited 'voices at this workplace' that you refer to for the first time ever. I would like to politely ask you what prompts your question? If you yourself are hearing voices at this workplace, have you considered informing our Human Resources officer about this very important legal issue? If that action does not resolve the problem for you, you would then have the option of filing a legal complaint about that criminal-law legal issue through the Office of the Attorney General of Texas state agency or a local law-enforcement agency, or through the Texas Department of Labor or the United States Department of Labor, such as through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration."

---"Through this unsigned rejection letter to yourself postmarked in another U.S. state, I am asking you to never again contact me, or anyone connected with me."

My response to that today: "Your rejection letter to myself from a northern state does not cite any conflict with me or any point of disagreement with me, which I find rather baffling. While I of course fully honor your legal right to prohibit me from ever again contacting you, it would be rather difficult for me to avoid ever contacting anyone 'connected with you,' as you put it in your rejection letter. I have no idea as to which persons are 'connected with you,' and your rejection letter does not contain a list of other persons whom you seek to prohibit me from ever contacting. Furthermore, I do hereby assert my legal and Constitutional Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association right to myself write and send friendly public-policy-minded or quality-of-life-minded letters to individual persons OTHER THAN YOURSELF who happen to be employed at the same institution as yourself. I admire that institution, and would enjoy sharing brainstorming ideas of mine with that institution from time to time during my leisuretime."

---"The anonymous verbal harassment of yourself you are experiencing in Austin, Texas, that I also have observed here, is all coming from persons who are very sick. They have no credibility with me, and their conduct is deplorable."
My response to that today: "Thank you for citing this legal issue to me in Austin, Texas. Since you yourself have confirmed this problem in Austin, have you yourself ever considered filing a legal complaint against the alleged source of that verbal harassment through the Travis County Attorney's Office or the Travis County District Attorney's Office or the Office of the Attorney General state agency or the Texas Department of Public Safety or the Austin Police Department in Austin, Texas?"

---"As an ear, nose, and throat specialist based in Austin, I can tell you that the permanent damage to your own hearing capacity that has resulted from noise pollution, including at your workplaces, in Austin, Texas, over a multi-year period, is of the magnitude of severity that a police officer would sustain. That noise pollution, incidentally, is noise pollution that you yourself did not authorize or generate yourself."
My response to that today: "Thank you for that very helpful disclosure of medical information, which I have also formally authorized you in writing to share with anyone who might ever contact your medical clinic in Austin at any time and inquire about the matter. For the record, I myself have almost never heard the sound of gunfire within physical proximity of myself, and I myself definitely do not own any weapon of any type. Also, I myself never play loud music, and I never attend any rock concerts. Also, I almost never shout or raise my voice when speaking to or communicating orally with another person."

---"You have the sexuality of a teenager."

My response to that today: "You volunteered that unsolicited comment to me in a long-distance phone conversation we had in 1990. Your comment was made during a multi-year period in which I was completely celibate throughout the entire period in which I resided in or reported for a daily newspaper in Sweetwater, Texas. You knew at the time that I was completely law-abiding and civil in my conduct, that I have no criminal-conviction record, that I definitely am NOT a pederast, and that I was completely abstaining from any consumption of alcohol or tobacco products or any illicit drug throughout the entire period in which I resided in Sweetwater. Today, with the benefit of hindsight, do you recall what prompted that unsolicited comment to me?"

---"You should never visit a foreign country during this multi-year period, since if you did, they might put you in a mental institution. And your legal rights in a foreign nation would be far less than they are here in the United States."

My response to that today: "You seem to be forgetting that some foreign nations, such as Sweden or possibly Great Britain, have better human rights records than does the United States of America. You also seem to be overlooking the point that I am consistently civil and law-abiding, and that I definitely to not seek to harm myself or anyone else."

---"Your living conditions in Texas these days call to mind the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. The European nation of Sweden has a much better record on human rights than the United States."

My response to that today: "You may be overlooking the point that I myself have no criminal-conviction record. The prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment in the U.S. Constitution refers to conduct by a criminal-justice authority, such as the admirable Texas Department of Criminal Justice, toward someone who has, in fact, been convicted of a crime in Texas. As for your non-sequitor accompanying statement, that Sweden has a better record on human rights than does the United States, it is not clear what prompted that observation. Are you suggesting to me that I must emigrate to Sweden in order to put an end to what you yourself regard as being cruel and unusual punishment of a law-abiding person with no criminal-conviction record---myself---in the United States?"

---"The hypothetical scenario you cite to me today about your possibly moving to the state of Oregon in order to put an end to violations of your own privacy rights and verbal harassment of you allegedly occurring in Texas, does not make any sense. If the entire United States has been compared to Nazi Germany, it would be illogical for you to move to any other state within the United States. You would do just as well by remaining right here in Texas."

My response to that comment today: "When you volunteered that observation to me during a long-distance phone call I made to your home in Austin, Texas, in mid-1992, you did not elaborate about your statement that the United States has been compared to Nazi Germany. As you will recall, I myself had not stated to you in that phone conversation that the United States has been compared to Nazi Germany as of mid-1992, when we had that long-distance telephone conversation."

--"All of the people whom you have previously encountered in your own life were sadistic."

My response to that today: "When you made that unsolicited observation to me in 1994, during a visit of yours to Snyder, Texas, where I resided at the time, you did not offer any elaboration. Were there some specific individuals whom you regard as being the MOST sadistic or the MOST injurious from the various persons I had encountered prior to 1994 whom you yourself directly identified to me as being allegedly cruel and injurious toward myself?"

---"The only thing that's going to cause you to lose any personal friends here in Austin, Texas, is when you mumble to yourself or talk to yourself."
My response to that today: "That comment by you in the early (?) 1990s, has since prompted me to wonder how many other Austin residents are informed that if they mumble to themselves or mutter something to themselves, they might be at risk of losing a friend over that. I would like to point out that when you made that comment to me on the telephone, during a phone call I made to your local residence from a laundrymat in east Austin, you made no reference to my privacy rights having been compromised in any way. Nor have you ever cited any violations of my own privacy rights at any time."

---"Revel in the chaos of life."
My response to that today: "Your written advice to me in that 1994 signed reply letter you mailed to my mailing address in Kermit, Texas, is grounds for concern. I maintain that it is very natural for any human being to find in his life something other than 'mere chaos' as his grounds for enjoyment and celebration."

---"The anonymous verbalized communications you are being subjected to on a year-round basis in Austin, Texas, that repeatedly refer to individuals you have already rejected from your own life, sound very morbid to this particular attorney member of the State Bar of New Mexico. ...Austin is a lovely city....I recommend that you contact the American Civil Liberties Union in Austin, Texas, about that legal issue."

My response to that today: "Thank you again for that kind legal advice you generously offered me on the telephone and through a signed legal letter addressed to me in 1997. I would like you to know that I have repeatedly contacted the American Civil Liberties Union in Austin, and I have received reply letters from the ACLU in Austin, Texas, over a multi-year period which have each stated that the ACLU in Austin, Texas, was not able or willing to assist me in any way."

---"As an official of the U.S. Government in Washington, D.C., I could fully understand if you choose to move to a foreign country at some point in your future."

My response to that today: "What prompted you to volunteer that comment to me in the 1991 long-distance phone call I made to your and your wife's residence in Washington, D.C., from my private residence in Cuero, Texas? Were you possibly indicating that as of the summer of 1991, you had concluded that possibly a government entity or business entity that, in either case, was acting with permission from the U.S. Government, had somehow wronged me in a significant manner."

---"From what I understand from my vantage point in Maryland, many people have commented on how much love toward yourself has been expressed by others in recent years, including during this year---1994. You should be very grateful for all that love for yourself that others have expressed."

My response to that today: "As a resident of Pampa, Texas, who just made a long-distance personal phone call to you, I prefer to put my own emphasis on direct messages from other persons. I am referring to the tangible realm of human conduct in which other persons might make a friendly personal phone call to me; send me a friendly E-mail letter; knock in a friendly manner at the front door of my apartment; or write and mail me a friendly signed letter. In fact, I have received very few personal phone calls and very few personal letters in recent years here in Pampa, Texas. That is very noteworthy about others' conduct toward myself here in the Panhandle region of Texas."

---"As a full-time employee of The University of Minnesota-Minneapolis, I hereby predict that in your own foreseeable future, you will be subjected to a very domineering and powerful and evil man who will attempt to lead you astray and corrupt you."

My response to that today: "Your 1984 prediction to me from Minneapolis, when as you know I moved to Massachusetts from Minnesota shortly after my graduation from The University of Minnesota graduate journalism program in 1984, raises the question today of how you could have been so certain in 1984 about your prediction. Is it possible that you as a full-time employee of the University of Minnesota, a state-owned university, somehow allegedly meddled in my own life circumstances and allegedly played a major role in the overall integrity level and level of obedience of the law of some or at least one of the adult men whom I encountered in Massachusetts in the mid- or latter 1980s?"

--"You are not being harassed in Austin, Texas....You strike me as being troubled."

My response to that today: "Those respective comments you made to me on two separate occasions in the 1990s have haunted me ever since. Did you expect me to myself exhibit complete serenity and tranquility and composure during a period in which my privacy rights were being violated in Austin, Texas? Doesn't it at least impress you that I've been consistently civil and law-abiding and polite during the approximately 10 years since you offered me those two observations."

---"As a downtown-Austin-based private attorney providing you with legal services, I can tell you that you are not being persecuted in Austin, Texas. However, it may well be the case that you are possibly being harassed in Austin, Texas."

My response to that today: "As you may recall, Mr. Attorney, you offered me that dual observation during an in-person consultation I had with you inside your law office in downtown Austin in the late 1990s or early 21st Century. As an attorney member of the State Bar of Texas, you regarded it as important during that legal consultation I had with you to distinguish between persecution per se and harassment per se. I would like to point out, though, that you as an attorney providing me with legal services during that time period chose not to cite any legal recourse available to me in response to alleged verbal harassment or any other form of harassment of myself in Austin, Texas. Since you are a proud alumnus of The University of Texas Law School in Austin, as the State Bar of Texas state agency confirmed for me in writing in 1997, what might explain your decision against citing any specific legal complaint that I could file on my own behalf or that I could ask you to file on my behalf."

---"As an attorney member of the State Bar of Texas, I recommend that you file a lawsuit against the City Government of Austin relating to noise pollution victimizing yourself in Austin, Texas, that you have complained to me about."

My response to that today: "Thank you for that courageous legal advice. I would like to point out, though, that so far you are the only attorney in all of Texas who has volunteered to me during a legal consultation I had with that attorney, that you yourself believe I should cite the City of Austin as the defendant or respondent in a lawsuit that I might file here in Austin, Texas. Isn't it a bit odd that none of the dozens of other private attorneys and attorneys affiliated with the State Government of Texas or with Travis County Government whom I have consulted or communicated with in Austin, Texas, in the last 12-year period have ever once stated to me that I should myself file a lawsuit against the City of Austin in a court of law in Austin, Texas?"

---"As a representative for the Travis County District Attorney's Office Strategic Prosecution Division in Austin, Texas, I want to assure you, John, that I have established a voluminous pre-prosecution criminal-law file here that's strictly for your own benefit. If anyone ever at any time commits a crime victimizing yourself, and if that crime is a felony crime, our Travis County District Attorney in Austin, Texas, will promptly consult our massive "John McMillan" criminal-law file as background notes when our DA's office in Austin, Texas, then pursues a criminal-law prosecution of a cited defendant in a court of law in Austin, Texas."

My response to that today: "I hope you won't feel offended if I comment to you at this time that your Travis County DA's Office pre-prosecution criminal-law file in Austin, Texas, on my own behalf sounds a bit out of the ordinary. Wouldn't it be more effective and helpful for the Travis County DA's office and the Austin Police Department and the Texas Department of Public Safety and the Travis County County Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Attorney General of Texas to all jointly identify someone with criminal intent or harmful intent toward me at this time? That way, you all might be able to arrest and press criminal-law or civil-law legal charges against that individual long BEFORE they could have actually committed an actual felony crime victimizing myself. I might then be able to myself obtain a protective (restraining?) judicial order against that individual in a court of law in Austin, Texas. I guess I'm a bit uncomfortable with a scenario in which I'm currently being classified as a 'sitting duck' ---a sitting duck, I might add, that somehow is expected to wait patiently for anyone holding a loaded gun to attempt to take a shot at this particular sitting duck (myself). I have a very strong will to live, and to enjoy a full and natural lifespan and full creative longevity. Thank your taking into consideration this major concern of mine about your pre-prosecution criminal-law file you have officially established strictly for my benefit, and which you have officially confirmed to myself in writing in response to an Open Records request from myself in a recent prior year."

---"The voices DO NOT DO JUSTICE TO YOU!"

My response to that today: "When you made that emphatic observation to me during a long-distance phone call I made to your private residence in 1987, I appreciated your honesty in citing unusual and substandard living conditions I was experiencing in Quincy, Massachusetts, at that time. Since you referred to 'justice' as an emphasis of yours in your comment, I have since wondered whether you were possibly suggesting that I could or should have consulted a private attorney in Quincy, Massachusetts, who would have been willing to file a lawsuit on my behalf that might put an end to verbal harassment and noise pollution injurious to myself in 1987 in Quincy, Massachusetts."

---"The circumstances and living conditions you are being subjected to in Sweetwater, Texas, in 1990 are OUTRAGEOUS in their cruelty and unjustifiability toward yourself!"

My response to that today: "I appreciate your very kind expression of concern about possible violations of my own legal rights to which you alluded when you volunteered to me that kind observation during a long-distance phone call I made to your private residence from Sweetwater, Texas."

---"Many have speculated about your own demise, but on that subject it's difficult to theorize, since something that never lived cannot die."

My response to that today: "Looking back, when you read aloud that 'Birthday Tribute' to myself that you had written back in late April of 1974, what did you wish to imply by your statement that 'many' persons have speculated about my own expected 'demise'? Were you acknowledging back in the 1970s that you knew of some Americans in those days who actually exhibited harmful intent or criminal intent toward me, even way back then? If so, why didn't you conscientiously report your concerns to a law-enforcement agency in Austin or Washington, D.C.? Also, what did you mean to suggest by your birthday tribute's observation that since I myself had never lived, anyway, it would be impossible for me to ever die, you pointed out. As you may recall, that line of your poem elicited considerable laughter when you read that poem aloud in front of numerous persons, myself among them, that day in 1974."

---"It seems to me, John, that you have not lived much. I urge you to resign from your reporting job in New Ulm, Minnesota, in 1981, and move to Minneapolis, Minnesota, as soon as possible. That way, you will have a lot more adventures in your life, and there will be a lot more for you as a writer to write about in Minneapolis."


My response to that today: "You are the first attorney from my entire life who has volunteered to me in an informal context after you chose to approach me away from your own law office, that you thought it would be a wise idea for me to abruptly leave my current full-time position of professional employment in order to myself explore the citedly "exciting" big city of Minneapolis. Myself, I cannot imagine any scenario of today in which I myself would ever advise a young man to resign from his current full-time job in a small town in order to simply move to a big city and somehow expect to land a decent-paying job there very quickly. For the record, I never did land a decent-paying job in Minneapolis; and the highest-ever employment-derived total annual gross income I ever earned for myself was in Massachusetts---not Minnesota or Texas or Florida or New York. That gross annual income was $19,591, which I earned in calendar year 1985 as a full-time copy editor for "The Patriot Ledger" daily newspaper in Quincy, Massachusetts.

---"I hope very much, for your sake, that your living conditions in Austin, Texas, will never reach the point in which ALL of your human relationships are strictly professional in nature, and you have no personal relationships of any type."

My response to that today: "As you of course know, since you are a private attorney based here in Austin, Texas, I have not signed any legal contract with any businesss entity or government entity or any individual, for that matter, that would in any way undermine my ability to myself develop honest, mutual-consent, real-life personal relationships today and throughout my future, that involve myself and other persons in Austin, Texas. I was very dismayed to read your signed legal reply letter indicating that any other circumstance could ever even conceivably occur for me in Austin, Texas. As you know, I am a very single, unemcumbered, law-abiding, civil, psychologically healthy, intellectually talented, adult Austin gentleman; and I insist on enjoying my full range of fredoms and opportunities, including my legal right to pursue a full and strictly-mutual-consent social life during my leisuretime, here in Austin, Texas."

---"From my vantage point as a private attorney in Minneapolis, Minnesota, I can tell you that as of this year, 1988, I have learned that an attorney based in Houston, Texas, the county there being Harris County, is pursuing legal actions in regard to yourself and your living conditions. That attorney is pursuing those legal actions in regard to you even though you do not reside in Harris County, Texas."

My response to that today: "I don't see how any attorney in Houston, Texas, could have somehow claimed to 'represent' me or 'provide me with legal services' in 1988, for instance, when I signed no such contract with any Houston-based attorney at any time. And I was, in fact, residing in Wharton County, Texas, in late 1988 when I received that shocking 'disclosure' during a long-distance phone call I made to the private residence of a private attorney based in the northern state of Minnesota. I would also point out to you that in my entire life, I have never once received any bill for cited 'legal services rendered' from any attorney reportedly based in Houston, Texas, at that time."

---"Your living conditions in south Texas during this period in which you are employed full-time as a newspaper reporter for a general-circulation publication, are a bit like being in the military."

My response to that today: "Your surprising unsolicited observation to me from your private residence in Washington, D.C., was very sobering. Were you as an attorney by profession somehow implying from your private residence in our late 1988 phone conversation that the United States Armed Forces had somehow claimed to 'secretly' employ me during a time period in which I was, in fact, working strictly for, and receiving all of my paychecks solely from, a private-sector business entity and private-sector media company based in El Campo, Texas, throughout that entire time period?"

---"The manipulative circumstances in your own life these days point to very high standards on the part of the source or sponsor of these circumstances for you."

My response to that today: "When you volunteered that seemingly well-intended observation to me during a dinnertime conversation we had in 1988 inside a Chinese restaurant in Austin, you inevitably raised the question of WHO is being permitted by the City of Austin, by Travis County Government, by the State Government of Texas, and by the U.S. Government to presume to have the right to dictate criteria for human conduct for myself that are not being imposed on any other single adult American citizen, to the best of my knowledge. And, in addition, WHO is being permitted by government entities in the United States to attempt to impose any form of censorship on myself. As you know, censorship in the United States is strictly forbidden."

---"I cannot handle another day of working with these voices! The voices in the background are driving me crazy! I want you to get rid of John McMillan today!"

My response to that today: "Dr. Madalyn Murray O'Hair, you were probably unaware that I overheard you loudly making this indignant comment to my immediate work supervisor, Robin Murray O'Hair, back in 1988 during a workday for me at a place of employment owned by yourself in north Austin. As you will recall, I was employed full-time for a multi-week period as a proofreader for your atheist publishing company in north Austin. You were probably aware at the time that I had agreed to work at your media company ONLY after I was unable to find employment at any other media company in Austin that I would have even considered working for back in 1988. I am not an atheist myself, and I never told you at any time that I was myself an atheist. My question to you today is simply this: If you yourself admitted that you associated my working for you with the infliction of headache-inducing voices that I myself was not generating or sponsoring or causing, why in God's name didn't you file a legal complaint back in 1988 through the Travis County District Attorney's Office against a suspected source of alleged verbal harassment of any and all employees working at your publishing house in north Austin?"

---"I have never had so many headaches while working at a newspaper, from what I can recall. I am constantly having to search for aspirin here at this workplace!"

My response to that today: "I want to thank you for your candor in admitting to me back in late 1988, during a time period in which you were a coworker of mine at a very nice newspaper in El Campo, Texas, that you were experiencing splitting headaches on a near-daily basis inside that newsroom. In retrospect, I wish you had been willing to volunteer to me what you believe to have been the possible source of those frequent headaches that you were complaining about in my presence during working hours for each of us reporters at that newspaper in El Campo, Texas. I also wish you had considered filing a legal complaint against the suspected actual source of that alleged noise pollution you regarded at that time as being injurious to your own medical health."

---"You've had a full and rich life, John."
My response to that today: "I was struck by the sadness in your voice as you volunteered to me that somber-sounding observation on the telephone during a long-distance phone call I made to your private residence in Texas back in 1986 from my own private residence in Quincy, Massachusetts. In retrospect, your tone of voice seemed to almost convey the outlook that my best and most enjoyable years were all behind me, as of 1986, and that you yourself possibly lacked confidence in my own future and in my own ability to have creative and noble achievements in the remaining years of my life. I would also like to point out that your description of my life as of 1986 as having been 'full and rich' may have been a bit misleading. During my adult life from age 18 until age 29, for instance, I had received very few personal phone calls to myself from anyone; and the total number of persons who made personal phone calls to me on their own volition during that time period was very, very small, as you may have been aware. I am not including wrong-number phone calls I received, such as the many wrong-number phone calls I received when I resided near UT-Austin in late 1978 and early 1979. I received at least 20 late night and early morning phone calls over a multi-month period at my private residence during that period, with the caller asking me each time, 'Is this the Austin Police Department?' I always politely replied, no matter how half-asleep I was after getting out of bed to answer that phone call, that I was not, in fact, the Austin Police Department. I believe I then attempted to provide that caller with the correct phone number for the Austin Police Department during that period. As for my employment-derived income level during the 11-year period in question, it was nearly always low-income, and never above $20,000 in gross employment-derived annual income."

---"Your losing weight should help to reduce the amount of discrimination against you here in Austin, Texas."

My response to that today: "Thank you for your kindly empathetic observation that you verbalized to me several years ago. I appreciate your volunteering to me on your own volition that you suspect that I may have been wronged by discrimination against me in Austin, Texas. I have in prior years filed several employment-discrimination complaints in Austin, Texas, but each of those complaints resulted in a finding by a government agency that it did not have adequate legal evidence to conclude in my favor as the complainant. As for your observation to me that my losing weight will help, I hope your observation eventually proves to be accurate. However, I would like to politely point out that regardless of what my weight might be at the time, my living conditions in Austin, Texas, have remained pretty much the same over a multi-decade period. I receive zero unsolicited job offers or job-interview offers from employers in the Austin area; I receive very few unsolicited personal phone calls; I receive zero invitations to attend dinner parties; I receive zero invitations to attend parties; I receive very few unsolicited invitations to have breakfast, lunch, or dinner with another person; and my gross annual employment-derived income level is always under $20,000 in Austin, Texas."

---"I would recommend that you participate as minimally as possible in the world around you."

My response to that today: "I have received that type of advice, both directly and indirectly, ever since the mid-1980s. I would like to respectfully point out that the U.S Constitution Bill of Rights strictly prohibits any restrictions upon my own Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Mutual-Consent Association or Freedom of Religion or privacy rights. And no one has ever informed me at any time that the United States Department of Labor or the Texas Workforce Commission, for that matter, would
ever permit any employer of mine to make any of my legal rights or employment-law rights contingent on:
(1) my never mumbling to myself on occasion at my workplace;
(2) my never whispering to myself on occasion at my workplace;
(3) my never muttering to myself at my workplace, even if that muttering features a clean vocabulary;
(4) my never keeping a journal or diary or notes to myself or legal notes for myself during my leisuretime;
(5) my never making phone calls to others in my and their personal life;
(6) my political or religious beliefs and related conduct being expected to be similar to or identical to or compatible with anyone else's;
(6a) my being expected to have any involvement during my leisuretime with a cited subculture that I am, in fact, lawfully and in a civil manner morally offended by or otherwise repulsed by;
(7) my being expectedly 'non-aggressive' or 'passive' or 'silent' in any aspect of my career-related life or life;
(8) my never reporting possibly illegal incidents that I observe at a workplace to a work supervisor, or, if applicable, to a law-enforcement agency;
(9) my ever at any time having any type of involvement of any type with anyone whom I have already rejected from my own life.

---"You should have rejected more persons from your life than you did."

My response to that today: "When you offered me that possible warning in 1997, during a long-distance pay telephone phone call I made to your public university office in a southern state, I wish I had asked you for elaboration. Were there specific individuals you knew about in 1997 whom you suspected of exhibiting harmful or injurious intent toward myself? I raise that question now partly because, as you may be aware today, the Travis County District Attorney's Office in Austin, Texas, has established an official harmful-intent or criminal-intent criminal-law legal evidence file on my own behalf. If you do in fact know of specific individuals or specific entities or media companies or institutions that you suspect have exhibited alleged harmful intent toward myself or alleged censorship of myself, I would be grateful if you would please contact the appropriate law-enforcement agency and consider sharing with that agency the factual evidence or hunches you have from your vantage point in Georgia."

---"You are doing it all wrong."

My response to that today: "And you, sir, are the very embodiment of the type of sadistic, arrogant, decadent, alcohol-addicted, repulsively sexaholic, ruthless, unconscionably unapologetic, unpleasantly materialistic, unsightly, and dreary older male person whom I insist on myself lawfully EXCLUDING from all aspects of my own life AS SOON AS POSSIBLE (ASAP!)!
"Your very bad example, sir, is a grim reminder to myself that I shall always, in contrast to yourself, strive myself to be as constructive and wholesome and tactful and polite and appreciative and kind as possible when I agree to befriend someone significantly younger than myself or younger than myself in age. I will NEVER tell any younger person I agree to personally befriend, that 'you are doing it all wrong.' Also, I will refuse to subject any younger person in my own life to any form of inter-generational exploitation of any type. I will strive to myself always be GOOD for the self-confidence of the many adult younger persons and youths whom I agree to lawfully and in a polite manner associate with in my own life, in cases involving mutual consent and, in the cases of youths, in cases involving prior parental authorization for any such wholesome conversations with those youths."

---"You just made a comment to our group during our Quaker meeting in Lubbock, Texas, so we must ask you to leave our meeting immediately. Any verbalized comments by any person at this particular silent meeting are strictly prohibited. You have violated the rule for our Society of Friends meeting today."

My response to that today: "I am very uncomfortable with a religion that prohibits any verbalized comments by any members or any visitors at a meeting of that religious group. Your policy is, to me, censorious; and I am very dismayed by censorship in American society today, including censorship by religious groups such as your own. Fortunately for me, I myself am not a Quaker; and I had attended your meeting in Lubbock merely as a visitor. Needless to add, that one 1990s visit of mine at a Quaker meeting in Lubbock was my last-ever involvement with any Quaker group anywhere in the world."

---"I don't want you to ever again visit the building at my public university campus where my office is located!"

My response to that today: "Your 1994 request of me on the telephone was arbitrary and capricious and cruel on your part. You did not cite any violation of the law by myself, and you are fully aware as you make that abrasive comment to me that I myself have no criminal-conviction record. You also must be surely aware that I am among the most civil and law-abiding of all the adult single men of Austin, and I lead a completely illicit-drug-free, tobacco-free, alcohol-free, platonically polite lifestyle. In fact, I am an honors program alumnus from your public university. What I find noteworthy about your emphatic request of me on the telephone today is that you refer only to your own COMPLETE INTOLERANCE toward ANY criticism by myself of a cited subculture on your campus. My criticism of that subculture that I verbalized this year in a public-policy-minded letter to the administration of your public university campus is completely Freedom of Speech-protected, as you well know, Professor! And the criticism I verbalized of that subculture --- criticism you are angrily denouncing today on the telephone and days ago through an injurious letter you wrote and sent to the President of your university that condemned my own conduct --- did in my own letter refer to and deplore allegedly illegal conduct by cited self-described members of that cited subculture that you yourself apparently regard as being beyond reproach. I regard you yourself as being deplorably complicitous in crime occurring on your public university campus!"

---"Can you blame that cited subculture for trying to undermine your financial earnings capacity and harm you in Austin, Texas, in view of the televised speech you gave in Austin that criticized specific conduct by that subculture?"

My response to that today: "Yes, I can blame that cited subculture in very specific terms. That is what a court of law is for, and I will be very assertive about myself filing numerous lawsuits in a court of law in Austin, Texas, against entities affiliated with that cited subculture that violated my own legal rights in any way. Thank you for reminding me of that Freedom of Speech-related and Freedom of Religion-related opportunity to myself testify against that cited subculture in a court of law."

---"I'm sure that many of the people who have wronged you in in the past were of that cited ethnic or racial group."

My response to that today: "I was not attempting to make a generalized statement to you about any particular ethnic or racial group per se. I am surprised that your response on the telephone today changed the emphasis of what I had just commented to you. In any case, it's noteworthy that you indicate to me today in this long-distance phone call made to your home from Denver City, Texas, in 1996, that you are not aware of any person from that cited ethnic or racial group who is allegedly wronging me in any way at present."

---"You are potentially very dangerous, since I can easily imagine you obtaining a gun and then traveling to another city in this country in order to attempt to harm someone."

My response to that today: "You, sir, appear to me to be one of the least insightful persons I have ever spoken with in my entire life. I have no desire to harm any other person, and I certainly have no desire to harm myself, either. In fact, as you are no doubt very aware, I do not own any weapon, nor would I ever agree to purchase a weapon for myself. I have a very strong will to live, and I am very conscientious toward others. The most recent occasion in which I ever physically assaulted anyone occurred during my fourth-grade year of elementary school. That male classmate of mine did not require hospitalization as a result of that incident. I am among the most consistently civil and clean-talking of all the single adult gentlemen in the entire world. In fact, I never grab, pinch, bite, pounce on, beat, or whip any other person, and I never verbalize obscene language in a telephone conversation or during an in-person conversation with another person, unless I am quoting someone else's profane speech for the sake of specificity about the offensive comment that someone made in my presence or made to me. Also, I have never once during my adult years ever once been accused of any incivility toward another person, or of any romantic impropriety involving physical contact with another person, on any occasion in my entire life. I would also like to respectfully point out, sir, that I lead a law-abiding lifestyle in which I have completely abstained from any consumption of any illicit drug ever since 1984, in the complete absence of any prior addiction, and in which I am a lifelong non-smoker. As for alcohol consumption, I can add at this time that I have not consumed any drinking alcohol since the summer of 1990, and I was never previously addicted to alcohol. I also have no criminal-conviction record, as you are fully aware today."

---"I won't agree to meet you for lunch, since I allege today that you told a lie about me to the Office of the Attorney General state agency in Austin. You are free to continue making phone calls to me, though."

My response to that today: "Almost never does any person ever accuse me of deliberately telling a lie. In the early 21st Century, I was even told by one female work supervisor of mine in Austin that I myself am 'legendary' for my honesty, in fact. She used the exact word 'legendary' to describe my reputation for honesty, I would like to politely remind you at this time. I take great pride in myself being one of the most honest persons you have ever had the good fortune of meeting. The legal matter you refer to today involved an incident I vividly recall in which you made a phone call to my dorm room at UT-Austin. When I lived in a student dormitory at UT-Austin, I almost never received any phone calls from any other student, or from any faculty member or administrator or other employee of UT-Austin. So your surprising phone call to me, featuring a very surprising invitation to me from yourself that had no apparent context to it and no predicate for it, was the sort of phone call I definitely would never have forgotten."

--"We're reading about you in our textbook for my abormal-psychology undergraduate-level class at UT-Austin."

My response to that today: "Your disclosure to me on the telephone in 1978, during a local phone conversation we had in Austin, has haunted me ever since. It would definitely be flagrantly illegal on the part of the author of that textbook, at the very least, to have made any reference to myself in any context. I have never agreed to participate in any experiment or study of any type, as you well know. Nor have I ever agreed to any violations of or restrictions upon my own privacy rights in any context. I lead a consistently law-abiding lifestyle, and I have not consumed any illicit drug during my days at UT-Austin. That sets me apart from the many abnormal people in this city and at the UT-Austin campus, many of them college students, who frequently flout the law."

--"If you were organized, you'd be dangerous!"

My response to that today: "When you made that comment about me in my presence in 1980 or 1981 inside the newspaper office where we each were employed at the time, as you'll recall, several coworkers of mine laughed with apparent delight. My question to you today, with the benefit of 30 years of reflection since then, is simply this: To whom would I pose a danger, in your view? Would that be the Mafia, the illicit-drug underworld, the alcohol industry, the tobacco industry, the fraudulent communications underworld, the criminal element in general, or some person or entity other than the ones I've just mentioned."

---"As a former schoolmate of yours, I don't care enough about you as a human being to meet you in person for lunch. However, I will be willing to accept phone calls from you."

My response to that today: "I am baffled as to why you stated to me in that 1997 local phone call I made to your residence, that you were willing to continue accepting phone calls from someone (myself) whom you yourself have identified as NOT being an individual you care about as a human being. If I trigger apathy or indifference from you, why do you volunteer to me that you will be willing to accept phone calls from me?"

---"I agree that it seems very suspicious that your abdomen seems to be inflated with an air bubble of some type. I notice that I never observe any gluttony by you when you are eating, and you almost never snack between meals."

My response to that today: "Thank you for indicating to me in 2000 that you felt that the concerned reply letter on that very subject that I had received from the American Medical Association in Chicago, Illinois, struck you as being a valid concern about possible illegal manipulations of my own body I did not authorize that were somehow occurring in Austin, Texas, during that time period."

---"The criminal-law legal issue most applicable to your own life circumstances in Denver City, Texas, is the relatively new State of Texas law prohibiting stalking and mandating criminal-law penalties to convicted stalkers, based on what I've observed as an officer of the Denver City Police Department. I sense that you yourself as a Denver City resident and full-time newspaper reporter and editor here in Denver City, are possibly being stalked by some person who is violating our recently revised state penal code."

My response to that today: "I would like to thank you again, officer, for that very helpful disclosure you kindly volunteered to me in person during a visit I made on my own volition to your Denver City Police Department in 1996. Looking back, did you ever obtain the name of any possible suspect in what you yourself volunteered to me to be an apparent case of illegal stalking ocurring in west Texas in 1996 that allegedly victimized myself."

---"There appear to be some meanies in the Austin area who are harassing you these days!"

My response to that today: "Thank you for your conveyed concern about my own quality of life and about alleged violations of my own privacy rights in Austin, Texas. In the time period since you made that observation to me on the telephone in the late 1990s, I believe it was, have you yourself ever identified any specific person whom you suspect of having verbally harassed me or otherwise harassed me in Austin?"

---"I don't have any current job vacancies at my publication in Austin. But if I ever did have any job vacancy here for a writing position, I wouldn't ever consider hiring you."

My response to that today: "As you already may have known, I myself have about 10 years or professional newspaper reporting experience and a Master's Degree in Journalism and Mass Communications. When you made that comment to me on the telephone in the mid-1990s or early 1990s during a local phone call I made to your newspaper office in Austin, you did not cite any reason for your 'never-hire-you' policy toward me. Since you later stated to me on the telephone, this in 1997, that there is no circumstance in which you would ever provide any news coverage to either myself or to my new and fully independent religion, it seems reasonable of me to raise a question at this time. Is it possible that you may have exhibited some degree of alleged possible harmful intent or alleged possible malice toward myself, or that you may have pursued possible actions, such as possible alleged violations of my own privacy rights, that allegedly undermined my own quality of life in Austin, Texas?"

---"Your role as the founder of a new religion in Austin, Texas, means you lack objectivity and have therefore forfeited any chance of ever being hired as a writer for this daily newspaper. In view of this, there would be no point in my meeting you in person at my newspaper."

My response to that today: "Your tersely-worded and signed 1997 reply letter to myself in Austin, Texas, was very demoralizing to me. I question your statement that anyone with a cited reputation for having founded a religion of his own---and my own independent religion has just one approved member, myself, as you fully knew back in 1997---would therefore lose any credibility as a writer for a newspaper. I feel very strongly that I am more fair toward persons holding a wider range of beliefs and values and lifestyles than are the majority of all professional journalists in Texas."

---"We at this daily newspaper in Austin value your brain."

My response to that today: "I would like to politely point out that you and your colleagues at your newspaper in Austin don't value my brain enough to have accounted for any of my financial income. Partly for that reason, my employment-derived income in Austin, Texas, has been very minimal. Even when your daily newspaper did assign me to write two stories, with a male editor of your newspaper asking me in April 1992 to write each of those stories about the Holocaust; and even after your newspaper then published my two stories about the Holocaust on my birthday of April 27 in 1992, I received no official paycheck per se from your newspaper for those two articles. The editor I worked with at that time stated to me that he was pleased with my work. However, it was apparent that your media company was very lacking in official recognition for my journalistic capabilities."

--"It would be a conflict of interest for me to meet you for lunch at a local restaurant in Austin, Texas."

My response to that today: "Does your comment imply that your media company has a possible conflict with me that you have not acknowledged thus far? And if so, does this also imply that your media company prohibits all of your employees from ever having in-person conversations or in-person dialogues with any other individual, for that matter, who is believed to be ideologically incompatible with your media company?"

--"You lied to the Texas Workforce Commission state agency in Austin about me! I'm very angry about that!"

My response to that today: "The Texas Workforce Commission was provided with full documentation by myself that your restaurant workplace in Austin, Texas, did in fact employ me for for one daytime workshift and one evening workshift without your financially compensating me for that. I am grateful to the Texas Workforce Commission for concluding that I was, in fact, entitled to a wage payment from you for the work I did inside your locally owned restaurant."

---"Are you still on your solitudinous journey?"

My response to that today: "It is true that I have chosen to lawfully and in a civil manner permanently and irrevocably exclude certain individuals (the source of that question, for instance) from my own life. This is no way makes me solitudinous. I am not an intellectual elitist eternally enthrall with my own brain, for instance, and I enjoy a wide range of law-abiding, non-stalking, polite, privacy-rights-respectful persons from a wide range of backgrounds, including a wide variety of religious and socioeconomic backgrounds. I would also like to point out at this time that the flippant and snide phrasing of the cited question was, in fact, offensive to me. I have roomed with a variety of persons and befriended numerous persons since the late 1970s, and I take great pride in myself being an empathetic, people-friendly, polite, diplomatic, and kind gentleman. Almost never does anyone state to me that a comment I had just made to that individual was offensively flippant or insulting or alienating to that individual. I would also like to point out that the cited question does, at least, acknowledge that I am not 'holding someone hostage' or 'compelling someone to have a relationship with me.' I would NEVER want to myself room or live with ANYONE who felt pressured into rooming with me, or who disliked the idea of rooming with me. Furthermore, I myself would be very saddened by any circumstance in which I learned that someone residing with me in a mutual-consent context during that 21st Century time period was, in fact, not happy about rooming with me or living with me. Unlike the source of the cited question, I fully honor the legal right of any person to exclude myself from their own life at any time. I am very freedom-loving toward others, which enhances the quality and integrity of those very rare mutual-consent personal friendships that I do develop."

---"As a church pastor speaking with you today on the telephone from a people-friendly church near UT-Austin, I am very opposed to verbal harassment."

My response to that today: "I was very impressed by your statement to me on that about five years ago. You are the only clergyman in Austin whom I've ever spoken with who specifically cited to me concerns by that clergyman about alleged verbal harassment injurious to myself in Austin, Texas, that is allegedly violative of my privacy rights and legal rights in Austin, Texas. I want to wish the best of success to yourself and your kind and conscientious religious congregation."

--"Anything that doesn't kill you is good for you. That is a favorite saying of mine from Nietzsche, and I delight in quoting that aphorism to you."

My response to that today: "You repeatedly quoted the German philosopher Nietzsche on that back in 1977, and I have had many years since then to ponder that favorite aphorism of yours. I personally disagree with that observation by Nietzsche, as you may have sensed by now. Let me give you one example of why I disagree with you. If one legal-status adult person attempts to commit homicide victimizing another human being, but the victim is not in fact murdered by that attempted homicide, I strongly believe that the victim should file criminal-law charges through a law-enforcement agency against his assailant."

---"I would recommend that you discontinue all of your health insurance policies during this time period of the late 1990s. That will help you to save money and pay all of your bills."

My response to that today: "I respectfully disagree with that apparently well-intended personal advice you offered me back in the late 1990s. I'm glad that I have put a major emphasis on having good health insurance coverage for myself. And, I am of course striving as diligently as I can to pay as many of my bills as I possibly can."

---"As a customer of yours inside this law-abiding business, I just assume that all you guys are high on drugs."

My response to that today: "Thank you for your candid comment. I would like to respectfully point out that I have been a complete and permanent year-round abstainer from any and all illicit drugs ever since the fall of 1984--and I was never addicted to any illicit drug prior to the fall of 1984, I might add. I take great pride in my being a very devoted member of the anti-drug community in the United States, including right here in Austin. I can also add at this time that I've been a complete and permanent year-round teetotaler (non-drinker) ever since January of 1990, and I have never consumed any tobacco products in my entire life. I take pride in being hygienic and law-abiding and consistently polite and civil."

--"As a Unitarian-Universalist clergyman based at this congregation in a suburb of Worcester, Massachusetts, I can tell you during our meeting today (1984) in my ministerial study inside my church, that your cited emotional attraction to blond-haired persons appears to me to be narcissistic in nature. I would refer you to the writings of one psychologist whom I particularly admire, who observed that a dark-haired adult person expressing an emotional and aesthetic attraction to blond-haired adult persons is, in fact, mired in a narcissistic quest to recover his own youth."

My response to that today: "I marvel at your ability to pathologize a candid and innocent observation of mine in 1984 during this one-time consultation with yourself. Your conduct toward me was degrading to me, and underscored why I made a wise choice in 1996 when I asked your religious denomination to never again contact me or meddle in my life."

---"Please refrain from ever again sharing with me the SORDID details of your own lifestyle."
My response to that: "If you will recall, sir, my letter to you used clean language throughout and did not refer to any illegal conduct by myself. I believe that my letter also emphasized to you that I am consistently civil, facially cleanshaven, illicit drug-free, alcohol-free, and tobacco-free. None of the factual information about myself that I shared with you in my letter was, as you say, 'sordid' in nature. Furthermore, the primary intent of my legal letter to yourself and others was to simply identify whether there had been a possible source of alleged outside interference in my own life in Austin, Texas, that allegedly undermined my own ability to develop a strictly-mutual-consent social life here in Austin. You were unwilling to provide me with any such factual information, and you chose instead to respond with alleged character assassination of myself!"

---"The reason why my general-circulation publication in Austin cannot use story ideas you submitted to us recently, is because of outside interference."
My response to that today: "Could you please elaborate on that 1997 comment of yours on the telephone? What, exactly, do you mean by the term 'outside interference' in regard to whether I myself could successfully submit story ideas that your general-circulation magazine might actually use?"

---"I not only support capital punishment in Texas, but I strongly support repeated and prolongued and year-round torture of a death-row inmate in our state over a multi-month or multi-year period ending in court-ordered execution of that death-row inmate!"

My response to that today: "I am very surprised that you made that unsolicited comment to me in 2001 while supervising me at a temporary job of mine inside a building owned or leased by the Travis County Medical Society in Austin, Texas.
"Like yourself, I also strongly support court-ordered capital punishment of persons who are convicted of having committed the heinous and barbarous crime of homicide. I might add at this time that I also support a revision of state law in Texas that would authorize court-ordered capital punishment of legal-status-adult persons convicted of the unconscionable crime of attempted homicide.
"Unlike yourself, though, I believe in very humane and conscientious treatment of any and all prison inmates on the part of government. And I am very opposed to government-sponsored or government-authorized torture, and even more opposed to repeated or prolonged or year-round torture, of any death-row inmate in Texas."



--"If you do ever find out which individual has been meddling in your own life and preventing you from having a full life in Austin, Texas, I urge you to reject him!"

My response to that today: "Thank you for that written 1997 acknowledgement to myself that a bleak scenario of that type may be occurring for me in Austin, Texas. I am surprised, though, that you yourself do not have any indication at this time as to who that meddler has been. Nor has any other person on any occasion ever specifically cited to me in writing, or even orally, the legal name of the alleged stalker of myself. That undermines my ability to myself officially file criminal-law charges against that person through the Austin Police Department and the Travis County District Attorney's Office."

---"An employee at this commercial business establishment in Austin maintains that if you visit here as a customer, it makes that employee very uncomfortable. I did previously tell you that that employee, whose name I will not reveal to you, alleged you were stalking that individual. Today, though, I would like to revise my statement to say that that employee says your presence as a customer inside this establishment makes that employee very uncomfortable. I am no longer claiming that the anonymous employee says you are stalking that person."

My response to that today: "I find it interesting that you have told me repeatedly you will not cite to me the legal name of the employee of your business who alleges that I make them uncomfortable, as you now put it. I also find it interesting that you are finally acknowledging to me today that I am definitely NOT stalking anyone employed at your business. I am a very diligently law-abiding and honorable gentleman, as you should be very aware. I sense that your business may be guilty of possible alleged discrimination against myself and possible alleged violations of my legal rights. I would like to point out that one of your employees on that individual's own initiative urged me to apply for employment at your business, which I did shortly afterward. I was granted a job interview with your company in a recent prior year, and I'm very sure that I was granted that job interview partly because you did a criminal-history check on me which found that I have no criminal-conviction record. I am civil and law-abiding and clean-talking, I wish to emphasize. I should add at this time that I have no desire to patronize or be employed by any for-profit corporation that treats me in this disrespectful or degrading or unkind or unfair or allegedly slanderous manner."

---"As a desk sergeant for the Quincy (Mass.) Police Department, I will not permit you to file a criminal-law charge here inside this police department office today (in 1986?). The complaint you cite against a cited legal-status-adult individual is strictly a family matter."

My response to that today: "I would like to respectfully point out, Officer, that I was a single adult gentleman at the time when I visited your main office of your municipal police department in 1986 or 1987 and I told you that I wanted to file a criminal-law charge against a cited individual. And I am still a single adult gentleman today, too. I have never been a relative of the individual whom I sought to file a criminal-law charge against, as you well know."

---"They can't change you that much."
My response to that today: "I appreciate your very kind in-person vote of confidence in me as a human being when you made that helpful observation to me in December of 1991 in Austin, Texas. Your comment has also reminded me ever since then that you did helpfully acknowledge on that one occasion that various persons were allegedly sponsoring manipulations of my own living conditions or life circumstances during that time period."

---"Numerous news-media reporters have been calling me and asking me questions about you."
My response to that today: "You offered me that disclosure to me in 1994, during a long-distance phone call I made to your private residence in Tennessee from my apartment in Kermit, Texas. I would like to point out that your unsolicited disclosure to me on that one total occasion did not cite to me the types of questions that, according to you, reporters were asking you in regard to myself. Your comment has been distracting to me ever since."

---"And after many years of your feeling frustrated and tormented by your living conditions and circumstances in Texas, you will not be as likely to complain about the circumstances that do develop for you. After all the suffering you have endured, you may find that some options will seem more palatable to you than they would have been seemed in the past."

My response to that today: "I don't subscribe to the view that if a person has been tortured over a multi-decade period, he should then regard any alternative scenario that ever develops in his life as something he should be compelled to acquiesce in. He still has the option of rejecting any scenario that he does not feel comfortable with, regardless of whether any new option available to him is "less severe" than living conditions he's already endured for many years."

---"You will feel a lot better when this is all over."

My response to that today: "Thank you for that unsolicited statement you repeatedly made to me during long-distance phone calls I made to your home from my apartment unit in Sweetwater, Texas, and other west Texan towns in the early 1990s---including in 1991, for instance, when I resided in Sweetwater. I appreciate your implicit acknowledgement on that very rare occasion that you believed I was being subjected to manipulations of my own living circumstances during that time period. However, I would like to raise the question of why you were so confident that I would feel a lot better 'when this is all over.' The circumstances I had myself complained about to you were harmful to my medical health, including to my hearing capacity, as an ear, nose, and throat specialist in Austin, Texas, has confirmed for me through examinations of my hearing over a multi-year period. So the moment of elation and euphoria you predicted for me over a multi-year period, including in the early 1990s, may have overlooked a few points about the manipulative circumstances you occasionally acknowledged to be occurring in my own life."

----"Sooner or later, their meanness will end."

My response to that today: "I appreciate that kind and optimistic prediction about my own future living circumstances that was verbalized to me in person in the early 21st Century by a coworker of mine inside our workplace. I believe that the comment to myself referred to the cited persons whom I had lawfully rejected and whom I had chosen to lawfully exclude from my own life on a permanent and irrevocable basis. The comment also apparently referred to a future time at which a permanent cessation would suddenly occur to alleged verbal harassment of myself and alleged public disparagement of myself and alleged pranksterism and fraudulent communications foisted on myself by persons whom I had lawfully and in a civil manner rejected from my own life."

---"The syndicated columnist Molly Ivins of Austin, Texas, prefers to have lunch with individuals whom she considers to be interesting. Since you do not fit that description, Molly Ivins will not be willing to meet you for lunch and conversation."

My response to that today: "That very disappointing comment I received on the telephone in 1997, when I called a local professional phone number for Molly Ivins and spoke instead with a female assistant to Molly Ivins, was hurtful to me. It also denied me an opportunity to meet in person with Molly Ivins and describe to her concerns of mine about alleged violations of my own privacy rights occurring in Austin, Texas, during that time period."

---"You are invited to room with me as a housemate of mine here in Baytown, Texas, if you are not squeamish about the recent violent attack on a housemate of mine here that left the carpet badly stained with blood. I assure you that you would be safe, and that no repeat of that violent attack would occur if you were to room with me here in this house."

My response to that today: "I appreciate your willingness to share with me what you knew about the homicide or attempted homicide that had reportedly occurred inside your home a matter of days or weeks before I visited your home in 1995 in response to your housemate-wanted ad in 'The Baytown Sun' daily newspaper. I hope you did not feel offended by my decision against rooming with you under those circumstances."

---"Rumor has it here in Denver City, Texas, that many of the residents here think it's very strange that you are advertising for a roommate in 'The Denver City Press' daily newspaper. Here in Denver City, it is considered very odd for a single man to advertise for a roommate."

My response to that today: "When I placed that roommate-wanted ad in 'The Denver City Press' back in 1996, I can assure you that I was NOT attempting to spark gossip about how very odd it was that I as a single man in town would be seeking a roommate. My primary intent was to better pay my bills, and to also enjoy the friendly camaraderie of a pleasant mutual-consent roommate."

---"The people in small towns in Texas, such as Cuero, find it very strange whenever they observe you playing tennis with a high school student on public tennis courts in that town."

My response to that today: "The sport of tennis often lends itself inter-generational tennis games, and I have played tennis with persons of a wide variety of ages, including persons significantly older than myself and significantly younger than myself. I personally do not find it strange or peculiar for me to be playing tennis with high school students in a small town in Texas such as Cuero, Texas. The fact remains that in many of the small towns of Texas, the vast majority of the best tennis players in that community are high school students. And I myself am an intermediate-level tennis player. I would like to also point out that I did reach the semifinals of the Cuero public tennis tournament in the summer of 1991. So I had that credential on my behalf, too."

---"You may find at some future point that you'll choose to reject the entire system."

My response to that today: "When you made that unsolicited comment to me in 1986 at the Sloane House YMCA where each of us resided in New York City, New York, you did not explain what you meant by 'the system.' Were you referring to a particular media company that you expected me to possibly reject at some future date, or some other scenario? I wish you had been a bit more specific; and, looking back, I wish I had asked you more questions about the scenario you cited for me."

---"Are you enjoying it?"

My response to that today: "I wish you had elaborated a bit more as to what exactly you meant by that comment. As you may recall, I happened to make one long-distance phone call to your law office in Houston in the fall of 1988 from my law-abiding workplace in El Campo, Texas. Your comment did at least appear to acknowledge some awareness on your part about possible manipulations of my living conditions occurring in Texas. However, neither you nor any other of the dozens of other attorneys I've consulted about the matter in this state has ever cited to me the possible source or cause of alleged infringements upon my own privacy rights."

--"Your circumstances in Texas seem very destructive!"

My response to that today: Your comment to me in 1990 or 1991, during a time period in which I resided in Sweetwater, Texas, and made a long-distance phone call to your home in Minnesota, has prompted some follow-up questions from me in the years since then. For instance, were you referring to manipulative circumstances you regarded as being destructive toward myself, or toward someone else? If you regarded those circumstances as being harmful and injurious to myself, what might explain why you chose to never suggest a legal issue I could cite to an attorney in Texas?"

---"The options available to you in your own life are very different from what you think they are."

My response to that today: "When you made that comment to me in 1991, I believe it was, during a long-distance phone call I made to your home in Tennessee from my apartment unit in Sweetwater, Texas, you chose not to elaborate. I have to admit that the comment you made to me in 1991 has been very distracting to me ever since."

---"I don't believe that the anonymous communications you are being subjected to in Austin, Texas, on a year-round basis are at all necessary. I disagree with the premise of others here in Austin, Texas, that because you yourself exhibit a lawfully conveyed antipathy toward a cited subculture, that should serve as a basis for their denying you your privacy rights or their subjecting you to manipulative communications you do not want and you do not agree with."

My response to that today: "Thank you for your helpful comment to me during a local phone call I made to your home in 1988 from a pay telephone at an apartment complex situated a few blocks west of The University of Texas at Austin."

---"Just a voice from my past."

My response to that today: "That comment of yours as you concluded an early 1990s long-distance phone call I made to you at your law office in New Mexico, was thought-provoking. Were you referring empathetically to anonymous communications in my own life in Texas that you possibly believed were referring solely to persons of my own past, or, instead, were you referring in your concluding comment to my phone call to yourself as being a cited relic from your own past, as you may have seen it at the time. Were you thereby insinuating that you saw me as an archaic figure from your own life? If so, were you aware that that type of comment to me would have been a bit cruel on your part?"

---"There is no reason for you to ever meet any of the other editors or staff members at the media company where I work in Austin."

My response to that today: "I find it a bit odd that your media company somehow assigned you as the 'sole representative' for that media company in any and all communications with myself. Is it customary for you to state to freelance journalists or Texans with a journalism background such as myself that 'I am the only staff member at my publication who is willing to meet with you.' I am uncomfortable about keeping up with any media company in which one total staff member is cited as being friendly toward myself, and all the other staff members are unwilling to meet me in person or chat with me."

---"I don't know of ANY attorney anywhere in Austin, Texas, who would be willing to help you."

My response to that today: "I find it very surprising that you made that comment to me back in 1994, during a period in which I resided in Kermit, Texas, and called your residence in Austin, Texas. Your comment was particularly demoralizing to me because you appeared to be on the brink of tears as you made that apparently candid disclosure to me on that one occasion. You seemed to indicate from your tone of voice that you regarded me as a hopeless case---someone who could never even succeed at finding ONE attorney in Austin, Texas, willing to help me file a lawsuit in a court of law relating to alleged violations of my own privacy rights that I definitely never authorized or requested."

---"The primary reason why virtually none or none of your coworkers in Austin, Texas, ever want to become mutual-consent personal friends of yours, is that your coworkers these days do not have professional journalism backgrounds."

My response to that today: "Your comment does not adequately explain why it is that throughout the last approximately 10-year period in Austin, whenever I invite an adult coworker or adult former coworker of mine to lunch or dinner here in Austin, nearly all of them either decline or, if they tentatively agree to meet me for lunch or dinner in a local restaurant, they either cancel last minute or they simply don't show up at the scheduled time for that leisuretime meeting with them. When they don't show up for that lunch or dinner meeting with me, and they offer me no explanation at that time, I'm invited to speculate on what their 'no-show' status might signify."

---"I think of you as being a Holy Man. The hole in your shoe suggests that idea to me."

My response to that today: "When you volunteered that observation to me as a coworker of mine inside our Office of Real Property state agency office of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1986 or 1987, I may not have adequately appreciated the possible compliment you were offering me at that time about my having a religious stature in your eyes. I was possibly a bit preoccupied during that period with everyday dilemmas such as financial challenges I was facing---the cost of buying a pair of new shoes in Boston, for instance. Oddly enough, in the 21st Century the financial challenge in my own life has gotten much worse than in 1986 or 1987, when I became acquainted with you at that Commonwealth of Massachusetts workplace. However, I am determined to enjoy a religious life, regardless of what my financial challenge might be like these days. So I guess that does make me a Holy Man, to quote the term you had used to describe me in 1986 or 1987."

---"All of your writings and thoughts and impressions fall under the umbrella of the Democratic Party here in the United States."

My response to that today: "I was very dismayed to hear that back in the summer of 1991, when you made that very surprising disclosure to me during a long-distance phone call I made to your residence from Cuero, Texas. I am definitely NOT affiliated with the Democratic Party, and I definitely never authorized the Democratic Party to violate my own privacy rights or subject me to any communications violating my privacy rights. Fortunately, the American legal system protects my legal right to remain a political independent the rest of my life."

--"You have been the most disruptive clerical employee in the entire history of the LBJ School of Public Affairs on this UT-Austin campus! Having said that, I might add that I consider you to be so honorable that I would trust you with my own children. And, I will agree to write a very flattering signed letter of recommendation for you----an April 24, 1995-dated letter of recommendation I myself did later write and sign, a letter about which I had sole control over the contents of that letter, and that praised you for being punctual, professional, cooperative, and 'unfailingly courteous and considerate of his coworkers and the students at the School.'"

My response to that today: "I hope you won't mind my pointing out that your in-person evaluation of me on April 21, 1995, inside your office seemed to be a bit contradictory. How could someone as citedly polite as myself have also been described by you as being 'the most disruptive clerical employee in the entire history of the LBJ School of Public Affairs at UT-Austin'? Is there some aspect of my working conditions at UT-Austin's LBJ School back in 1995 that you chose not to acknowledge to me during the two-person closed-door meeting you had with me on April 21, 1995? Incidentally, I had not mentioned the subject of children to you at any time; and I was surprised that you brought up the subject of children during that meeting. I am grateful that you at least gave me credit for being someone who would myself be nice and kind and conscientious toward children, including toward your own children."

---"John, you are NOT MADE FOR THIS WORLD! You are too platonically polite toward everyone to get anywhere. You should be more aggressive about asking anyone you're attracted to out on a date. Your celibacy throughout nearly all of your adult life sounds very severe. The more sex, the better--that's my slogan!.... Since you yourself have no romantic life, WHAT KEEPS YOU GOING as a human being?"

My response to that today: "You will recall that you made those comments to me on the telephone in 1979, during a period when I resided in Florida, and I made a long-distance phone call to your private residence in a northern state. I feel very proud of my platonic politeness toward others. Ninety-nine percent or more of all human relationships are observably platonic and non-sexual in nature. For that and other reasons, it is imperative that I myself have good platonic credibility with anyone, including anyone whom I actually consider to be physically and emotionally attractive. As for your 1979 question, 'WHAT KEEPS YOU GOING?', that you posed to me with incredulity in your voice in that phone conversation, I would like to point out that my self-awareness about my being a very benevolent human being with creative talent guides me well. My devotion to an honest, law-abiding, conscientious lifestyle guides me well. I feel very strongly that strictly-mutual-consent personal platonic relationships, or personal friendships, have a lot more impact on a person's (my own, for instance) quality of life and living conditions than your own hyper-sexualized view of human beings would acknowledge!"

---"You remind me of my sister, who is terminally ill. She is very bitter about having lupus, and she has difficulty getting her daily chores accomplished. She's very distracted by her plight."

My response to that today: "When you repeatedly compared me to your terminally ill sister during in-person and local phone conversations you had with me in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in the early 1980s, you were fully aware at the time that I myself had no major medical problems during that time period. What prompted you to frequently compare me to a person who is terminally ill, when I myself am not terminally ill?"

---"If we hired you to be a full-time reporter for the Amarillo Globe-News, you'd be very unhappy and miserable here in this city."

My response to that today: "I was not aware that an editor as part of an in-person job interview with an applicant such as myself has the legal right or need to pretend to be a psychologist making the determination about whether the applicant, if hired, would be fully happy at that workplace at all times. Do you frequently choose against hiring reporting-position applicants for the Amarillo Globe-News daily newspaper primarily because you have concluded that if hired, that new employee would not be fully ecstatic at all times at your workplace?"

---"I don't think you'd be happy if I were to hire you to work as a reporter for my daily newspaper in Nacogdoches, Texas."

My response to that today: "I found it interesting that you were able to make that determination over the telephone in 1988, without my having made any critical comment to you about Nacogdoches, Texas. I have to ask you, sir, if you normally do a psychological analysis of each job applicant in which you reject their application based on your conclusion without granting the applicant a job interview that an applicant would not be fully ecstatic at all times as a resident of Nacogdoches, Texas?"

---"That comment you received from a University of Texas professor who in 1978 compared you to Cary Grant, is way off, in my opinion. From what I've observed of you as your employer here in Kermit, Texas, you strike me as being a rather boorish person!"

My response to that today: "I would like to point out that you yourself commented on my 'classy' (the exact word you used) job performance toward the end of my tenure at your general-circulation newspaper in Kermit, Texas. My classiness as a human being derives in part from my leading a permanently alcohol-free and permanently tobacco-free lifestyle. I'm also facially cleanshaven, with no facial hair, which promotes good hygiene. And during my tenure at your newspaper, I was very diligent about obtaining and sharing with yourself and a local United Methodist Church clergyman in your town a certified HIV-negative medical test result for myself I obtained from a medical clinic in Kermit in 1994 that cited my legal name and birthdate. I did that to reassure yourself and other local civic leaders in Kermit that I am very accountable for being medically healthy and protective of the medical health of others in that very important way."

--"As a friendly female coworker of yours at the same chain restaurant workplace, I recommend that you exclude from your life any person subjecting you to anonymous communications. I regard anonymous communications as unacceptable."

My response to that today: "I appreciate that very kindly empathetic comment you volunteered to me during a leisuretime dinner we had together inside a Chinese restaurant along Far West Boulevard in northwest Austin in 2002. One follow-up question: How could I determine whether another person had subjected me to anonymous communications?"

---"As General Counsel for Texas A&M University System, I cannot recommend that our State of Texas-owned university system assist John Kevin McMillan of Austin, Texas, in filing a legal complaint relating to obscene anonymous communications he has complained to our university system about. I am basing my decision on my impression based on Mr. McMillan's speeches before Austin City Council that he is not sincerely devoted to addressing the broader needs of Austin."

My response to that today: "I find it noteworthy that in your late 1990s official Texas A&M University System memorandum exclusively referring to myself or contemplated legal action on my behalf, you as General Counsel for the Texas A&M University System suggested that your State of Texas-owned university system requires anyone complaining to your university system to pass a cited 'Sincerity Test' before your university system's Office of General Counsel will consider assisting that individual in a court of law. I would also like to point out that one of the proposals of mine you regarded as insincere was a recommendation by me that the salary levels for Austin City Council members be significantly increased. I would like to ask you today, sir, why you regard a proposed salary increase for those elective officials as an insincere recommendation from myself?"

---"It sounds to me as if the people of Austin, Texas, are not friendly toward you. I recommend that you move to Huntsville, Texas, and buy a house there. You will find that the residents of Huntsville, Texas, will be much friendlier toward you than the people of Austin have been."

My response to that today: "I appreciate those very kind words of encouragement to myself that you volunteered to me on the telephone a few years ago during a long-distance phone call I made to the Office of General Counsel of your very impressive state agency headquarters in Huntsville, Texas."

--"Hey, it's Johnny Mac down there in Texas on your big power trip! ....It's apparent that there are aspects of your own living conditions or future status you have no control over, whether because of time or happenstance. And when this is all over, I want you to know what I will HUNT YOU DOWN, regardless of where you are living at the time!"

My response to that today: "I hope you don't mind my mentioning to you today that your 'I'LL HUNT YOU DOWN!' declaration back in 1990 almost sounded like a threat of some type. I found your comment distracting in the years since that 1990 observation of yours on the telephone when I resided in either Big Spring, Texas, or Sweetwater, Texas. It was not entirely clear that you were planning to shake my hand and congratulate me after you 'hunted' me down, as you put it in that long-distance phone call I made to your employer in a midwestern state. You almost sounded angry about something, but it wasn't clear why. I had been a hard-working full-time employee of yours at a midwestern workplace for one and one-half years, and you had agreed to serve as a favorable professional reference for me. As for your implication that I'm an egomaniac, you yourself refer to an attempt by someone else to impose restrictions on my options and freedoms as a human being. Any such circumstance would not be conducive to egomania."

---"You are being subjected to false warnings and misleading anonymous communications in Texas that comprise a RED HERRING!"

My response to that today: "Looking back, I wish you had elaborated to me about the 'red herring' analogy you repeatedly made to me in long-distance phone calls I made to you in the early 1990s, including in 1990 when I resided in Sweetwater, Texas."

---"A person who even considers moving to another state, as you have done at various times in the period since early 1988, is at risk of being labeled by others as emotionally unstable and mentally ill. I regard that psychological evaluation of any such person as being very understandable."

My response to that today: "I should have pointed out to you that I've sometimes sensed that my privacy rights as a single adult gentleman might have been greater had I moved to a U.S. state other than Texas. The governor of Delaware, for instance, in a recent prior year did send me a friendly E-mail reply letter indicating that my own privacy rights would be greater if I moved to Delaware."

---"You should not do any creative brainstorming aimed at helping U.S. states other than Texas. Those other states, and particularly the state of Massachusetts, do not deserve your brainstorming efforts."

My response to that today: "It surprises me that you as a fellow Texan took an interest in the content of my brainstorming efforts during my leisuretime in the time period when I resided in Sweetwater, Texas, back in 1990 and 1991. You yourself have never once stated to me that you believed that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts wronged me in any way. Why would it pose a concern to you if I share brainstorming ideas with a possible media company in Massachusetts from time to time? I would also like to respond to your verbal warning by myself recalling that a wise man observed to me in December 1991 in Austin, Texas, that he himself believes in ONE WORLD. He also stated to me that befriending ANY place on the entire planet is perfectly fine, he emphasized. I like that type of moral and humanitarian vision."

---"You have an apparent need to file criminal-law charges against several alumni of Stephen F. Austin High School."

My response to that today: "I appreciate your conveyed concern about my own quality of life and substandard living conditions in Austin, Texas, when you kindly volunteered that emphatic advice to me in person about 10 years ago. However, I would like to point out that no attorney I've consulted since 1988, and NO ONE ELSE whom I've spoken with or corresponded with, for that matter, has ever once cited to me the name of ANY alumnus or alumna of Stephen F. Austin High School of Austin Independent School District, who himself or herself allegedly violated my own legal rights or allegedly wronged me in any way, according to the attorney or other person whom I spoke with or corresponded with. It would therefore be very reckless and irresponsible for me to contact the Austin Police Department or the Travis County Attorney's Office or the Travis County District Attorney's Office, and myself attempt to file criminal-law or civil-law legal charges against one to three unnamed, unspecified, alumni of Stephen F. Austin High School."

--"What's the WORST POSSIBLE EXPLANATION for these manipulative circumstances in your own life in Texas that you've repeatedly complained about to me?"

My response to that today: "I was struck by the surprisingly panicky sound to your voice when you posed that emphatic question to me in 1990 or 1991, during a long-distance phone call I made from my private apartment unit in Sweetwater, Texas, to your private residence elsewhere in Texas. I find it noteworthy that in that very same phone conversation, you yourself did not cite any particular scenario on your own volition that you regard as being horrifying or bleak or severe toward myself. That emphatic question you posed to me in a very dramatic manner back in 1990 or 1991 has been distracting to me ever since then, I might politely point out at this time."

---"You seem to have the outlook that you are somehow entitled to financial compensation relating to circumstances in your life in Texas over a multi-decade period that you believe to have been unfair and unappreciative and injurious toward yourself. In fact, no one has wronged you, and no one owes you any money. You are solely responsible for paying your own bills, and for living within your means at all times. No one is ever going to help you."

My response to that today: "Contrary to what you have repeatedly indicated to me on the telephone, I myself do have a strong work ethic. And I do already have the talent and skills I need to earn a decent financial income for myself here in Texas. As for my concerns about possible alleged illegal conduct by others that has been and continues to be injurious to myself, I do not regard it as at all irresponsible or reckless of me to explore in a lawful manner, such as through Open Records requests I submit from time to time, whether any and all government-owned institutions and business entites operating in Texas that have had any involvement in my own life circumstances at any time in period since January 1, 1986, for instance, have each been fully compliant with the law at all times in all aspects of their own conduct toward myself. Any circumstance to the contrary would, as you are no doubt aware, be a very justifiable legal basis for myself filing a lawsuit in a court of law against that allegedly law-breaking entity."

---"Why are you still beating a dead horse? That cited subculture has no involvement in your own citedly substandard living conditions in west Texas, and no self-identified member of that subculture has any involvement in any aspect of your life of today. They are completely innocent of any wrongdoing toward you."

My response to that today: "I question that statement of yours that you are making to me today in 1994---a statement in which you assert that there has been no meddling of any type in my own life or living conditions by the cited subculture. Furthermore, as you well know, my Freedom of Speech-protected legal right to criticize any subculture, and my accompanying legal right to myself file a lawsuit against any cited entity affiliated with or complicitous with that subculture, is fully protected. I would also like to point out to you, sir, that you are an official of a State Government of Texas social services agency here in Snyder, Texas. Your statement to me today is unprofessional on your part. So is the case of beer you have sitting near you today inside your government office here where I am meeting with you today at your state agency. I question the legality of your having alcoholic beverages on the premises of this State Government of Texas office building here in Snyder, Texas, today. Have you obtained permission from your state agency headquarters in Austin, Texas, for a large quantity of beer to be present beside you in your office today during working hours for you?"

---"I've never denied that you are hearing actual, verifiable, audible, anonymous voices in Texas, including in Austin. However, that should not affect your financial earnings capacity at all. If you lose a job because of the background voices you did not generate or cause or authorize, you can always find another job."

My response to that today: "I appreciate your candid disclosure to me of 1999, during that long-distance phone call that I made to your residence in Houston from my apartment unit near the University of Texas at Austin. I find it very curious, though, that you have stated to me as recently as this year that you have no idea as to WHO is the actual source of the alleged anonymous communications to myself that I've repeatedly complained about to you and your attorney husband---who is himself a distinguished member of the State Bar of Texas state agency based in my current hometown of Austin."

---"As a full-time reporter for 'The Patriot Ledger' daily newspaper based in Quincy, Massachusetts, who is myself speaking to you on this day in 1988 from the newsroom of my newspaper office where you contacted me by telephone today, I can tell you that the voices you are being subjected to against your wishes will continue for a long, long time."

My response to that today: "I find it interesting, Jerome, that you directly acknowledge to me in the year 1988 in this long-distance phone call I made to your daily newspaper office in Massachusetts today, that I am myself being subjected to anonymous verbalized communications in the Austin area of Texas that I do not want. When you state that the cited 'voices,' as you yourself call them, will continue for a long, long time, could you at least tell me how I might obtain a court order in Texas that will lawfully and in a civil manner permanently terminate the voices you cite to me?"

---"The long-term, multi-year celibacy in your own life in Texas that you you complain about to me on the telephone during this long-distance phone call is, at least, preferable to contracting a fatal sexually transmitted disease."

My response to that today: "Either scenario is grim."

---"As your managing editor at 'The Baytown Sun,' I don't deny that you have had circumstances in Baytown, Texas, here in 1995 that are untenable. However, your writing is very substandard. The other reporters here at 'The Baytown Sun' all write better than you do. You will have to significantly improve your writing to have any hope of holding onto your $275-per-week full-time reporting job here."

My response to that today: "I am still baffled as to why you volunteered to me on your own volition in that crucial two-person meeting we had in 1995 inside your newspaper office, that I myself had been subjected to what you called 'untenable' circumstances in Baytown, Texas, and elsewhere in Texas before I moved to Baytown to begin this full-time reporting job here. As for your statement that my writing is very weak, I respectfully disagree with you. I feel I have lots of writing talent, and I'm also good at generating creative story ideas."

---"As the publisher of 'The Baytown Sun,' I can tell you reporters today at this mandatory staff meeeting inside your newsroom that each of you should feel very lucky that you are not in a hospital emergency room in Houston, recovering from a very severe injury."

My response to that today: "To this day, sir, I find it very curious that a matter of days after you offered that bleak-sounding reference to a hypothetical medical crisis in Houston without any apparent predicate to your remark at our 1995 staff meeting, I myself was driving home in the evening from a high-school football game I'd covered in far east Texas for 'The Baytown Sun'. Suddenly and without warning, I observed a massive sink (refrigerator?) lying directly in front of my motor vehicle in my lane of traffic on the interstate highway where I was driving within the speed limit. Had I continued in that lane of traffic, it is likely that I myself would have sustained a severe injury from the resulting collision that might have put me in the hospital. No explanation was ever provided to me by officials of Jefferson County, Texas, or any other government agency I contacted about the matter, for the presence of that massive sink comprising a roadblock for which no warning had been posted on that interstate highway. Only my last-second swerve to the left, into another lane of traffic, spared me from an injurious collision."

---"Any and all of your brainwaves you generate in Texas are gratefully accepted by myself here at 'The Boston Globe' daily newspaper in Boston, Massachusetts!"

My response to that today: "Thank you again for your friendly and enthusiastic signed reply letter to me on 'Boston Globe' stationery that you wrote and mailed to me in late 1988 or early 1989, during a time period in which I was reporting full-time for a semiweekly newspaper in El Campo, Texas, and residing in that city. I would like to mention to you today that I have wondered for years exactly what you meant when you referred to 'brainwaves' you somehow associate with myself. No one has ever directly stated to me that my own private and internal thought process per se was somehow being publicized or shared with others in any way. Since you as a syndicated newspaper columnist are very ethics-minded and strongly support the privacy rights of all law-abiding American citizens, and I am definitely a law-abiding American citizen, I also find it a bit surprising that you don't directly indicate to me any concerns of yours about alleged violations of my own privacy rights relating to some person or entity or media company or educational institution somehow claiming to have access to or control over my own intellectual property. I would like to point out that you later sent me a 21st Century E-mail reply letter, stating that you hope that my personal finances and quality of life improve significantly in the near future. If I were to be financially compensated in full by any individual or entity possibly infringing on my own intellectual property rights in Texas these days, that would help me to pay all of my bills, including all of my various financial debts to personal creditors, and myself achieve full financial solvency and a higher quality of life as a single adult gentleman here residing in Austin, Texas, at present."

--"As a new instructor at The University of Texas at Austin who is myself very familiar with your own living conditions in Austin after rooming with you five years ago near UT-Austin, I hope that the noise pollution in Austin, Texas, that you've complained about to me is terminated in the very near future."

My response to that today: "Thank you for offering that very helpful sentiment to me over the telephone on my birthday in 2005. Unfortunately, though, four years have passed since that well-intended comment without the hoped-for termination of that noise pollution problem ever occurring. However, there's every hope that 2009 will prove to be a "happy milestone" year for me when a permanent and irrevocable termination does occur to the unwanted noise pollution injurious to myself in Austin, Texas, that I've complained about in a civil and law-abiding manner in letters or E-mail letters or through phone calls I've written and sent or made to the Austin Police Department, the Texas Workforce Commission, the State Bar of Texas state agency, several attorneys in Austin over a multi-year period, the City Attorney of Austin, the Travis County District Attorney's Office, the Travis County County Attorney's Office, my duly elected City Council members in Austin, the Mayor of Austin; the City Solicitor of Quincy, Mass.; the Quincy (Mass.) Chief of Police; my duly elected state legislators of Texas, Rep. Donna Howard and State Senator Kirk Watson, and my duly elected county commissioner in the Austin area, Sarah Eckhardt; Travis County Judge Sam Biscoe; my duly elected congressman from Texas, U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul; the Texas Department of State Health Services state agency in Austin; the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality state agency in Austin; the Attorney General of Texas state agency in Austin; the Governor's Office in Austin; Austin Community College officials; an administrator for UT-Austin; and several federal agencies, including the Federal Communications Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Department of Labor, the United States Department of Commerce, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia, the United States Department of Education, and the Environmental Protection Agency of the U.S. Government."

---"As a Texas Department of Public Safety male adult coworker of yours here in Austin, I am very angry with you for having written and sent a recent letter to the editor of 'The Austin American-Statesman' in which you advocated criminal-law prosecution in a court of law against anyone who infects another person with the HIV virus. That letter of yours that was published in 'The Austin American-Statesman' was very homophobic and anti-gay!"

My response to that today: "I would like to point out that you yourself acknowledged to me that your own outlook on the subject was heavily influenced by the fact that many of your own mutual-consent personal friends are 'gay,' you volunteered to me during working hours for each of us at our Texas Department of Public Safety workplace in 1997. I personally favor a principled approach to human-rights issues and to our criminal justice system that does not practice favoritism toward anyone based on their referring to themselves as being citedly 'gay' or 'homosexual' or 'bisexual' per se. I maintain that government-authorized criminal-law prosecutions of any legal-status adult person, regardless of that person's sexual or gender identity, who himself or herself deliberately or through negligence infects another person with the HIV virus, will help to uphold the human rights and the legal rights of all members of the HIV-negative community here in Austin. I myself am a law-abiding member of the HIV-negative community, and I assume that you are also a law-abiding member of the HIV-negative community, from what you indicated to me when you volunteered to me inside our state agency workplace in 1997 that you yourself are a heterosexual gentleman who yourself is NOT receptive to ANY criticism of the gay subculture, since you yourself have nothing but favorable impressions about the gay subculture, you emphatically emphasized to me that workday for each of us back in 1997 inside our workplace of the Texas Department of Public Safety state agency in Austin. In my own life, I myself certainly would feel a lot better in Austin, Texas, if I sensed that my own asserted legal right and my own asserted human right to myself remain HIV-negative on a permanent and lifelong basis, is being fully upheld for me partly through criminal-law prosecutions in Austin, Texas, that do help to deter what I regard as criminal or defacto-criminal activity involving the infection of anyone with the HIV virus."

---"Even if you were to visit Great Britain, you would find that the voices would just continue in Great Britain. Your visit to Great Britain would not do you any good."

My response to that today: "I was very disappointed that you as a British Embassy official based in Houston, Texas, offered me that grim scenario during a long-distance phone call I made to your Embassy from my apartment unit in Big Spring, Texas, in late 1989 or early 1990. Your comment discouraged me from exploring the option of visiting or emigrating to Great Britain during that multi-year time period. During that 1989 or 1990 phone call, if you will recall, I inquired about what you believed my own circumstances or travel conditions would be like if I were to visit Great Britain during that time period. I have since wondered if your demoralizing prediction that you offered me in late 1989 or early 1990 during that phone conversation was, in fact, representative of the outlook held by all officials of The United Kingdom, including Queen Elizabeth II and the British Prime Minister."

---"In response to your most recent Open Records request you have submitted to Texas A&M University, I as Director of Communications for Texas A&M University System, can myself assure you that our public university system based in College Station strictly prohibits any and all anonymous communications by employees or students of Texas A&M University System institutions."

My response to that today: "I appreciate that written assurance to myself a few years ago from your Texas A&M University System administration in College Station. When I have made similar inquiries at Austin Community College in Austin, Texas, and at The University of Texas Systems administration in Austin in recent years, neither of those two institutions was able or willing to offer me a written assurance of that type."

---"As one of the top editors at 'Texas Observer,' I would not be interested in meeting with you at my workplace to talk with you. I am very busy with major and substantive public-policy-related issues in my career at the 'Texas Observer'."

My response to that today: "I would like to point out to you today, sir, that the concerns and issues I wanted to discuss with you in person at your workplace back when I made a telephone call to your publication's office back in 2000, during a workbreak of mine from a government workplace of mine, were, in fact, public-policy-related. They related in part to major legal liability issues---issues including unwanted noise pollution and unwanted verbal harassment injurious to one's hearing capacity and privacy rights-----I've myself identified that are facing the City of Austin, Travis County Government, and the State Government of Texas. I'm also convinced that at least one private-sector enterprise, such as an unethical media company, will be facing major legal-liability issues relating to circumstances in my own life to which I've been subjected in Austin, Texas, ever since I moved back to Austin in mid-March of 1997. One colleague of yours at a magazine based in downtown Austin even acknowledged to me on the telephone back in 2000, the very same year when you declined to talk with me any further, that 'there may be an unethical media company harassing you (John Kevin McMillan) in Austin, Texas, these days.' So why is it, sir, that your publication purporting to be a hub of enlightenment in Austin, Texas, is so quick to dismiss my own cited concerns and public-policy-related agenda as being un-interesting and non-substantive? I would also like to point out to you today, sir, that in the last two or three years when I called the Houston bureau of 'The New York Times', a male reporter based there volunteered to me that he recommended 'Texas Observer' to me as a thought-provoking publication reportedly exploring major societal issues in Texas in a courageously incisive and enlightened manner, that Times reporter emphasized to me. Particularly in view of the high praise for your publication that a 'New York Times' reporter offered me on the telephone in the last two or three years, I am doubly disappointed, sir, by your own callousness toward me."

---"As a University of Texas professor and Historian, I don't have time to chat, Mr. McMillan. I'm very focused on my career-related pursuits as a History scholar. Bye bye, Mr. McMillan."

My response to that today: "Professor, I find it ironic that a self-described Historian at UT-Austin such as yourself would yourself be so lacking in appreciation for my own historic strength as a law-abiding human being who was myself facing historic challenges in Austin, Texas, at or near the turn of the century when I made that polite phone call to your History Department office at UT-Austin. I would also like to point out, Professor, that it was you who back in 1978 had generously praised me on the telephone for a profile I wrote about a cited male administrator (a Mr. Billings, if I'm not mistaken?) for the University of Texas library system. You told me then that you were very pleased with that news-feature story I wrote for 'the Daily Texan' student newspaper, and you commented on my 'checkered career for 'The Daily Texan' in that phone call that either you made to me at 'The Daily Texan' or I made to your UT-Austin office from 'The Daily Texan.' By contrast, in the phone call I made to your History Department office at or near the turn of the century, you conveyed the apparent outlook that you equate me with frivolous chattiness about esoterica and trivia and nonsense, as you perhaps saw it. I respectfully disagree with your outlook. I am very proud of being a political and religious Prohibionist and rationally religious deist thinker who can myself help to foster a significant lowering in the per-capita incidence of alcohol consumption here in Austin, Texas."

---"As a State Bar of Texas member attorney and as a University of Texas Law School alumnus who graduated from that very fine law school in the 1960s, and as the one private attorney providing you with legal consultation services during this time period, I subscribe to the view that there is ONE PERSON who is sponsoring ALL of the manipulative circumstances and accounting for all of the outside interference and alleged harassment of you in your own everyday life in Austin, including at your workplaces, these days. However, I cannot yet identify who that ONE PERSON happens to be. If I ever do identify that ONE PERSON, I of course can pursue legal actions to help you reject that ONE PERSON and permanently exclude that ONE PERSON from all aspects of your own life and life circumstances."

My response to that today: "I hope you won't mind my noting at this time that I'm a bit disappointed that you as a highly-rated and admirable attorney member of the State Bar of Texas, and also as a very distinguished University of Texas at Austin Law School alumnus, and as a conscientious self-identified Christian gentleman, were never able to identify for me the legal name of the ONE PERSON whom you yourself believe to be responsible for what I allege to be substandard living conditions and fraudulent communications to which I've been subjected against my wishes in Austin, Texas, ever since I moved back to Austin in mid-March of 1997. As you know, I definitely would want to file criminal-law charges and civil-law charges in a court of law against that ONE PERSON, assuming that your ONE-PERSON theory is in fact valid."

--"You are a MARKED MAN at your workplace, John."

My response to that today: "I appreciate that candid observation from you in your role as an attorney member of the State Bar of Texas who is yourself practicing the law here in Austin, Texas. Looking back, do you think there might have possibly been some possible evidence of illegal forms of employment discrimination or some possible violation of employment law that on the part of at least one of my various respective private-sector or public-sector employers during the time period when I consulted you? If a legal complaint on my behalf had been filed with your help during that period, my own financial picture might be much better today, and I offer this observation with all due respect toward yourself."

---"You are possibly being being subjected to illegal communications at your workplace. However, it is not actionable at present, since I am not currently able to document those allegedly illegal communications for you in my role as a private attorney providing you with legal-consultation services in exchange for payments of legal-consultation fees to myself."

My response to that today: "I greatly appreciate your incisiveness in identifying that possible employment-related legal issue for me in a recent prior year in your capacity as an Austin-based private attorney member of the State Bar of Texas state agency in Austin. I would like to ask you at this time whether you regard any such allegedly illegal communications to myself at my workplace as being a civil-law matter, or a criminal-law matter? Also, do you yourself have any theories today as to WHO or WHAT might be the alleged source of those 'possibly illegal' communications to myself involving anonymous communications to which I've been subjected against my wishes at my workplace?"

---"You never annoy me, John. You never have enough of an emotional effect on me to ever actually annoy me. You often do irk me, though."

My response to that today: "Are you sure you were being completely honest to me in that comment you made to me on the telephone back in 1986?"

---"You should not react to the repeated profane anonymous communications to which you are being subjected against your wishes at a time when you are outdoors on the campus of the University of Texas at Austin. If you react to those anonymous voices with any indignation, it will only turn off the college students and graduate students there."

My response to that today: "I still feel today that it was very fair of me to object back in 1988 to the particular profane word, the spelling of that profane word being 'S--C--R--E--W!, that I was being subjected to repeatedly outdoors by anonymous individuals subjecting me to anonymous communications at a time when I was merely walking on The University of Texas at Austin campus in a very polite and civil manner on my part. I was not even talking with anyone at the time when I was being pelted with anonymous verbalizations of that profane word outdoors on the UT-Austin campus, with numerous UT-Austin college students and UT-Austin graduate students situated outdoors within a matter of yards of me outdoors. It seems to me to be very fair to have myself pointed out to you back in 1988 that alleged violations of my own privacy rights emotionally traumatic to myself were allegedly occurring during that particular 1988 visit of mine to that State of Texas-owned university campus in Austin, Texas."

---"When the voices end is anyone's guess. But when they do end, you will find in that future scenario that you are heavily obligated and heavily indebted to a group in Houston."

My response to that today: "Thank you for that candid observation you volunteered to me on the telephone after you introduced yourself to me in person in El Campo, Texas, in 1988. I would like to politely point out today that while I appreciate your candid comment to me on the telephone about this privacy-rights matter back in 1988, I never authorized you or the law firm employing you as an attorney to provide me with any legal services. In fact, I never met you in person for any professional consultation with you inside your law office in the Houston area on any occasion. I am very opposed to any form of obligatory relationship with any group or any attorney or other person or any professional-services provider, and I'm very opposed to anything that strikes me as bordering on extortionism or hostage-taking or enslavement or entrapment or censorship. I value my Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Mutual-Consent Association legal rights, including my legal right to set my own course in life."

--"I am struck by how little you have accomplished creatively in your life so far. You are age 27, and you are a full-time reporter for the 'Worcester County News', and that seems to be your only major credential as of the summer of 1984. As for myself, I'm not only a Harvard alumnus but a playwright. And I have written several fictional plays as of 1984. I'm very intellectually accomplished and creative. So this is one of the reasons why you trigger so much exasperation and incredulity and indignation from me. I look at you, and my immediate reaction is, 'Is that ALL?'"

My response to that today: "Congratulations on your play-writing accomplishments, and on your fine success at attending and graduating from Harvard University. I hope to read one of your published theater plays later this year during my leisuretime. As for your stated view that you expected to hear about a particular major creative accomplishment from me by age 27, it's true that I cannot cite to you any particular novel or short story or play or essay I've written that's been published by a literary magazine or book publisher. But I definitely do have creative-writing aspirations. And today, in the year 2009, I am continuing to submit short stories I've written during my leisuretime to literary magazines. If that makes me a late bloomer, I don't dwell on that point. I would also like to politely mention today that your verbalized incredulity toward me inside your kind mother's home during my first-ever meeting with you, back in 1984, was not helpful to me. Your own blunt reaction of exasperation toward me was very demoralizing. Whenever I myself do get published professionally as a fiction writer, you can be very sure that I will strive to myself be very, very kind and constructive to any persons I agree to meet with who are themselves seeking to become published authors."

---"I must tell you, John, that you have been quite a disappointing under-achiever as of 1984."

My response to that today: "I would like to point out in this long-distance phone conversation I'm having with you at your private residence in Texas that I'm at least leading a civil and law-abiding and honest lifestyle here in Minneaposlis, Minnesota. I have no criminal-conviction record, as you are no doubt aware. I did hold onto a full-time reporting job in New Ulm, Minnesota, for more than a year before I moved to Minneapolis after a attorney in New Ulm by the first name of Roger on his own initiative urged me to relocate to the Twin Cities pf Minnesota in order to myself have adventures I could then write about creatively, he said. Also, I use clean language, and I'm NOT an alcoholic or drug addict. I have had several humor columns published in 'The Minnesota Daily,' and I will be receiving a Master's Degree in Journalism and Mass Communications from The University of Minnesota later this year (1984). If you consider me to be an under-achiever, I need to ask you what prompted you to describe me that way."

---"For all the talking you do about your wanting to become a published fiction writer, I sense that you will be someone who is primarly known for being written about by others. You remind me of Virginia Woolfe in that way. Few people read that English author's works, but many people read about Virginia Woolfe through the writings of others that profile her. One of the writers from your own past whom I distrust is a fiction writer who has called my home here in Worcester asking for you. I don't like him, based on the two phone calls he has made to my home here in Worcester, Massachusetts."

My response to that today: "Thank you for your helpful reminder to myself in late 1984 in Worcester, Massachusetts, to myself lawfully and in a civil manner pursue legal actions at the earliest opportunity to prevent that cited unethical fiction writer in Minneapolis, Minnesota, whom you repeatedly warn me about from meddling in my own life any further. As for your pessimistic outlook that my own fiction-writing pursuits will be forgotten by others, and that my own fame will come solely from being profiled, whether favorably or unfavorably, in the writings of others, I am determined to myself avoid any such unpleasant fate. And unlike Virginia Woolfe, I have a very strong will to live and have a full and medically healthy and creative longevity. I am much more politically minded than Virginia Woolfe was, and I would like to see fiction promoting healthy moral values. I am dismayed by art for art's sake."

---"You are so prudish, John, that if you ever did do it in the bedroom with someone, which would be a very, very rare occasion for you in your 20s, I'm sure you'd be wearing plastic gloves throughout. You would want the entire occasion to be completely neat and tidy and antiseptic."

My response to that today: "I take pride in being selective, including in any mutual-consent romantic life I might ever develop here in Massachusetts in my 20s. I don't regard that as being prudish; I regard that as being prudent. It makes good sense to be prudent. That doesn't mean that I own a pair of plastic gloves. I don't. I would also like to politely remind you, sir, that 99 percent or more of all human relationships are platonic (non-sexual) in nature. No one ever complains to me that I laid a hand on them with impropriety or incivility, which enhances my platonic credibility with others. Platonic affection and platonic love play a very major role in any healthy human life, it seems to me. And your own contempt toward platonic relationships is severe and vapid in its own way."

---"So WHAT KEEPS YOU FROM BEING MORE CONFIDENT AT AGE 27?"

My response to that today: "That question, which you posed to me in 1984 in a very emphatic voice during a phone call I made to your private residence in Massachusetts from my private residence at the time in Minnesota, has haunted me ever since. My perennial low-income status as an adult single gentleman, and the lack of a full mutual-consent social life featuring the absence of a mutual-consent romantic love life and the absence of a mutual-consent platonic-love life, certainly have not helped. Throughout nearly all of my adult life so far, I have only rarely received friendly unsolicited personal phone calls during my leisuretime from individuals residing in my city or urban area. So far in my entire adult life since I turned age 18, I would estimate that I have received an average of no more than one unsolicited personal phone call per month, not including the very brief phone calls from persons calling me to simply ask me if I'd like to play tennis or racquetball with them. And almost never in my entire adult life so far did more than five total persons make unsolicited personal phone calls to me at my private residence in the same calendar year. I would also say that it would help if I could develop a good and lasting, mutually-respectful professional relationship with an employer I like. I think it's very healthy to feel like an INSIDER---a valuable and appreciated member of a team---through one's career involvement. For most of my career life so far, I have been the "newcomer" or the "outsider" who has joined a company or employer for the first time ever, generally in a city or town that was also a new place of residence for me. I'm also very sure I'd feel more confident if I were to develop more of a religious life that is in harmony with my own beliefs about what religion should, in fact, be like. For instance, I would love to develop a friendly and brainstorming-minded, facts-minded, E-mail correspondence with honorable members of the anti-drug community, the anti-tobacco community, the anti-alcohol community, the anti-tattoo community, the anti-profanity community, the anti-gambling community, the anti-prevarication and anti-fraud community, the amateur and professional sociologists community, and the crime-deterrence community. I also love the idea of corresponding with law-abiding and public-policy minded or law-abiding and creative writers who have a philanthropic sense of humor."

---"You remind me of a fictional character from a Victorian novel who is obsessed with moral purity and virtue. You would have been a good match for 19th Century England, but instead you are here in the year 1993 as a resident of Pampa, Texas."

My response to that today: "Looking back, I should have asked you to please name for me the one fictional character in a Victorian novel you have read who most reminds you of myself. Then I could have made a point of pursuing some reading about that fictional character from the Victorian Age. If I like that fictional character and identify quite a bit with that fictional character, maybe I could join an 'Admirers of Victorian England Social Club' and get to know its other dues-paying members. I'm assuming there is a civic group of that type that fosters friendships among admirers of the Victorian Era of British history."

---"The cartoon sketch of yourself that appeared in 'The Daily Texan' student newspaper in 1978 makes you look like the Cro-Magnon Man. That cartoon sketch does not do justice to you, John."

My response to that today: "Thank you, Mark, for your very kind comment to me back in 1978 inside the newsroom of 'The Daily Texan' student newspaper on the University of Texas at Austin campus. With help from your empathetic comment to me, I was able to persuade an editor at 'The Daily Texan' to instead run a photograph silhouette of my profile to accompany each of my 'Reporter's Notebook' columns for my part-time employer during that time period, 'The Daily Texan.'"

---"I find your earnestness about intellectual pursuits to be unbearably intense and boring!"

My response to that today: "But you do agree, at least, that I have a sense of humor, I would hope."

---"You seem to be completely lacking in a sense of humor these days."

My response to that today: "Thank you for calling that to my attention during my senior year in high school. I have found it to be very sobering during my senior year to receive almost no phone calls and almost no social invitations from any schoolmates of mine at Stephen F. Austin High School in Austin, Texas. My best year at Stephen F. Austin High School was my junior year, from those standpoints. Maybe I should make a point of identifying the most honorably humorful of the current students at Stephen F. Austin High School, regardless of whether they are sophomores, juniors, or seniors, in this 1974-1975 school year. Then I could make a point of inviting some of those cheerful and honorable and conscientious schoolmates to play tennis with me or play squash with me during my senior year at Austin High, 1975-75. I was very fortunate that I did get introduced to squash for the first time ever during my junior year at Austin High. I could also make a point of writing an English paper about the role of humor in English literature, American literature, or ancient Greek literature. This would help me to focus on the value of humor in life. I also think it makes sense for me to identify a current student group at Austin High in this 1974-1975 school year that does foster a sense of humor in everyday life. If I joined that wholesome student group, this might give me more occasions for chuckling."

---"You talk like a writer. You are constantly editing yourself as you talk, and you are constantly offering me multi-sentence replies to simple questions. I find that trait of yours to be very frustrating."

My response to that today: "I value being honest, and I sometimes feel a need to elaborate for the sake of being thorough in making an oral comment to you. But of course it makes sense to be pithy. I want to be succinct without being terse. I regard terseness or bluntness in conversation as inhospitable, defensive, and even combative. Achieving the proper balance can be a very delicate matter, though. If I elaborate excessively in conversation with you or someone else, it may come across as egocentric and vain verbosity on my part. But if I elaborate without overdoing it, it may come across as a kind generosity in sharing with you what I have gleaned from my life so far."

--"You seem very unaffected, as if you yourself have never been socialized in any way in your life so far as of the year 1981."

My response to that today: "Thank you, Aurora, for offering that candid observation of yours about me as we stood outdoors in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in 1981. Today, with the benefit of hindsight, I need to ask you how you would define socialization? Does that imply a certain glibness or flippancy in conversation? Does it imply telling intriguing lies and making insulting statements to others? Does it imply pulling pranks on others? Does it imply withholding displays of enthusiasm toward seemingly friendly new acquaintances? Does it imply withholding words of praise from new acquaintances? Does it imply limiting my words of praise for another person to one or two words of praise per month, say, with any additional praise I might verbalize to another person being strictly limited to an additional and new attribute or trait of that person I have not previously praised in speaking with or writing to that individual?"

---"You verbalize praise to your coworkers and work supervisors too much. Please refrain from offering verbalized compliments to your coworkers or work supervisors at this full-service chain restaurant workplace in Cedar Park, Texas, that's affiliated with an out-of-state corporation. I regard those words of praise you verbalize to staff members here as a form of harassment. Those words of praise can also come across as being insincere on your part."

My response to that today: "I would like to politely point out that I have been verbalizing praise to coworkers and work supervisors in the context of this being a restaurant workplace where I generally have not heard cowokers or work supervisors being praised much by any manager or staff member here. It seems to me cruel and injurious to subject anyone to working conditions inside a workplace in which they are not being rewarded with words of praise for good performance. I have a prior career background as a mental health worker, and as a teaching assistant, among the various jobs I've held. I have a natural tendency to be verbally therapeutic and constructive toward the people I associate with in everyday life, including my coworkers and work supervisors at a workplace where I agree to work. I would also like to politely point out that I have observed a lot of a rather severe alternative here, in which employees criticize one another quite a bit in speaking to coworkers at the waitstation. To me, it would be more professional if staff members here would be encouraged to direct their criticisms of a coworker to an assistant manager or a manager or a Human Resources officer, rather than to that coworker. This would promote greater harmoniousness inside this chain restaurant in Cedar Park, Texas, that offers service to customers from early in the morning until late at night."

---"You are much too honest in the job interviews you attend as a job applicant. In the future, you should tell lies habitually at your job interviews. You will do much better in your career pursuits if you offer a fraudulent application and a fraudulent resume that look impressive to an employer."

My response to that today: "Back in 1982, I strongly disagreed with that advice I received in from a longtime Minneapolis resident who prided himself on being 'savvy'. And today, I still disagree very emphatically with that unsolicited advice that a Minneapolitan offered me. It is true that my honesty during job interviews has apparently hurt me on many occasions. However, I believe that the right type of prospective new employer for myself will be wholesome and law-abiding, and will appreciate my honesty and obedience of the law. The right type of prospective new employer for myself will be pleased when I mention during my job interview that I have not consumed any marijuana on any occasion since the fall of 1984, and that I was never addicted to marijuana at any time, needless to mention. The right type of employer will also be very pleased when I volunteer during my job interview that I have no criminal-conviction record. The right type of employer will also be delighted when I mention during my job interview that I have not consumed any drinking alcohol since the summer of 1990. I always try to make that last point in the context of assuring an employer during my job interview that "you will never find me calling in sick when I've actually got a hangover." I then briefly point out to that prospective new employer why it would be physiologically and chemically impossible for me to ever experience a hangover---unless, of course, someone were to wrong me by secretly lacing an alcohol-free beverage of mine with alcohol during my leisuretime, I do sometimes note during a job interview. I also like to point out during my job interviews that I'm so admired for my career-related honesty that one female work supervisor of mine in Austin, Texas, told me that I am in fact 'legendary' for my honesty at the workplace, she helpfully volunteered to me about five or six years ago during a workshift of mine inside a restaurant."

--"You will find that you will not be receiving any societal confirmation of your strengths or accomplishments. If you can then do well under those circumstances, this is all the more impressive, and much to your credit."

My response to that today: "I would like to thank the friendly Arab-American woman residing that the Sloane House YMCA in Manhattan, when she made that apparently empathetic comment to me back in 1986 in New York City, New York. I would like to add, though, that I myself would never subject anyone else to circumstances of that type. If someone is law-abiding and honorable and industrious and creative, I feel strongly that there should be some humane employer out there, and some human beings out there, who DO admire that person's accomplishments and career-related attributes as well as personal attributes. This praise or acclaim for that individual should not be made contingent on the political or religious ideology or philosophical beliefs of that individual."

---"I regard complete isolation as the best lifestyle in which to be writing creatively. The best writers from British history had no social life, but wrote beautifully."

My response to that today: "I was very surprised when you made that shocking observation to me on the telephone several years ago, during a time period when I lived alone in an apartment unit situated a few blocks from UT-Austin. Your training is as an English-literature instructor, but your choice to exalt complete solitude for a creative writer or fiction writer was sadly mistaken. I question your interpretation of English literature as having been borne of isolation and solitude, primarily, on the part of British writers. I would also like to point out at this time that you have repeatedly declined lunch invitations from me in the 1990s and early 21st Century, so you have yourself played an apparent role in my own solitude in Austin, Texas, over a multi-decade period. I am grateful, though, that you have at least emphasized to me that you completely honor my own privacy rights."

--"You take everyone too seriously. You should blow off the nobodys, and ignore what they say to you."

My response to that today: "I don't agree with you that some people should be clasified as 'nobodys', to quote the term you used rather unappreciatively in that blunt advice you repeatedly offered me in person in 1973 and 1974 during your and my days as students at Stephen F. Austin High School in Austin, Texas. I do take everyone seriously; if someone speaks to me in person, I don't ignore that person's comment. I would also like to point out that if a person whom you currently label as a 'nobody' is treated with respect during any in-person conversations I and others agree to have with that person, maybe that so-called 'nobody' will develop greater self-confidence and later be re-classified by yourself several months later as being a 'somebody'. It is very likely, in fact, that many of the people whom you currently identify as being 'somebodys' were in prior years labeled by schoolmates of theirs as a 'nobody'."

---"I will not be willing to publish that photograph of yourself wearing blue jeans and a T-shirt as you stood in front of a wrecked automobile. The reason is that if 'The Minnesota Daily' student newspaper in 1983 were to publish that photograph in which you had upon request posed for one of our 'Minnesota Daily' photographers in the last few weeeks, it would look like a 'Playgirl' Magazine centerfold that would be sexually titillating and very provocative for young women. 'The Minnesota Daily' is NOT 'Playgirl' Magazine!"

My response to that today: "Donna, when I posed for that photograph that was originally scheduled to accompany my oped column about the various disasters I have had with automobiles as of the early 1980s, I definitely was NOT doing anything that might be regarded as sexually provocative in any way. I was fully clothed, and the photograph of myself was very wholesome. I thought it would make a nice complement to my oped humor column that was published in the special supplement to 'The Minnesota Daily' that you presided over. It makes me angry, even today, that you, a female editor of a special supplement issue to 'The Minnesota Daily' student newspaper, were allowed to simply VETO that very nice photograph of myself standing near a wrecked automobile that was taken by one of the staff photographers for your newspaper, a nice gentleman named Layne Kennedy. Donna, your censoriousness toward me back in 1983 was not appreciated!"

---"Your permanent in-person rejection of myself today, in the year 1976, means that you will be subjected to many years of suffering as a result of your unresolved conflict with me, as I myself see it from my Christian vantage point. My Christian theology emphasizes the crucial importance that any an all interpersonal conflicts between individuals must lead to a reconciliation between them for that conflict to be resolved in a truly Christian manner."

My response to that today: "I am a lifelong non-Christian gentleman, and I am not the least bit bothered by the very secular concept of permanent rejections and permanent exclusions of cited individuals from one's own life and life circumstances. My permanent and irrevocable decision in 1976 to myself reject and lawfully exclude the cited individual from my own life and life circumstances on a permanent and lifelong basis, was one of the wisest and best decisions I have ever made. I greatly value being able to lead a life in the present, and in the future, in which that particular rejected person and that particular rejected person's institutions of affiliation, regardless of which universities and media companies and other institutions or entities that might prove to be, are each lawfully and permanently and irrevocably EXCLUDED from my own life and life circumstances throughout the entirety of the remaining 50 or more years of my life. I might add at this time that if there is ever any factual evidence indicating that that particular rejected person allegedly stalked me or violated my own privacy rights in any way at any time subsequent to January 1 of 1976, each institution or business entity or municipal government or county government or state government or federal government entity guilty of harboring that alleged stalker or guilty of complicity with that alleged stalker, would also be subjected to legal actions (multi-billion dollar lawsuits, for instance) against itelf that I will insist on myself pursuing on own behalf in a court of law against each and every such entity at the earliest opportunity."

---"One of the persons whom you have already lawfully rejected from your own life through a rejection letter you mailed to that individual, very likely will one of the persons attempting to approach you or contact you at some future date. When that scenario occurs, you will have the legal right to yourself reject that individual, including the right to reject the Minnesota-identified person whom you cited to me by name today as being one of the persons whom you have already permanently and irrevocably REJECTED from your own life and life circumstances."

My response to that today: "I found your comment to me of 1993 or 1994, during a long-distance phone call I made to your Minneapolis residence from my apartment in Pampa, Texas, to be very disquieting and alienating. You appeared to be implying by your alarming statement to me on the phone that my legal right to exclude stalkers from my own life is not being fully protected already by the State Government of Texas and by law-enforcement agencies in Texas."

---"As a City Council member of the City Government of Austin, I am making a last-minute cancellation of your pre-scheduled appointment to meet with me at City Hall---an appointment that a staff member of mine had arranged with you several days ago. I am making that last-minute cancellation of your appointment with me because I am uncomfortable with your political and religious beliefs as contained in an E-mail letter you wrote and sent to me. You are free to continue sending me E-mail letters about any topic you wish, but I will not agree to ever meet with you in person at any time."

My response to that today: "Council Member Martinez, I would like to thank you for your continued willingness to accept E-mail correpondence from me that happens to contain political beliefs and personal beliefs that differ dramatically from your own. I might add at this time that I hope you will re-consider your apparent policy you conveyed to me a few years ago of your never agreeing to meet at City Hall at any time with any law-abiding constituent of yours (myself, for instance) whose political and religious beliefs happen to be very incompatible with your own. It seems to me that a truly conscientious public servant holding elective office would welcome and invite a great diversity of political beliefs and religious beliefs from his constituents---including beliefs that differ markedly from that public servant's beliefs."

---"You have been a creative inspiration for me, John. You have inspired me to write a fictional short story about how things should not be."

My response to that today: "Nick, I would like to thank you for that comment you made to me during a time period in which we were working together at the same business establishment. It was good to sense, based on what you volunteered to me during that workshift for each us back in 2003, that I had been a creative inspiration for you during that particular time period. In the six years since then, I have occasionally wondered about the specific themes you may have possibly explored in the fictional short story of yours you apparently wrote that you referred to during a workshift. Maybe I could check to find out if there is a comprehensive and fully up-to-date computer data base offering bibliographical citations for each fictional short story, including any and all short stories written by yourself, that were published in the 21st Century. I am sure that your short story would be intriguing and incisive."

---"When you move from Zapata, Texas, to Pampa, Texas, in order to begin a full-time reporting job for a daily newspaper in Pampa in 1992, pay attention to how the people in Pampa respond to you. From that, you should be able to reach and draw some conclusions."

My response to that today: "That advice you offered to me during a long-distance phone call I made to your residence in Dallas from my private residence in Zapata, Texas, has baffled me ever since. Looking back, I did receive more phone calls during my leisuretime in Pampa, Texas, than I did in Zapata, Texas. I resided in Pampa for a much longer time period, though. Also, the vast majority of the personal phone calls to me in Pampa during my leisuretime were from a Pampa resident seeking or agreeing to play tennis with me. Maybe I should have pursued a career in the field of tennis, which would have fostered more phone calls to me during my leisuretime."

---"I would be very shocked if there were any criminal-law issues relating to your own living conditions and life circumstances in Austin, Texas."

My response to that today: "I myself find it shocking to note that you as the primary story-assignments editor for a very influential magazine based in Austin, Texas, would actually claim in the year 2006 or 2007 that you yourself have no knowledge of and no indications of any possible violations of the state penal code in any context victimizing myself in Austin, Texas. I would like to politely remind you, sir, that you yourself urged me on the telephone from your magazine office back in 2006 or 2007, to myself hire a criminal-law attorney in Austin, Texas, as soon as possible. You offered me that advice immediately after I informed you, this during a phone call I made to your magazine office, that the Travis County District Attorney's Office has officially confirmed for me in writing that it has officially established a voluminous pre-prosecution criminal-law legal file containing hundreds of pages of criminal-law evidence of alleged possible harmful intent or alleged possible criminal intent that various persons allegedly have exhibited toward myself, John Kevin McMillan, over the course of the last several decades."

---"It would be impossible to say whether you are paranoid, based on the circumstances you are being subjected to in the Boston area these days."

My response to that today: "I would like to belatedly thank that Boston-based psychologist for offering me his expert opinion back in 1985 during an in-person consultation I chose to have with him. What's noteworthy about that psychologist's statement is that he acknowledged the presence of manipulative circumstances in my own life in the Boston area of Massachusetts in the mid-1980s that I definitely had NOT authorized or requested. One first-rate Boston-based attorney whom I consulted on the telephone in about 2007, even helpfully stated to me that possibly I was subjected against my wishes to an illegal federally-sponsored mind-control experiment in the mid- and latter 1980s during a time period in which I resided in the Boston area of Massachusetts."

---"As a professor of media law at The University of Minnesota who myself coauthored a textbook on that subject, my advice to you, John, is that you simply IGNORE THE VOICES! If you ignore them, they will go away!"

My response to that today: "More than 20 years have passed since you offered me that emphatic advice in late 1988 during a long-distance phone call I made at my expense to yourself in Minnesota from my rental apartment unit in El Campo, Texas. Professor Gillmor, today I would like to respectfully raise the question of whether you as a Media Law expert may have possibly provided me with some incorrect information when you indicated to me back in 1988 that there was no need for me to file any lawsuit in a court of law, and there was no need for me to file any criminal-law charges through a law-enforcement agency, in order for me to fully protect my own privacy rights, including my own legal right to enjoy full and permanent freedom from unwanted and unauthorized noise pollution injurious to my hearing capacity. I would like to point out to you at this time, Professor Gillmor, that Dr. David Tobey, a highly-rated ear, nose, and throat specialist based in northwest Austin, who has been formally authorized by me in writing to share his medical findings with ANYONE siutated anywhere in the world who contacts him at his first-rate medical office in Austin, Texas, at any time (Dr. Tobey's office phone number in Austin, Texas, U.S.A., being (512) 346-5562) has determined based on examinations of my own hearing capacity over a multi-year period that I myself have sustained permanent damage to my own hearing capacity and medical health in Austin, Texas, that is comparable in magnitude and severity to what police officers sustain through a career involving frequent exposure to gunfire, Dr. Tobey has determined.
As you may already be aware, Professor Gillmor, I myself have never owned ANY weapon in my entire life; and I have almost never heard the sound of gunfire occurring within physical proximity of myself. So please tell me, Professor, whether you now believe that your very emphatic advice to me of 1988 was---if I might quote a famous response to the media from a Nixon Administration that was mired at the time in the Watergate scandal---'inoperative' on your part."


---"IT IS NOT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO END THE VOICES!"

My response to that today: "Thank you again for that emphatic legal advice that you helpfully offered me on the telephone earlier this 21st Century from your media company workplace in downtown Austin. Your honest and emphatic comment to me has since prompted me to politely wonder exactly WHO, in fact, does have the legal responsibility and legal authority to which you cited to me several years ago in that context? Would that be a media company, the Federal Communications Commission, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Office of the Secretary of State of the United States, the Texas Secretary of State in Austin, the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia, the Texas Department of Public Safety, the City Attorney's Office of the City Government of Austin in Austin, Texas; the City Manager of Austin in Austin, Texas; the Texas Legislature; the Attorney General of Texas; the Austin Police Chief, the Travis County County Attorney's Office, the State Comptroller of Texas, the Texas Department of State Health Services state agency, the Governor of Texas, the President of the United States, the United States Congress, or some other person or institution or entity?"

---"In your critiques you write of 'The Minnesota Daily' student newspaper that you are required to write as part of your teaching assistant job in Journalism on this University of Minnesota-Minneapolis campus, you often seem to miss the forest for the trees. You lack a sense of an overview about our student newspaper."

My response to that today: "Having each news and feature story in 'The Minnesota Daily' offer a complete picture to the reader is important. That, to me, is a nice 'forest,' if you will, in its own way. And I still feel that I often excelled through my critiques I wrote in 1982 and 1983, at reminding reporters for 'The Minnesota Daily' about important questions that they neglected to ask in covering any given story for your student newspaper. Looking back, I was much more focused on the news and sports stories than I was on the arts and entertainment stories. Of course it's important to write a critique evaluating all of those sections of your newspaper. I did, at least, invite and obtain several outside critiques of your student newspaper, critiques I posted inside the 'Minnesota Daily' newsroom, that were submitted to me by professional journalists from around the country whom I contacted on behalf of 'The Minnesota Daily'. I attempted to offer you a variety of perspectives on your newspaper from a variety of professional journalists."

---"The anonymous voices seem to be expressing anger toward you in Sweetwater, Texas."

My response to that today: "Since you volunteered that observation to me during a long-distance phone call I made in 1991 from my apartment unit in Sweetwater, Texas, to your home in Austin, Texas, I would like to ask you today how it is that you yourself were somehow aware of 'anger toward John Kevin McMillan' on the part of various persons unbeknownst to me that you had yourself apparently identified for the first time ever in the year 1991. As you will recall, only months before, in 1990, during a long-distance phone call I made to your home in Austin, Texas, from my rental apartment unit in Sweetwater, Texas, you had volunteered to me in that phone conversation, 'You should look upon the voices as prospective friends of yours.' You had thereby suggested to me at that time that none of the persons subjecting me to anonymous communications in 1990 were individuals whom I had already specifically rejected from my own life. Freedom of Non-Association with persons whom one has already rejected from one's own life is, as you know, a corollary of the Freedom of Association clause of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution."

---"I'm sure he wants the voices to end as soon as possible."

My response to that today: "I appreciate your empathetic comment to me back in 1991, when I resided in Sweetwater, Texas, and made a long-distance phone call to you from an auto-repair shop (where yet another used car that I owned in Texas was being repaired) in downtown Sweetwater, about that very important quality of life issue and legal issue for me back then. Looking back, it seems that your certainty about the cited individual seeking in earnest to pursue lawful actions to help terminate violations of my own privacy rights in Texas that involved anonymous verbalized communications inflicted on me on a year-round basis, possibly lacked insight about the cited individual's actual outlook and actual conduct during that time period."

---"You are developing a clientele for yourself here in East Austin."

My response to that today: "To this day, I have been baffled as to which individuals that apparently friendly African-American gentleman with a cited Philadelphia background was referring when he volunteered that comment to me without any context to his remark inside his room of the same apartment complex where I myself was residing during that time period of early 1992, I believe it was. I had very few interactions with any of the guests or visitors at that apartment complex; and I was, of course, leading a completely law-abiding, completely illicit-drug-free, alcohol-free, and completely celibate lifestyle when he made that comment to me during that time period. If that gentleman with a Philadelphia background was in fact referring to his perception of my career prospects as a writer, I find it curious that he did not cite any periodicals or book publishers that he believed to be particularly appreciative of me during that period."

---"It must be VERY FATIGUING for you to be pursuing a full-time newspaper reporting job in El Campo, Texas, while hearing voices throughout all of the day and night, each day of your life there in El Campo."

My response to that today: "You made that comment to me in 1988, during a long-distance phone all I made to your residence in Washington,D.C., from my apartment complex in El Campo, Texas. I find it curious that you never cited to me any strategy you would recommend for lawfully and in a civil manner putting an end to illegal anonymous communications I repeatedly complained to you about that were intrusive upon my own and others' privacy rights. You never once expressed any direct interest of your own in a cited scenario in which the 'voices,' as you yourself referred to them, would in fact be lawfully terminated in a manner not injurious to myself and involving civil and law-abiding conduct by myself."

---"I don't think you should compare yourself to the northeastern man you just cited! Do you think that's a good idea, to compare yourself to him in any way?"

My response to that today: "When you made that panicky-sounding and very emphatic comment to me from your end of the phone line in the summer of 1991, a period when I resided in Cuero, Texas, I later wondered why my making a verbalized comparison between myself and that northeastern man triggered in you a reply indicating dismay bordering on hysteria from your end of the phone line. Is it possible that you were withholding from me some unflattering factual information you yourself were privy to about that northeastern man? I am reminded, for instance, that you posed a very emphatic question to me only three years before-----in late 1988 when I lived in El Campo, Texas---about a cited male adult person I mentioned to you by name whom I had encountered in Quincy, Massachusetts, in mid- and latter 1980s. Your emphatic question to me on the telephone in late 1988 about that cited individual was: 'IS HE A NICE PERSON?'"

--"I urge you to move out of the Boston area as soon as possible! The Boston area of Massachusetts has fallen under the influence of a very demagogic and dangerous man!"

My response to that today: "When you urged me in late 1987 or early 1988, during a long-distance phone call I made to your private residence in Washington, D.C., to myself flee from the Boston area, you did not cite to me the legal name of the citedly demagogic man to whom you referred. Do you think it might have been helpful to me if you had at least cited his full legal name to me, a legal name that I could have then shared with an attorney member of the State Bar of Texas when I later consulted an attorney in person at her law firm office in El Campo, Texas, back in 1988. Also, your warning to me on the telephone never clearly explained why that particular cited 'demagogic' man had any influence on or any effect on my own living conditions in the Boston area in 1987 or 1988."

---"I should warn you that there is a very, very domineering man in the background of your own life here in the Boston area of Massachusetts."

My response to that today: "I appreciate your kind empathy in offering that disclosure of information to me during a meeting we had in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1987 or 1986. Looking back, I wish I had asked you if you had met that individual in person, and if so, how did you determine that he is very inflexible and ruthlessly domineering?"

---"The people of Boston, Mass., are not mellow enough toward you. You should move back to Minneapolis, Minnesota, as soon as possible! The people of Minneapolis are very mellow, and you need to be around people like that!"

My response to that today: "Your repeated advice to me on the telephone during long-distance phone call inquiries I made in the mid-1980s to your private residence in the Twin Cities of Minnesota, implied that you yourself knew the people of Boston, Mass., very well. But when you had referred to your own travels around the world, the place you cited the most frequently to me was, in fact Canada--not Boston. If you will recall, you emphasized to me repeatedly in the year 1983, for instance, that you yourself were 'an expert on Canadian fiction,' and that you had met the American fiction writer Joyce Carol Oates at a writers' workshop you attended in Canada. Since you spoke so emphatically to me about the cited outlook of Bostonians toward me, does this also imply that you had visited the Boston area in the mid-1980s and visited there for several weeks, in order to reach your own stated conclusion about the people of Boston being somehow unfriendly or unkind or inhospitable toward myself, in particular?"

---"I'm NOT LIKE YOU!"

My response to that today: "It is good to sense that you have a strong sense of who you are as a human being. Your self-awareness in that way sets you apart from many Americans.... I would like to respectfully remind you at this time that among my own traits as a human being are consistent obedience of the law; honesty; complete and year-round abstention from any and all illicit drugs, tobacco products, or alcoholic beverages; and civility. One of my other traits is niceness toward a wide range of persons. I would like to raise the question today of whether there might be a few personal attributes and traits you have identified in myself that are also attributes and traits you can identify with. For instance, I believe you indicated to me that you yourself do not consume any tobacco products--a very healthy choice you made in your own life. So possibly you might find a few areas of agreement between your own lifestyle and personal values and, on the other hand, my lifestyle and personal values. And identifying any points of agreement you have with another person (myself, for instance) can also help you to avoid any tendency toward completely dismissing the humanity of that other person, regardless of whether you yourself ever agree to meet with or speak with that person in the present or future in any context."


---"One of the men who has had a major role in your own life is a man you encountered in the northeast many years ago, someone whom I myself regard as being very abnormal. He definitely is not a normal person."

My response to that today: "I find it noteworthy that in the 1991 long-distance phone call made to your Austin home in which you chose to offer this disclosure to me, you cited conclusions you had reached about that man without your ever having spoken with him or exchanged letters with him directly at any time, based on what you told me about him. It seems that you may have read about him through some news media company's reportage about that northeastern American man whom you describe as being 'abnormal'. Do you mind if I ask you which news media had the best credibility with you in that way?"

---"It would be very inappropriate for ANY of the persons whom you yourself ever previously encountered in your life prior to 1996, to themselves have any legal authority of any type in regard to yourself."

My response to that today: "It is interesting that your comment to me on the telephone in 1996, during a long-distance phone call I made to your home in Austin, Texas, from Denver City, Texas, in west Texas, was quite adamant about your conclusion in that way. Would you be willing to elaborate at this time as to why you subscribe to the view that NO ONE whom I had previously encountered at any time in my life prior to the year 1996, should be permitted to hold any legal authority in regard to myself and my own life circumstances, in your very emphatic view. Was your emphatic judgment based on your impression that ALL of the persons whom I encountered prior to 1996, had conflict of interest in any conduct they might pursue toward myself?"

---"I think you're going to write about me in the future someday, and it won't be nice. What you write about me in the future won't be flattering to myself, I feel. That is the primary reason why I'm very reluctant about keeping up with you at all, John."

My response to that today: "I was very surprised when you made that completely unsolicited statement to me in person during a visit of mine to New Ulm, Minnesota, in 1982 or 1983---a matter of two or three years after you loudly proclaimed at a German-heritage festival in New Ulm, Minnesota, we were each covering for our daily newspaper employer, that you as a biological mother were so fond of me you planned to 'adopt' me, you stated to me enthusiastically that day with no apparent context to your profession of great fondness for myself that day in 1980. As for your 1982 or 1983 'change-of-heart' statement you abruptly and rather coldly verbalized to me, there was no apparent context to your comment. I had made no statement to you or anyone else about my ever planning to write about you in any context. What's intriguing about your sudden announcement in person in downtown New Ulm, Minnesota, is that you were hinting that you possibly planned to exclude me from your own future life because of actions I had never, in fact, ever pursued in the past or present, but that I was merely EXPECTED to pursue in the future."

---"I have never understood why you became so anti-scientific in your own values and outlook toward life."

My response to that to that today: "Your 1980 letter to me containing that cited dismay toward myself appeared to be criticizing me for having different values from yourself. Your letter failed to note that I am, at least, law-abiding in my expression of my own values and beliefs. I'm also a non-smoker, for instance, which partly indicates that I agree with the findings of medical science that smoking tobacco being very injurious to a person's health. Could you give some me some specific examples of what you believe to be my anti-scientific bias?

--"Your Freedom of Speech can only go so far!"

My response to that today: "I find it interesting that you express apparent support for restrictions being imposed on my own Freedom of Speech, back when you offered me that emphatic declaration during a long-distance phone call I made to you in Texas from Quincy, Massachusetts, in 1986 or 1987. I never heard you express concern of that type about the assertion of Freedom of Speech by anyone else, to the best of my recollection. At no time during my conversations with you during that time period of the mid- and late 1980s, did you cite to me any concerns of yours about the actual content of my own personal journal-writing or letter-writing during that time period. Nor did you ever cite to me any conduct of mine that was in any way illegal. You appeared to sense, in fact, that I was not only law-abiding but creative during that time period 1986 or 1987. For instance, during a long-distance phone call I made from Quincy, Masachusetts, to your private residence in the Austin area, you responded to a question from me by saying, 'I have read that he is an editor of "The New York Times." And, he may have a job for you. For you to receive that job offer from that "New York Times" editor, you may well have to move back to Minneapolis, Minnesota.' Fortunately for me, I chose to reject the cited option of that type."

---"In your own future, I predict that you will be encountering lots of mercenaries. They will be persons who are paid by someone else to profess a personal interest in you, even though they don't have any sincere personal interest in you as a human being."

My response to that today: "Since you offered me that prediction in 1984 or 1983 during a time period in which you were employed full-time as a University of Minnesota Math Department clerical employee in Minneapolis, how is it that you could have been provided with this type of 'insider scoop' about my own expected future circumstances? I am not aware of anything in your job description as a clerical employee of the University of Minnesota in the year 1983 or 1984 that involved evaluations by yourself of the motives of individuals whom I might encounter in my own life---a life very different from your own, I wish to politely emphasize at this time----in my next state of Massachusetts, for instance. You have never indicated that you know any current resident of Massachusetts, and yet your 'a world of mercenaries' prediction presumes to analyze in advance the expected motives of Massachusetts residents whom I encounter after I move from Minnesota to that state in 1984."


---"Your living conditions you've experienced involving multi-year long-term celibacy for yourself in more than one U.S. state sound very, very severe toward yourself!"

My response to that today: "Thank you for your apparent empathy on the telephone during that long-distance phone call I made to you and your husband's home in Dallas."

---"I'm a lot like you."

My response to that today: "I hope you don't mind my reminding you that you have also repeatedly stated to me in 1982, 1983, and 1984, that you yourself are a self-acknowledged pathological liar. You have also admitted to me that when a graduate student in English at The University of Minnesota told you he regarded your own fiction writing as immature, you retaliated by writing and sending a fraudulent letter to the chairman of the English Department of that public university. In that letter, from what you later admitted to me on the telephone, you deliberately and falsely and with harmful intent on your part accused that graduate student in English of committing plagiarism in his dissertation. You have also admitted to me, as you did in the year 1983, that you regard yourself and all other self-described artists as being above the law, you emphasized to me during an outdoor conversation a matter of blocks from the University of Minnesota campus. You made that emphatic statement to me minutes after I was very surprised to observe you using a key of yours to enter your university employer's math department office and yourself on your own volition and acting alone, steal hundreds of pages of typing paper from that math department main office, based on what you later admitted to me had been unauthorized conduct on your part. You have also admitted to me that during regular working hours for you one workday, you shouted with rage at an undergraduate student who entered your math department office that day, 'F--k (obscenity) you!'" You have also repeatedly admitted to me that you are a self-acknowledged former drug addict and former alcohol addict. Are you insinuating at this time, in the year 1982, 1983, or 1984, that you really and truly regard me as also being, like yourself in those ways, a pathological liar, a source of false allegations aimed at harming someone's career because he had not liked my own writing style, a source of profane speech directly and loudly verbalized by me during working hours for myself, and a former or current drug addict or alcoholic? I would hope not!"

---"The story you just told me about expressing affection toward me in your recent nocturnal dream causes me to wince with disgust! It elicits a EEEWWWW from me, in fact!"

My response to that today: "When I made a long-distance phone call in 1990 from my apartment in Sweetwater, Texas, to you, a married woman, and your husband's home in north Texas, I had assumed that you would be delighted about a very pleasant and appreciative nocturnal dream of mine about you I had had during my sleep in 1990. My intent was to show polite appreciation for you, as one point I was sharing with you in that long-distance phone conversation. I felt a bit hurt that you apparently felt a need to react, much to my surprise, with cited disgust and revulsion over what I felt had been one total innocent and sweet dream about yourself I could recall that I had had during my sleep in Sweetwater, Texas, in 1990."

--"You definitely are NOT well suited to the medium of television! Your strength is as a writer!"

My response to that today: "I appreciate your candor, but I would like to point out that you were so emphatic about expressing your view to me in that 1991 phone call I made to your Dallas home, that I myself was NOT a good match for a career or pursuit in the field of television, that I felt a bit demoralized by an apparent put-down of myself you verbalized. However, I do appreciate your vote of confidence in my capabilities as a writer, at least."

--"I'm sure the people of Sweetwater, Texas, are just shocked by something about you and your conduct."

My response to that today: "You made that comment to me on the telephone in 1990, during a multi-decade period in which you as a married woman in Dallas, Texas, identified yourself as being a personal friend of mine. You may not have been aware of it at the time, but your comment had a demoralizing effect on me. You were aware at the time that that I was in fact leading a law-abiding, tobacco-free, alcohol-free, illicit-drug-free, and completely celibate, platonically-polite, clean-talking, wholesome lifestyle in which I was working full-time as a newspaper reporter in Sweetwater, Texas. I find it rather odd that you stated to me that that lifestyle of mine was somehow shocking to the people of Sweetwater, Texas."

---"What you don't understand about my wife is that she has a real killer instinct."

My response to that today: "When you emphatically volunteered that statement to me during a long-distance phone call I made to your home in north Texas or northeast Texas, in the early 1980s, I found the wording of your comment to be a bit on the shocking side. And I have been haunted by that comment of yours ever since. I have often wondered, in fact, exactly what you meant by that phrasing? Were you merely referring to your perception that your wife had been very aggressive as an investigative reporter for her daily newspaper employer in northeast Texas, and that some of the investigative pieces she wrote had possibly resulted in the arrests of government officials in Tyler, Texas? Or did you mean something more than that, in ways that I as a gentlemanly and law-abiding individual was not able to myself visualize at that time."

---"She (a cited female former acquaintance from my distant past) always did have a thing for you, John."

My response to that today: "I find it very curious that you as a married woman in Dallas, Texas, chose to make an unsolicited 1991 long-distance phone call to my apartment in Sweetwater, Texas, from your and your husband's home in Dallas, Texas, in order to yourself volunteer this statement to me about a former female coworker of mine at 'The Daily Texan' student newspaper on the UT-Austin campus, without any apparent context to that rather shocking disclosure from you. You seemed to be indicating to me in your 1991 phone call that you were aware that a female former coworker of mine at 'The Daily Texan,' and someone who herself had never once verbally praised or verbally complimented me at any time, and who had in fact repeatedly criticized me on the telephone for having complained to her about verbal abuse of myself by a cited male staff member at 'The Daily Texan' whose first name began with the letter 'L,' had herself somehow been obsessed with me for decades. Any such obsession toward me by herself had occurred even though I had specifically chosen NOT to keep up with her ever since my graduation from UT-Austin. I had not written to her or spoken with her in ages. The only exception to that had been a one-time phone call I made to her residence in Colorado from Austin, Texas, in 1988 in which I sought to find out from her whether she knew who the alleged source of violations of MY privacy rights in Austin, Texas, happened to be. She had responded in a very insulting manner by asking me, though in a seemingly good-humored manner on her part, 'Are you a manic-depressive? Are you a paranoid-schizophrenic?' I did not find those two abrupt and shocking questions with no context to them to be at all humorous or amusing, and she definitely was NOT authorized to have any involvement in my own life, as you were no doubt aware in the year 1991 when you made that one unsolicited phone call to my residence in Sweetwater, Texas."

---"Because you support court-ordered and legal capital punishment for the crimes of either homicide or attempted homicide, I cannot ever be a personal friend of yours. One of my personal policies is that I never agree to be a personal friend of ANYONE who supports court-ordered capital punishment for homicide or, for that matter, attempted homicide."

My response to that today: "Your comment to me in 2003 was disappointing to me. However, it is, of course, your Freedom of Association-protected, Freedom of Speech-protected, and Freedom of Religion-protected legal and Constitutional right to NEVER be a mutual-consent personal friend of anyone who supports capital punishment.
I do find it a bit curious, incidentally, that you make your comment to me about this in such an emphatic and almost indignant-sounding manner. Is it there a possibility, however remote, that you yourself know of at least one person from your own life who either attempted to commit homicide ---or who actually did commit homicide, for that matter-- in a manner victimizing someone else, and possibly even me as a cited or intended victim of that person's planned or actual violence?"

---"Thank you for making this phone call to me at my north Texas home on your birthday of April 27 in 1997. I am very alarmed by your report to me in this birthday phone call that you have been very upset and felt degraded because you've heard repeated and incessant anonymous verbalized communications in Austin, Texas, throughout each day of your life there in the Austin area in April of 1997, in which persons other than yourself have repeatedly and incessantly stated to you through electronic technology of some type, 'Why don't you just commit suicide?' I agree with you that it is disgusting and very offensive that numerous persons are talking to you like that in Austin, Texas."

My response to that today: "Margaret, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for having apparently responded in a very prompt and helpful and empathetic manner to that complaint I offered you over the telephone on April 27, 1997, during a long-distance phone call I made to you from a private residence in Westlake Hills, Texas. I noticed immediately after I got off the phone with you on that birthday of mine in 1997 that the incessant suicide taunts from anonymous verbalized communications to which I had been subjected against my wishes and without my own prior authorization in Austin, Texas, and Westlake Hills, Texas, had suddenly ended. The birthday present you generously gave me on April 27, 1997, in which you apparently were somehow able to quickly identify and contact the source of those anonymous communications in Dallas or elsewhere, and ask those persons to please refrain from making suicide taunts to me on that repeated basis, was one of the very finest birthday presents I have ever received!"

---"I can definitely state again that I'm sure you are hearing actual, verifiable, audible, anonymous communications, or voices in the background, in Austin, Texas, that I myself have also heard and am aware of. However, I don't know who or what the source of those voices might be."

My response to that today: "Thank you for that disclosure you made during a long-distance phone call I made to your home in Texas. Since you are the wife of a very distinguished private attorney member of the State Bar of Texas state agency---a state agency headquartered in Austin, Texas----and since you reside in a Texan city, I would have hoped that you might have also been able to share with me additional insight and additional factual information about this very important legal matter and quality of life matter for myself. It would have been very helpful to me if you had contacted the Attorney General of Texas in Austin, or a judge in Texas, or the Travis County District Attorney in Austin, or the Texas Department of Public Safety state agency in Austin, or the Austin Police Department in Austin, or the Travis County County Attorney in Austin, or the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and officially confirmed for that legal entity or individual in writing that you were also aware of the cited voices impinging on my own privacy rights in Austin, Texas, as being a verifiable, empirically observable, legally documented source of noise pollution injurious to myself in Austin, Texas. Having said that, I might add that I am very grateful at this time that you at least were willing to state to me that those injurious voices or noise pollution sources are continuing to harass and abuse and harm myself in Austin, Texas, and that you are fully aware that I myself did not request them and I definitely do not want them or need them, and that I will of course press legal charges accordingly in a court of law in Austin, Texas, at the earliest opportunity."

---"The project involving manipulations of your own life and life circumstances in Austin, Texas, is winding down."

My response to that today: "When you offered me that apparently reassuring observation back in 1997, during a local phone call I made to your home from the apartment unit where I resided near the University of Texas at Austin, you indicated to me that those cited manipulations being sponsored by others without my own prior consent were finally about to end. Today, with the benefit of hindsight, I question the level of sincerity of your 1997 assurance to me on the telephone."

---"The voices you are hearing every day in Big Spring, Texas, are a daily tribute to you and a flattering statement about you from the people of Massachusetts."

My response to that today: "You may recall that when you offered me that observation during a long-distance phone call I made to you in 1989 from my apartment unit in Big Spring, Texas, to your newspaper office in Palmer, Massachusetts, you also discussed with me your stated interest at that time in offering me a full-time sports-writing job at Palmer, Massachusetts. I would be covering the high-school sports scene in the Palmer area, you politely mentioned. I would like to thank you at this time for your conveyed vote of confidence in myself and my capabilities. (Back in 1989, I mentioned to you on the telephone that my prior experience at reporting on sports-theme stories was only minimal. Since then, however, I did for several months of 1995 report full-time on high school varsity sports squads in the Baytown area of Texas, including the Baytown Lee High School varsity football team, for 'The Baytown Sun' daily newspaper in Baytown, Texas. I particularly enjoyed writing feature stories about varsity athletes and varsity athletic squads.) As for your 1989 observation in that phone conversation about anonymous voices emanating from Massachusetts being a vote of confidence in me emanating from Massachusetts, I would like to like to respectfully pose the question to you today of whether you believe it fair of me today to prefer to receive praise for myself from Massachusetts in the form of signed letters, friendly E-mail letters citing the author's name, friendly personal phone calls identifying the caller by name, or friendly knocks at the front door of my apartment unit of today from individuals who directly identify themselves to me by name. Praise of that type, I'm sure you might agree, is much more heartfelt and uplifting than is praise in the form of anonymous communications to myself."

--"I'm sure the people of England would be interested in listening to the voices."

My response to that today: "Thank you for that implicit acknowledgement you offered me back in 1990 or 1991, during a long-distance phone call I made to your home in Maryland from my apartment unit in Sweetwater, Texas. As you may recall, I had mentioned to you in that phone call the possibility that I myself might someday visit Great Britain. That comment from myself prompted your surprising reply that you are very sure that 'the people of England would be interested in hearing the voices' in the background being inflicted anonymously on Great Britain in conjunction with my visit, you informed me."

---"Why would ANYONE be so sadistic as to manipulate your own living conditions and life circumstances in Quincy, Massachusetts, so as to inflict misery and pervasive distractions and frustration and anxiety on you on a year-round basis?"

My response to that today: "If you will recall, you posed that surprisingly emphatic question to me in a manner conveying very dramatic incredulity through your tone of voice and deliberate rate of speech on your part---this in the year 1986 or 1987 during that long-distance phone call I made to your home in Central Texas from Quincy, Massachusetts----toward the very possibility that any person would be as cruel and gratuitously injurious toward myself, John Kevin McMillan of Quincy, Massachusetts, as I myself had indicated to you in repeated complaints of mine to yourself at your Central Texan residence on the telephone during that time period. You indicated to me that you were not aware of any one person whom you yourself believed or suspected of having wronged myself in any way during that multi-month and multi-year time period in the Quincy area and Boston area of Massachusetts."

---"I have my reasons for wanting the voices to continue!"

My response to that today: "During that long-distance phone call I made to your Austin home from my apartment in Sweetwater, Texas, in 1990 or 1991, I was struck by the unnaturally sweet-sounding tone of voice you chose to offer me in explaining your own very surprising stated support for continuation of anonymous communications voices in the background, including at my newspaper employer workplace, throughout that time period. Looking back, I wish you had offered elaboration to me on why you yourself had your cited 'reasons for wanting the voices to continue!'"

---"You are not on trial! You are not on trial! The comments you verbalize in writing and orally and your internal thought process, and your various actions of any type, are NOT currently serving as a basis for an ongoing multi-year courtroom trial proceeding involving yourself as the defendant. So remember, YOU ARE NOT ON TRIAL!"

My response that today: "When I recall those very surprising unsolicited disclosures you made to me in 1990 or 1991 during long-distance phone calls I made to your home in Austin, Texas, from my apartment unit in Sweetwater, Texas, I still find it baffling that you chose on your own volition to volunteer any such hypothetical scenario in order to then emphasize that of course, that scenario was NOT in fact occurring, you repeatedly declared to me with emphasis in your voice. The very fact that you made those unsolicited statements to me was very distracting to me, since it prompted me to wonder about any hypothetical scenario in which law-abiding conduct by myself, such as civilly and lawfully stated beliefs of mine that some might label as critical toward a cited subculture, had somehow been incorrectly classified by some attorney or law firm or legal entity as allegedly 'violative of the law' in the view of some judge or jury or attorney unbeknownst to myself. Any such outlook on the part of any such attorney would have been very severe and injurious censoriousness that wronged myself and was was very repressive in nature, I wish to emphasize today."

---"I'm very anti-religious."

My response to that today: "You volunteered that statement to me during a two-person meeting we had in January of 1990 in Big Spring, Texas, and I noticed that you smiled knowingly as you made your comment. You appeared to be possibly indicating that you were aware of one religious group or another that allegedly had a censorious or repressive or severe or cruel or injurious involvement in my own living conditions or life circumstances in Big Spring, Texas, that was evident to you during that two-person conversation we had. Looking back, I wish I had asked you to please tell me whether actions by any particular religious group were at all evident to you or identifiable to you in Big Spring, Texas, and if so, whether those actions by that cited religious group posed a major concern to you."

---"If year-round electronic surveillance of yourself is in fact occurring in the Austin area of Texas these days, I as the attorney member of the State Bar of Texas providing you with legal consultation services can assure you that that electronic surveillance is solely for your own good."

My response to that today: "Your comment to me in 1997 or 1998 during a two-person legal consultation I had with you, this during a multi-month period in which I paid you more than $1,000 in legal fees I incurred from you, comprised a noteworthy departure from the content of what a private-law attorney would normally state to a client. You seemed to be indicating to me during that two-person legal consultation that you agreed with the cited 'rationale' provided by whichever government official or government-sponsored institution had allegedly violated my own privacy rights by subjecting me to electronic surveillance in Austin, Texas, in the late 1990s."

---"As a highly-regarded Constitutional rights expert here in Austin, Texas, who has myself agreed to meet in person with you today inside my downtown Austin law firm, I can tell you very emphatically that I am not aware of ANY Constitutional rights legal issue that relates to yourself in any way. You have no need to consult a Constitutional rights attorney."

My response to that today: "That 1997 two-person first-time meeting I had with you inside your law firm office in downtown Austin was very demoralizing to me. You gave me the impression through your emphatic and scathing tone of voice that I had, in fact, wasted your time with esoteric, abstract-sounding, imaginary concerns of mine about legal issues, including privacy-rights violations I cited to you during that in-person legal consultation, that did not correspond with any actual Constitutional rights legal issues, you emphatically informed me. My only consolation from that meeting was your helpful statement to me that if at some future date a Constitutional rights legal issue that related to me in any way were ever to present itself, you would be willing to consider providing me with legal representation in a court of law in Austin."

---"It is possible that the Travis County County Attorney's Office is currently sponsoring an investigation of you aimed at identifying whether you have written any checks that bounced, and then pressing charges against you in a court of law."

My response to that today: "When you as a private attorney member of the State Bar of Texas offered me that surprising statement in a meeting I had with you in your law firm during a period of financial hardship for me in 1997 or 1998, I felt very demoralized by your apparent disclosure. Your disclosure seemed to indicate to me that state law in Texas somehow permits the Travis County County Attorney's Office in Austin, Texas, to electronically surveillance me on a year-round basis in order to identify any evidence that any check I write somehow bounces because of an oversight on my part, for instance, or any other possibly incriminating legal evidence about me that any such County Attorney-sponsored electronic surveillance of me might somehow turn up. With all due respect, sir, since I realize that you are a highly-rated University of Texas at Austin Law School alumnus and an attorney with many years of professional experience, I need to tell you today that your warnings to me about alleged violations of my privacy rights by the Travis County County Attorney's Office, did inflict lots of anxiety and emotional duress on myself. However, I did appreciate your many in-person assurances to me during that time period that you yourself as a Christian-identified attorney knew me to be a law-abiding and civil and honorable and highly intelligent gentleman and polite legal-consultation services client of yours during that time period."

---"Your decision to consult a private attorney in Austin, Texas, should help you by addressing a major injustice that was obviously done to you here in Austin."

My response to that today: "Thank you for that kindly empathetic observation you generously offered me on your own volition in 1997 inside your family home in east Austin. Unfortunately, since the spring of 1997, none of the 30 or more respective Ausin-based attorney members of the State Bar of Texas whom I have contacted by telephone or by E-mail or sent signed letters to via the U.S. Postal Service or whom I have met with in person inside their law firm, with the exception of one total private attorney based in downtown Austin, have ever stated to me that he or she had identified any issue that would be the basis for my filing a lawsuit in a court of law in Austin. An Austin-based attorney in 1997 did helpfully advise me to file a legal claim in small-claims court in Austin, and I did as he advised on that. In the time period since then, no attorney in the Austin area whom I can recall has ever cited to me any specific legal action involving a lawsuit that I could file in a court of law against any person or civic group or political organization or entity or institution."

---"The two cities of the world that would be the most tolerant toward you and your lifestyle, and the best places for you to live in, are either Amsterdam in the Netherlands or Austin, Texas. Austin is a fine place for you."

My response to that today: "I would like to thank that gentlemanly Austin High alumnus and Austin-based private attorney member of the State Bar of Texas for his in-person legal advice to myself inside his downtown Austin law firm in 1995. In his legal advice to me that day, that attorney volunteered to me that either Amsterdam, The Netherlands, or Austin, Texas, would be the two cities in the entire world that would be the most receptive toward me, according to that very distinguished private attorney. Looking back, I find it curious that that private attorney cited Amsterdam among the two cities of the world where I would have the greatest chance for a successful life. I myself am a fervent opponent of illicit-drug consumption, and I strongly support enforcement of the law against illicit drug activities. Amsterdam is a city where illicit-drug activities are somehow permitted by the government, a permissiveness that I regard as being pervasively injurious."

---"As an attorney member of the State Bar of Texas and as a recent University of Texas at Austin Law School alumnus, I sense that in the future, you (John Kevin McMillan) will do something illegal."

My response to that today: "I hope you don't mind my mentioning today that your unsolicited observation to me in 2005 inside your law office in downtown Austin, Texas, has been distracting to me ever since. During my consultations with you, I did not cite to you any previous or current illegal conduct by myself, and you did not cite to me any illegal conduct by myself of which you yourself were aware, either. In fact, during my second in-person meeting with you, you specifically cited to me the name of one Austin-based male adult person employed by a State of Texas agency in Austin, whom you yourself cited to me by name as someone whom you suspected of possibly exhibiting harmful intent and alleged criminal intent victimizing myself. I regard it as noteworthy that you did not advise me to contact the Austin Police Department or the Travis County District Attorney's Office or the Travis County County Attorney's Office about the cited male adult person residing in Austin, Texas. As for the alarming prediction of expected "illegal" conduct by myself at some future date that you volunteered to me during my second meeting with you, I would like to assure you at this time that I have diligently strived to be consistently honest and law-abiding throughout the entire time period since I politely consulted you in person. Perhaps I should earn a 'Surprisingly Law-Abiding Adult Male Texan of the Year Award' from the State Bar of Texas state agency, as an eloquently polite response to the
'you are likely to break the law in the future' prediction you had verbalized to me in person several years ago without any apparent context to that comment."

---"You should strive to become as confident in your oral communications with others as you are in your writing."

My response to that today: "An in-person conversation with another person is often complicated by that individual stating to me that he cannot understand my accent and locution. Through the years, a variety of Texans have each told me that they felt sure I was originally from such places as New York State, England, and Massachusetts. Also, skeptical facial expression and impolite body language that some listeners offer me can challenge my ability to achieve full self-confidence while speaking in person with that individual. If the other person does not smile at me, this prompts me to wonder if he as truly friendly or well-intended toward me as he professes to be. I also find that if the other person uses off-color or cynical language in speaking to me, this can be a bit intimidating. These are just some of the reasons why a conversation in person can be more difficult for me than writing is."

---"Even though you have repeatedly over a multi-decade period indicated to me that you feel comfortable as a human being with a significantly higher percentage of all heterosexual adult men and of all heterosexual adult women than of the other cited subpopulations of adult persons, I need to warn you at this time that I am anticipating a future scenario for you at a State Government of Texas workplace in which your work supervisor will be a lesbian."

My response to that today: "That scenario you cited to me in a panicky-sounding and dramatic voice on the telephone during a local phone call I made to you in Austin in late 1991, inflicted needless emotional duress and suffering on myself. As a lawfully heterophiliacal and masculine, morally and aesthetically straight, adult gentleman, I have never signed any contract at any time with any person or entity or law firm at any time that would have involved any such repressively heterophobic hypothetical scenario. And at least one private attorney member of the State Bar of Texas in Austin, Texas, assured me in writing in the late 1990s, for instance, that my own lawfully-conveyed heterophilia and accompanying pro-masculine-and-pro-cleanshaven adult-male outlook on my part, is fully and legally protected by the U.S. Constitution and the American legal system."

---"If you continue to complain to myself and others about your living conditions and life circumstances in Texas, you will find that NO major newspaper will be willing to hire you!"

My response to that today: "When you offered me that shocking outlook in 1990, during a period in which I resided in Big Spring, Texas, I was very disappointed by your lack of empathy toward myself. I regard it as tragically ironic that you as a female full-time newspaper reporter for 'The Austin American-Statesman' during that time period were indicating to me that you do not fully support my own Freedom of Speech and my own Freedom of Religion legal and Constitutional rights! Your censorious outlook toward me was, and will always be, very offensive to me!"


---"You're Johnny McMillion---pounds, that is!"

My response to that today: "It's obvious you have a flair for cynical-sounding wit, even as a junior high school student in Austin in the year 1971 or 1972. However, I wish you would keep in mind that when you gleefully adddress me on your own initiative as 'Johnny McMillion' on the campus of this Austin Independent School District secondary-education campus, and when you thereby imply that you regard me as being morbidly obese, you aren't being fair to me. I do play tennis during my leisuretime, for instance, which many overweight youths are not doing. And I definitely am not morbidly obese. I was very pleased to note, for instance, that one of the photographs of myself taken for our junior-high school school yearbook reminded me a bit of Senator Edward Kennedy. And I certainly don't think of Senator Kennedy as being morbidly obese in the year 1971 or 1972."

---"You're a meshugana, which means that you are a native of Michigan."

My response to that today: "As you will recall, when you as a male schoolmate of mine informed me in 1969 or 1970 that I was a 'meshugana' at a time between class periods when you and I happened to each be walking outdoors from one wing of O.Henry Junior High School to another wing of that school in Austin, Texas, I had not made any prior comment to you that was at all disrespectful toward you. Also, I had no idea what the word 'meshugana' means. I have since learned from Internet research that 'meshugana' is a Yiddish slang word for 'a crazy person.' I consider myself to be psychologically healthy, and it's unfortunate you apparently did not acknowledge that about me in the year 1969 or 1970, when I, like you, was an honors student at our junior high cmapus in Austin. As for your assertion to me in 1969 or 1970 that I was born in the U.S. state of Michigan, I was in fact born in the U.S. state of Nebraska. I'm proud to be a native of Nebraska, even though I have not resided in Nebraska since my parents moved me to Texas with my childhood family at age one and one-half, and I personally don't recall having ever had any return visit to Nebraska on any occasion."

---"The new nickname that we schoolmates of yours have affectionately given you here at Stephen F. Austin High School in Austin, Texas, is 'Lizard Man'. And we sometimes will be addressing you as 'Lizard' for short."

My response to that today: "I appreciate the seemingly friendly and apparent personal interest in me that several of you Austin High School varsity debate squad members exhibited toward me back in 1973 or 1974, when several of you began addressing me as 'Lizard Man' or 'Lizard' during our debate squad events and debate squad trips to debate tournaments sponsored by other high schools or universities in Houston, Bellaire, San Marcos, Dallas, Fort Worth, Waco, and Austin. Several of you Austin High School debate squad colleagues of mine explained to me at the time that since I had a bad acne problem on my facial complexion, and since I spoke so frequently and so rapidly that it often seemed as if my tongue was dangling like a lizard, this is why you chose to dub me 'Lizard Man.' Today, with the benefit of hindsight, I believe I would have asked members of my debate squad to please find a more flattering substitute nickname for me during that time period. The nickname of 'Lizard Man' did not enhance my self-confidence during that time period. It's also true that I was completely celibate and had no romantic-dating life at all, and I had very few personal friends who actually made phone calls to me at my parents' home, during my high school years. However, I can at least say that the jocularity exhibited by the entire Austin High debate squad during my junior year at Austin High was often fun and enjoyable. We had lots of humorous moments together as a debate squad that school year. And fortunately for me today, I never run into anyone in Austin who says to me, 'Sure I remember you. You're Lizard Man! So how is it going, Lizard?'"

---"You are a new breed of human being, 'Lizardus Mannus', with foot in mouth that never fails."

My response to that today: "When you included that line in your birthday poem tribute to myself that you read aloud on or about April 27 in 1974, this inside a cafeteria near Barton Springs Boulevard and South First Street near downtown Austin, my face was beet red with embarrassment. However, I would like to point out that this time that that particular line was one of the lines you had written that elicited the greatest amount of laughter from colleagues of ours on the Austin High varsity debate squad who attended that outing that day. It was obvious you had a flair for humor-writing."


---"You excel at telling secrets from others that for someone, sort of stung. Perhaps you'll find employment as an aide in Washington (D.C.)"

My response to that today: "That line of yours from your April 27, 1974, birthday tribute to myself that you as an Austin High School varsity debate squad colleague of mine read aloud inside the Piccadilly Cafeteria near downtown Austin, a cafeteria where our Austin High debate squad enjoyed a meal together that day, was one of the lines that triggered the most gleeful laughter from your audience. Oddly enough, despite your prediction, I myself as a very honorable American citizen never received any job offer from any federal agency or any member of the United States Congress or the United States Senate or from any United States President. As for your spring of 1974 observation that I don't know how to keep a secret after an Austin High schoolmate confides in me, I would like to point out at this time that I have long been opposed to surprise parties and pranks, for instance. So I had a moral reason for leaking information to schoolmates of mine relating to planned pranks or planned surprise parties I had heard about that would have been foisted upon them without any prior notice to themselves. I wanted those schoolmates of mine to have full and immediate access to reliable and factual information from myself, and several of them did thank me for sparing them from a prank or surprise party they otherwise would have been subjected to in a covert manner against their own wishes."

---"As a female debate squad colleague of yours at Stephen F. Austin High School, I have chosen to assign you the nickname of 'Mr. Goody Two Shoes'."

My response to that today: "Thank you, Meredith, for assigning me a nickname of your own that at least politely acknowledged my morality-mindedness, honesty, and obedience of the law during our days together as members of the Stephen F. Austin High School debate squad in Austin, Texas. You seemed to be aware when you dubbed me 'Mr. Goody Two Shoes' in 1973 or 1974, for instance, that I myself took great pride in my being a complete abstainer from any consumption of drinking alcohol or tobacco products or any participation in late-night partying with other high school students at debate tournaments I attended during my days at Austin High School in the early and mid-1970s. You seemed to also be aware that I did, in fact, write an extra-credit mini-essay for my English teacher Mrs. Sims in 1973 or 1974, an essay entitled 'Aw, Dry Up!', in which I responded in writing to those schoolmates of mine who had criticized me for leading a completely alcohol-free and teetotaling and law-abiding and rules-minded lifestyle, including during all of our school-sponsored trips to debate tournaments around Texas, during my days as a high school student at Stephen F. Austin High School. Meredith, I much preferred your own chosen nickname for me of 'Mr. Goody Two Shoes' over 'Lizard Man' or 'Lizard' or 'Sir Dildo' (the latter nickname having been conferred on me in person in 1973 or 1974 inside Mrs. Sims's English Department classroom by another female member of our debate squad) that various schoolmates of mine from the Austin High debate squad each dubbed me back in 1973 or 1974."

---"The voices you are hearing in Austin, Texas, are coming from persons in the Austin area who are running out of things to say. It's obvious they don't have anything of substance to say to you, at this point, based on what I have heard them say in my current status as an officially registered University of Texas at Austin undergraduate student living here in Austin, Texas."

My response to that today: "Since you were a UT-Austin undergraduate student when you made that disclosure to me on the telephone during a local phone conversation we had in either 1998 or 1999, I believe it was, I would like to thank you again for your honesty. I previously had made your and your family's acquaintance during a prior time period in which I had been a full-time reporter for 'The Pampa Daily News' newspaper in your family's hometown of Pampa, Texas, with your mother a very fine colleague of mine at 'The Pampa Daily News' from 1992 until 1994. It's very apparent from your 1998 or 1999 disclosure to me on the telephone that Panhandle region residents and former Panhandle-region residents of Texas tend to be more honest than Central Texans have been toward myself."

---"As story assignments editor for a monthly magazine based in Austin, Texas, I can tell you today that my 2000 observation to you that a media company may be harassing you in Austin, Texas, is no longer applicable. Today, I no longer believe that any media company is harassing you."

My response to that today: "I find it noteworthy that you chose not to state to me in that 21st Century phone conversation we had in 2007 or 2006, say, exactly WHY you have changed you mind about whether a media company is allegedly harassing me in Austin, Texas. I would also like to ask you at this time whether you have changed your mind in regard to your 2000 statement to me on the telephone in which you indicated that you were completely sure that no religious group was subjecting me to any verbal harassment in Austin, Texas, and that a for-profit business entity was in fact the source of that alleged verbal harassment and alleged public disparagement of myself in Austin, Texas."

---"When this is all over, I will let you know what I think of the persons in the background who subjected you to manipulative circumstances in your own life."

My response to that today: "It is noteworthy that you volunteered that 1988 or 1987 in-person statement to me with a somber look to your facial expression inside your home in Austin, Texas. It is also noteworthy that your volunteered statement referred to 'what I (the speaker) think of the persons in the background', one of your rare acknowledgements to me that there were, in fact, any out-of-the-ordinary communications to myself and manipulations of my own living conditions occurring in Austin, Texas, over a multi-year period."

---"As a former schoolmate of yours at Stephen F. Austin High School and as a full-time employee of the City Government of Austin, I am writing you this unofficial reply E-mail letter today to state to you that your current living conditions and life circumstances in Austin, Texas, appear to point to possible civil rights legal issues for yourself."

My response to that today: "I appreciate your admirable courage and incisiveness in sending me that reply E-mail letter. I hope you don't mind my adding, though, that when I later made a polite follow-up phone call to your home in Austin to ask you if you would be willing to elaborate on that helpful observation of yours, you indicated to me that you were not currently aware of any civil rights legal issues relating to myself and my own life and life circumstances."

---"Ask me the right question, and I will tell you the right information in the form of an answer to your question about your current living conditions and some expected future scenario relating to yourself."

My response to that today: "Your unsolicited comment to me during that 1993 or 1994 long-distance phone call I made to your home in Washington, D.C., from my apartment unit in Pampa, Texas, has been very distracting to me ever since. Your comment has prompted me to wonder what the 'right question' would be in order to somehow elicit from yourself or someone else the factual legal information I would need. I did notice, though, that in that same 1993 or 1994 telephone conversation, you indicated that you were very impatient with me for having chosen to reside in Texas throughout the entire period since January of 1988. You never at any time cited to me any other U.S. state where my privacy rights would be more extensive than they were in Texas. Was that state Delaware, Nebraska, Massachusetts, New York, Florida, or some other state? Or perhaps my question to you should have been, 'What was the right question to ask you, then, in your opinion?'"

---"NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO MOVE TO CALIFORNIA!"

My response to that today: "I was struck by the very emphatic nature of your 1992 exclamation to me over the telephone during a long-distance phone call I made to your home in New Ulm, Minnesota, from my trailer-home apartment unit in Zapata, Texas. Since the United States is not a communist country, and since Americans enjoy the right to decide where they choose to reside, your comment about my not being forced to move to California makes good sense."

---"This job interview that I agreed in advance to give you, a job interview for a reporting position here for which you drove more than 100 miles from Yoakum, Texas, in order to meet with me here in early 1992, has just been ended by me a matter of seconds after you shook my hand in a polite manner inside my office as a female editor of 'The Galveston Daily News' daily newspaper in Galveston, Texas."

My response to that today: "I am puzzled as to why you had agreed over the telephone to interview me, when you abruptly informed me fewer than 10 seconds after I introduced myself to you inside your office, that you were not willing to interview me any further, and that you had no job openings for which you would consider me. No other editor spoke with me after that 10-second meeting, so I immediately left your newspaper's office building to drive back to my residence in Yoakum that same day. Your coldness toward me during our very brief meeting was very degrading to me, as was your refusal to financially compensate me for my gasoline mileage expenses I incurred from driving my motor vehicle from Yoakum, Texas, to Galveston, Texas, for that job interview."

---"This job interview for a reporting position here that I had agreed to offer you several days ago on the telephone has just been ended by me within 10 seconds after you introduce yourself to me in a polite manner here at my "Wichita Falls Times Record" daily newspaper in Wichita Falls, Texas. We have no job openings here for which we can consider you."

My response to that today: "Today, I would like to know why you, a male editor of the daily newspaper in Wichita Falls, Texas, in 1993 several days before my first-ever meeting with you had yourself agreed to grant me a job interview at your daily newspaper office in Wichita Falls, Texas. You were fully aware at the time that I drove more than 100 miles, from Pampa, Texas, to Wichita Falls, Texas, for that pre-scheduled job interview. Within 10 seconds after I introduced myself to you inside your daily newspaper office in Wichita Falls, Texas, you announced to me that our meeting had ended, and no other editor spoke with me. I was thereby invited to immediately leave your daily newspaper's building and drive back to my residence in Pampa. You did not cite any explanation to myself for that very abrupt announcement of yours. I would also like to point out that you also refused to financially compensate me for my travel expenses in connection with that pre-scheduled job interview at your media company in Wichita Falls, Texas. That motor-vehicle trip I made to your city was very costly and degrading to me."

---"Many people think you are being persecuted in Texas because of your greater emotional attraction and greater overall affinity toward a significantly higher percentage of all heterosexual adult men than of all other subpopulations of adult male persons."

My response to that today: "Thank you for that courageous insight of 1996, during a long-distance phone call I made to your home in Austin, Texas, from Denver City, Texas. I appreciate your own conveyed support for my own Freedom of Speech-protected and Freedom of Association-protected and privacy-rights-protected legal right to myself associate in mutual-consent cases with a significantly higher percentage of all law-abiding and masculine and facially cleanshaven (no beard of mustache or goatee, for instance) heterosexual gentlemen than of the other cited subpopulations of adult male persons. It is obvious that I as a morally and aesthetically straight single adult gentlemen feel more comfortable around morally and aesthetically straight gentlemen."

---"As your editor in chief at 'The Daily Texan' student newspaper on the UT-Austin campus, I can never understand why a nice guy like you writes such nasty and very critical news stories and scathingly critical oped columns that appear to ridicule and call into question the integrity level and level of compliance with the law by administrators at The University of Texas at Austin, and particularly UT President Lorene Rogers."

My response to that today: "I would like to point out, Gary, that beginning my very first week as the assigned UT Administration-beat reporter back in 1978, you ordered me to aggressively pursue a scandal story relating to the administration at UT-Austin. You were very upset because 'The Austin American-Statesman' daily newspaper had apparently scooped 'The Daily Texan' about an administrative scandal of some type relating to UT-Austin. When I later attempted to speak directly in person with President Lorene Rogers and she flatly refused, with herself trembling with surprising rage toward me at that time, I feel that I was very honorably reflecting the guidance that you as my editor in chief had given me. At no time did I ever lay a hand on President Rogers or make any unkind comment to her. I had merely attempted to enter the elevator near the President's Office that she and Dr. Gerhard Fonken, her executive assistant, were preparing to board together that day in 1978. It was Dr. Fonken's choice to very dramatically prohibit me from boarding that elevator with those two UT administrators. 'Let her be!' he declared after extending his right arm to thrust the palm of his hand toward me in a forbidding manner, with surprising apparent malice toward me in Dr. Fonken's tone of voice at that time."

---"The massive weight gains you've had at various times in Texas that you have repeatedly complained to me about on the telephone in the period since 1987 are actually just a sign that you're getting older. It is very common for a person as he gets older to gain weight."

My response to that today: "The point I was trying to make to you, including in a 1995 long-distance phone call I made to your Austin home from the Baytown area of Texas, is that the year-round noise pollution involving repeated profanity and epithets being hurled at me, a non-stop barrage of verbal harassment to which I had been subjected without my prior authorization ever since May of 1987, severely undermined my ability to achieve and maintain an optimal weight for myself. The stress inflicted on me by that unwanted noise pollution played a major role in that weight gain significantly injurious to my medical health."


---"All of the people you encounter there in Sweetwater, Texas, are your friends."

My response to that today: "I consider that advice you offered me on the telephone in 1990, during a long-distance phone call I made to your home in Washington, D.C., to have been irresponsible. Your advice does not explain, for instance, the conduct I was subjected to against my wishes late one night while walking home alone toward my apartment in Sweetwater. Suddenly one or more African-American youths I had never met before, who were complete strangers to me, and whom I had never spoken with or spoken to, began to chase me with what appeared to be malice in his or their unprovoked and unsolicited words that he or they shouted at me with his or their very apparent criminal intent toward me. Fortunately for me, that male youth or those male youths gave up chasing me about 20 feet behind me and a matter of yards from my apartment complex after I ran toward my apartment complex as fast as I could at that time. I emerged from that incident without being physically attacked or robbed by that youth or those youths."

---"Not ALL of the people you encounter in Sweetwater, Texas, are paid actors. Some of them are individuals who don't fit that description, and who are sincere and honest with you."

My response to that today: "I find it interesting that you admitted to me in 1990, during a long-distance phone call I made from my apartment in Sweetwater, Texas, to your home in Maryland, that ANY of the individuals whom I encountered in my west Texas city of residence of Sweetwater were, in fact, paid actors whose conduct, including their conduct toward myself, was based on prior instructions to them from someone else. You repeatedly stated to me over a multi-decade period that there were NO manipulations of my own living conditions or life circumstances on the part of anyone else, and that I enjoyed full privacy rights in Texas, you repeatedly told me on prior occasions."

---"I am bothered by the lack of imagination you have revealed through your repeated complaints to me on the telephone and in person over a multi-decade period about your living conditions in Austin, Texas, being substandard. You have also repeatedly complained to me that you suspect you have been subjected to artificially manipulated circumstances featuring fraudulent or dishonest communications inflicted on yourself against your wishes and noise pollution inflicted on you against your wishes. If you were more imaginative in your outlook toward your life circumstances in Austin these days, you would not be complaining at all."

My response to that today: "It's curious how you have responded to legitimate complaints of mine of the late 1990s and 21st Century by turning them into cited personal criticisms of myself. It is also curious that your observation about my complaints to you being without foundation, in your view, sounds very similar to a nasty reply E-mail letter I received from a local newspaper's editorial-page editor who wrote me that I should quit my whining!"

---"I have had some covert manipulative involvement in your life circumstances in Austin, Texas, these days. However, my own manipulative role in your life circumstances has been very minimal."

My response to that today: "Thank you for acknowledging to me in writing in 2001 or 1999, I believe it was, that you as a resident of Washington state, admit to your having participated to some extent in outside-interference manipulations of my own living conditions in Austin, Texas, during that time period. I would like to politely remind you at this time that no such secretive or covert manipulations of my living conditions were authorized by myself."

---"Some portions of your living conditions and life circumstances in El Campo, Texas, may have been televised without your being informed about it."

My response to that today: "I appreciate that helpful disclosure from you back in 1989, during a time period in which I resided in and worked for a published general-circulation semi-weekly newspaper in El Campo, Texas. That disclosure from you also implies that some television network has allegedly violated the law in its own conduct toward me. As you know, I never signed any contract with any television network on any occasion in my entire life, and I definitely am NOT an actor or entertainer myself."

----"You're not a wimp, John. We're going to make you a star!"

My response to that today: "I find it interesting that you offered me that unsolicited observation without any apparent context to it in the newsroom of 'The Minnesota Daily' student newspaper in 1983 or 1984, during a time period in which I was a faculty-appointed teaching assistant with my assigned office cubicle inside the newsroom of at the public-university campus student newspaper in Minneapolis where you were an editor. Since you were an editor who reportedly very emphatically rejected an application of mine in which I sought to boost my personal finances by landing a part-time job as a columnist for 'The Minnesota Daily,' it seems to me that your actual statement should have been, 'I'd like to help make you a falling star. I'd like to be among those conspiring to prevent any stature or wealth or fame or recognition for you from ever occurring.' Or perhaps when you volunteered that you wanted to help make me a star, you were actually announcing your desire to banish me into outer space."


---"Your fellow copy editors at 'The Patriot Ledger' daily newspaper in Quincy, Massachusetts, have dubbed you 'The Reverend'---and you're at risk of being defrocked in the foreseeable future!"

My response to that today: "Back in late 1985, when I as a newspaper copy editor used to read those computer messages you would flash on the top part of my and my coworkers' screen of our computer terminals late at night inside 'The Patriot Ledger' daily newspaper's newsroom in Quincy, Mass., where I was also a copy editor, I initially looked upon it as a friendly gesture on your part. However, I later read your many subsequent messages you flashed on the top of our computer screen about an expected future scenario in which I myself was expected to somehow be 'defrocked.' Today, with the benefit of hindsight, I question whether the nickname of 'The Reverend' that you copy editors at 'The Patriot Ledger' dubbed me back in 1985, was as affectionate and appreciative toward me as I had initially assumed."

--"Your consistent refusal to say the word 'God' when you and us classmates of yours recite the Pledge of Allegiance here at Eanes Elementary School in Westlake Hills, Texas, is proof that you are an atheist, and possibly also a communist. Those are two of the primary reasons why so many of your schoolmates at Eanes Elementary School dislike you! Through your conduct during Pledge of Allegiance in the morning inside your classroom, you appear to spit at the very American flag that your classmates salute with so much pride!"

My response to that today: "I am proud to tell you today that I am definitely NOT an atheist, and I'm also definitely NOT a communist. Nor am I a traitor to The United States, as several of you schoolmates of mine alleged back in the 1960s at Eanes Elementary School in Westlake Hills, Texas. The religion that I have established during my adult years, a one-member and fully independent non-Christian religion (myself, only, at present) with very stringent membership eligibility requirements, promotes the concept of implicit deism. Far from discouraging dialogues about religion, my own religion's implicit deism politely reminds me to explore and discuss religion through tangible, empirically-based, quality-of-life-minded vocabulary and slogans ('vasectomies help to prevent unwanted pregnancies', for instance) that feel honest and real to me. My religion discourages the use of ethereal, ambiguous, superficial, terms such as 'God' or 'Devil,' and instead maintains there should be tangible, pragmatic, observable ways of describing this planet and the entire universe, including conduct by human beings on this planet. As for your allegations during my elementary school years, and the additional informal allegations against me by some subsequent classmates of mine at O. Henry Junior High in Austin back in the early 1970s, that I myself am allegedly a communist, I can tell you today that the ruthless subjugation of the individual by communism is abhorrent to me. As a healthy alternative to communism or socialism, I strongly support a new and innovative form of bridled capitalism. Bridled capitalism represents a healthy 21st Century evolution from the 'unbridled capitalism' that for far too long has been unthinkingly praised and exalted as 'patriotic' by millions of Americans. The bridled capitalism I support involves a salutary and very constructive realignment of our nation's economy featuring extensive nationwide involvement of the private sector and the government-owned institutions in the nationwide establishment of a truly comprehensive recycling program, a truly comprehensive natural-resources conservation program, and a truly comprehensive environmental protection plan, for instance."

---"As a female professor of public policy here at The LBJ School of Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Austin, I can tell you today during this in-person conversation we're having in a hallway of the LBJ School during working hours for each of us, that I believe you have possibly been persecuted in the United States. I recommend that you consider emigrating to The Netherlands, where if you were to reside in Amsterdam, you would not be subjected to any societal persecution there. Amsterdam is the most tolerant city in the entire world."

My response to that today: "I would like to thank you, Professor, for you politely empathetic comment to me in 1995 that you verbalized during a time period in which, as you also must have sensed, I was myself being subjected to year-round and continuous noise pollution, including inside my LBJ School of Public Affairs workplace in the spring of 1995, that, over the course of the multi-year period since I moved back to Austin, Texas, in 1997, was determined by an outstanding ear, nose and throat medical specialist, Dr. David Tobey of Austin, to have inflicted significant and permanent damage on my own hearing capacity in Austin, Texas. You are among the many persons who are invited to make a phone call to Dr. David Tobey's medical clinic along Angus Road in northwest Austin---Dr. David Tobey's office phone number in Austin, Texas, being (512) 346-5562-----should you wish to yourself obtain a copy of Dr. Tobey's medical findings about myself. I have provided Dr. Tobey with full written authorization to relase that very alarming medical information about me to any person or any civic group or institution that contacts him at any time. I would also like to respond at this time to your volunteered observation to me during a workday of mine in 1995 inside the LBJ School of Public Affairs, that Amsterdam in The Netherlands is the one city in the entire world where I myself would be most likely to enjoy full freedom from political and religious persecution, in your opinion. Today, I would like to mention to you that my publicly-stated opposition to the production, sale, possession, and consumption of illicit drugs would have triggered political and religious persecution of myself in Amsterdam, had I resided there. Furthermore, my strong support for enforcement of the law against the sex crime of prostitution, and my own emphatic opposition to commercial sex parlors and to so-called 'bathhouses' where sex occurs in a public place, would put me in sharp conflict with the majority of residents of Amsterdam. Furthermore, I am a longtime teetotaler with a completely alcohol-free lifestyle ever since 1990, who myself supports the eventual goal of a world where there is no production or or sale or possession of alcohol that is in fact drunk by any human being, though the use of alcohol in cookery, provided it all evaporates, is acceptable to me, since alcohol in that context might enhance the flavor of the food. Furthermore, I'm a non-smoker. Furthermore, I lack the fluency in the Dutch language that I would have needed to be fully successful as a resident of Amsterdam."

---"Working here in Snyder, Texas, as a coworker of yours at the 'Snyder Daily News' newspaper and living here in Snyder, Texas, in 1994 are like getting stuck in a time warp."

My response to that today: "Are you saying that life in your cited hometown of Austin, Texas----a city where you say you previously worked as a waiter at a Chuy's restaurant before you joined the staff of 'The Snyder Daily News' as a sports writer----was so ultra-modern and futuristic that you experienced every moment of your life in Austin to be fully 100 years ahead of whatever you have experienced here in this west Texan town of Snyder, Texas?"

--"As an attorney member of the State Bar of Texas with my law office here in downtown Austin, I agree with you that nearly all of the adult men most similar to yourself as human beings, based on a comprehensive evaluation of human beings that is comprehensively qualitative and normative in nature, are heterosexual in sexual identity. I am also sharing with you a pertinent legal letter signed by myself, declaring that I as an attorney will file a lawsuit in a court of law on your behalf against any person or group of persons or entity that exhibits a defiance of or contempt toward your asserted legal right to yourself lead a life for yourself in which all or nearly all of your adult male friends and all or nearly all of your adult male associates are heterosexual or primarily heterosexual in sexual identity per se."

My response to that today: "As a morally and aesthetically straight gentleman, I want to thank you again for your great insight and courage in identifying lawsuits in a court of law in Austin, Texas, that you plan to file on my own behalf."

---"....This guy (John Kevin McMillan) is so dull that sometimes he uses his compensatory and vacation time from his clerical job with the Texas Department of Public Safety to speak before the Austin City Council.
"A regular at council meetings, he speaks once a month on such topics as sidewalks."

My response to that today: "Your newspaper column about me that contained those exact verbatim two consecutive sentences in your column, was published on page 1-B (the front page of the Metro and State section) of 'The Austin American-Statesman' daily newspaper in Austin, Texas, on September 25, 1998. Your column about me indicated that I am one of the most boring persons in all of Austin, Texas. Your column also indicated that I am someone who elicits virtually no interest in myself or in any of my cited political or religious beliefs. Today, with the benefit of hindsight, do you sincerely feel that you were completely fair to me? For instance, do you feel today that you were fully accurate when you described me as being someone advocating municipal-government policies----such as a proposed new alcohol-free zone I would like to see established in Austin that you specifically mentioned in your column as one of my public-policy recommendations for our capital city of Texas------that elicit 'virtually no interest,' as you put it in your 20-paragraph newspaper column about myself."

---"You don't care who you hurt to get to the top."

My response to that today: "I would like to remind you that I was polite and respectful toward you and used clean language throughout the tennis match I had with you in 1983, a tennis match that I won 6-0, 6-0, on a public tennis court of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. Your comment to me on that tennis court immediately after that tennis match, suggested that I am somehow unethical or manipulative in a sly and devious manner, with yourself referring to my career-related pursuits, in particular. I note this because you were someone whom I had become acquainted with through our respective jobs inside a daily newspaper workplace for each of us on The University of Minnesota campus in Minneapolis. Today, I would like to point out that your 1983 prediction about my 'getting to the top' in my life was far from accurate. Your 1983 or 1984 statement to me on the campus of The University of Minnesota in Minneapolis that you believe I should retire someday in the state of Florida and enjoy lying on the beach there, you said, was also a bit misleading, it seems to me now. It takes a lot of money to purchase a condominium unit in Florida, and my own total financial assets that I actually have access to put me in the bottom 1 percent of all adult Americans of today, as you may have sensed even back in the early 1980s. In fact, I myself have never earned as much as $20,000 per year in total gross annual income from my career-related pursuits; and no President of the United States of America has ever once invited me to the White House so that he could publicly and specifically express appreciation for my very benevolent and idealistic contributions to this country. No current or former President of the United States has ever praised me for the many public-policy letters I've written and sent to public officials over the last multi-decade period. I would like to also point out at this time that if you yourself were ever possibly among those persons who pursued any manipulative actions that undermined or restricted my own options or opportunities in life in the 1980s, 1990s, or 21st Century of my own life, any such conduct by yourself would have been very unfair to myself and in flagrant violation of the law. Hurtfulness toward myself by sly and manipulative individuals pursuing covert actions that undermined my own options and opportunities in life, are, in fact, the more pertinent story here, it seems to me."

---"One of these days, he'll be dead."

My response to that today: "When you made that ominous-sounding comment late one night in 2002 (2003?) to your male dining companion a split second after I as your attentive waiter had walked past your dining table to approach another dining table at 1 a.m. or 2 a.m., with your words revealing no hint of sympathy in your tone of voice and no apparent context to your oral statement, did you assume that I would not overhear your very cruel and cynical comment about myself? Did you assume that I would be so preoccupied at the time by background 'noise pollution' from other sources inside that late-night chain restaurant workplace of mine in north Austin, that I would have somehow 'not heard' your own unkind words about me? Did you assume that I as your party's assigned waiter would be so mindful of the extensive jewelry and cosmetics on your male adult body, and by the high-pitched nature of your own voice, and by the flamboyant nature of your mannerisms, that I would somehow be oblivious to any and all words you actually uttered about me a matter of inches from where I was standing? Did you assume, for instance, that I would be noting to myself, 'So this is an example of colorful Austin-style eccentricity!' or 'So this is an example of the alternative-lifestyle chic that we hear so much about in Austin, Texas, complete with deliciously misanthropic and eerily quotable quips!', and for that reason you possibly assumed that I myself would have completely and utterly failed to myself register the personal awareness in my own mind as a human being and honorable gentleman myself, that you may well be a criminal person who exhibits alleged harmful intent victimizing this particular consistently law-abiding and civil and vigilant, honest, morally and aesthetically straight, permanently illicit-drug-free, tobacco-free, permanently alcohol-free, tattoo-less, jewelry-less, gentleman with no criminal-conviction record---myself."

---"As a female senior citizen who resides near your Big Bear grocery store in this west Austin community near Tarrytown in Austin, Texas, I was very disgusted by the lack of cheerful facial expression you offered me today when you carried my bagful of groceries for me to my car in the parking lot! You came across to me as very grim! I wanted you to smile with enthusiasm as a grocery bagger for me, and you completely failed! You were so lacking in enthusiasm for your job as a sacker that you remind me of a WOODEN INDIAN! Why, YOU'RE NOTHING BUT A WOODEN INDIAN! YOU'RE VERY PATHETIC!"

My response to that today: "I would like to point out today that you gave me that very angry lecture and very emphatic put-down of myself WITHOUT MY HAVING MADE ANY UNKIND OR UNPROFESSIONAL OR IMPOLITE COMMENT TO YOU that day in the summer of 1975 or 1974 outdoors in the parking lot of Big Bear grocery store in Austin, Texas. Nor had I dropped any of the groceries I had bagged for you that day. You chose not to ask me if my grocery-sacker job was my first-ever position of employment for a private-sector company. It was, in fact, my first-ever job for a private-sector business enterprise. The incident in which you exploded on me in broad daylight with sharp antipathy toward me was the first-ever occasion in which I had myself carried groceries for you to your car. You were a complete stranger to me at the time of your emotional outburst in which you suddenly exploded on me with disgust and hate-filled verbal abuse that day. Today, I do agree with you that conveying a friendly and cheerful style at a job involving lots of contact with the general public is very important. I strive for that today through my honorable respective careers in the business world in Austin. As for your repeated and emphatic statements to me back in the summer of 1974 or 1975 that I remind you of a 'WOODEN INDIAN,' I would like to ask you today, from your vantage point today as a lady of 100 or more years of age, whether you have done any recent social psychology research about American Indians in the late 1800s and early 1900s in the United States. Maybe you would find that the 1970s evaluation by Anglo Americans such as yourself of American Indians of those two time periods you had apparently heard the most about, may have been unfair. It is possible you were referring to a particular portrait of a stoic Indian from the 19th Century or early 20th Century that appeared on a U.S. coin; and if so, I can assure you that I myself take pride today in being someone who is very expressive of my own feelings. I was told by a Yale University alumnus in the early 1980s in Minneapolis, Minnesota, for instance, that it is very easy for anyone to read my own emotions, since I have an honest, tell-tale face, he volunteered one day on the campus of The University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. Numerous other persons have made that same observation about me ever since the 1970s, in fact. There is nothing wooden about my own facial expressions as an adult gentleman, I would like to politely point out at this time."

---"You go through people as fast as Richard M. Nixon does!"

My response to that today: "Your comparison of the 1970s between myself and President Richard M. Nixon may have overlooked a point. You yourself have repeatedly stated to me, including during a phone conversation we had in the 21st Century of my life here in Austin, Texas, that you regard me as being 'as honest as the day is long,' or words to that effect. You have also kindly commented to me, this in a 21st Century observation you kindly shared with me on the telephone, that you regard me as being 'a very likeable guy.' Today, with the benefit of hindsight, would you please explain to me how I can remind you so much of Richard M. Nixon when two of the traits of mine you have emphasized the most in recent years are my honesty and likeability. I don't believe that honesty and likeability were Richard M. Nixon's leading attributes. I also take pride in being straightforward and law-abiding. Furthermore, if I do 'go through people,' as you put it back in the 1970s in apparently referring to the total number of persons who had either rejected me or been rejected by me and then vanished from my own life, I don't recall any such rejection that related to an alleged 'scandal' or alleged 'corruption' or alleged 'violation of the law' involving myself. You can also be sure, Bill, that if I myself had been President of the United States in the 21st Century, for instance, I would have made it very clear from the start that if ANY cabinet secretary or high-ranking official of my Administration ever told a noteworthy and deliberate lie to Congress or to myself or to the American people or to the American news media, I would insist on dismissing that official of my Administration. Unlike President Nixon, my Administration would actively pursue a 'Zero Tolerance for Dishonesty' policy. And unlike President Nixon, my Administration would insist on the highest moral standards being met and exceeded by ALL high-ranking officials whom I would agree to be hired or appointed to my team in the White House."

--"Living well is the best revenge."

My response to that today: "I find it very curious that you offered me that apparently candid in-person advice, advice in which you possibly advocating a dedication to volunteer work for me during my leisuretime, in late 1988 in El Campo, Texas, during a visit of yours to that south Texas city where I was residing while working full-time as a reporter for a semi-weekly newspaper. You had never stated to me on any prior occasion that you believed that any person or entity had ever wronged me at any time in my entire life. Since you had never once acknowledged to me that any person had ever significantly wronged me, I find it surprising that you chose to phrase your memorable 1988 oral advice to me in terms of a cited need for 'revenge' of some type on my part. As you will recall, I myself had never stated to you during that 1988 meeting we had in El Campo, or on any prior occasion, that I myelf sought revenge per se against anyone. I may have politely complained to you about alleged violations of my own privacy rights and alleged verbal harassment of me occurring during that period. However, as you would no doubt be the first to agree, you yourself have never at any time in my entire life ever once directly stated to me that you are aware of any person or entity that you maintain has or had allegedly violated my own privacy rights or otherwise wronged me. The only statement along those lines, which you offered me in 1990 during a long-distance phone call I made to you from Sweetwater, while you resided in the Austin area of Texas, was that you were yourself somehow aware that during that approximate time period of 1990, you had yourself seen me on television in some context that you did not elaborate about. You emphasized to me in that long-distance 1990 phone conversation we had that you yourself were horrified and repulsed by the spectacle that you saw me as having presented in mid-1990 in some hypothetical 'televised' role unbeknownst to myself. You made no comment, even in 1990, or on virtually any occasion since then, indicating that you believed that ANY person or ANY entity or any government agency or government-owned institution or any business entity anywhere in the world had allegedly wronged myself in any way. The only exception to that, as you may recall today, was your in-person statement to me in 1994, during a visit of yours to Snyder, Texas, that 'all of the people of your past were sadistic.' You chose not to elaborate on the implications of that observation you made to me in 1994. For instance, you never once in my entire life cited to me the name of any individual or media company that or whom you suspected of having pursued conduct harmful or injurious to myself."

---"I am very dismayed by these insane people who insist on broadcasting everything all over the world!"

My response to that today: "Thank you for your 1988 acknowledgement to me in person in Westlake Hills, Texas, that you blamed some person or group of persons for having allegedly violated my own and others' privacy rights as of the year 1988. Today, I have often wondered how you would have elaborated upon that statement, had I posed several follow-up questions to you during that dinnertime conversation. Would you have cited a particular unethical media company or unethical individual whose conduct you disliked, for instance? Incidentally, I found it interesting that in the summer of 1990, during a long-distance phone call I made to your private residence in Westlake Hills, Texas, from my rental home in Cuero, Texas, you volunteered to me that you had been shocked by a scandal being exposed by the news media during that period which related to alleged misconduct by a 'British media company,' you said. Looking back, I could have asked you if that British media company had ever wronged you yourself in any way? If so, did you consider filing a lawsuit in a court of law against that cited British media company that had triggered moral indignation for you during the summer of 1990."

---"You will never be the sort of individual who settles down for a comfortable, mellow, life in suburbia."

My response to that today: "Is it possible that your 1984 prediction to myself in person, which was apparently based on your vantage point as a longtime newspaper and magazine editor in Minnesota and Wisconsin, partly reflected your personal awareness that it takes a lot of money to purchase a home and have the option of residing luxuriously in a surburb? Were you possibly aware that during my entire period of residence in Minnesota, for instance, I never earned more than $10,347 in gross annual income, according to the U.S. Government's Social Security Administration. That $10,347 figure was my total gross income in the year 1981 that I earned in New Ulm, Minnesota, and, later, Minneapolis, Minnesota, that calendar year. As for your prediction that I would never lead a mellow, settled life, I would like to remind you in 2009 that I lead a very disciplined and consistent and often-traditional lifestyle. For instance, I have not consumed any drinking alcohol on any occasion since 1990, and I was never previously addicted to alcohol (I almost never kept a supply of alcohol inside my apartment, for instance, during the time period 1997 until the summer of 1990, when I permanently dropped drinking alcohol from my life); I myself use consistently clean language and have very high platonic aptitude, which sets me apart from the vast majority of all single male adult persons and all single adult men; I have not consumed any marijuana or any other illicit drug on any occasion since 1984, and I was never previously addicted to any illicit drug; in my entire life, I have never consumed any illicit drug other than marijuana; I have never been tattooed on any occasion, and I would never agree to myself being tattooed; I am very opposed to sadomasochism (S&M), and I have never physically beaten or whipped anyone, nor have I ever permitted anyone to physically beat or whip myself; I am facially cleanshaven, and I have had no facial hair of any type for nearly all of my adult life; I wear no jewelry of any type, and in fact, I have never worn a ring or necklace or ear ring on any occasion during my adult years; I have not consumed any coffee on any occasion since January of 1990; I have not spent spent any money on gambling or on state lotteries anywhere in the world on any occasion in at least eight years, and that one occasion was at the special request of a female coworker of mine at the Texas Department of Pardons and Paroles state agency in Austin. That female coworker of mine had insisted on providing me with money and asking me to please purchase a state lottery ticket for her during a visit of mine to Bastrop, Texas, that I made in order to have my car repaired. I dutifully handed her and gave her that state lottery ticket inside our state-agency workplace during working hours for each of us after I politely honored that personal request from herself---this despite the fact that I myself definitely have not gambled in many years, and I am personally opposed to the expenditure of money for gambling.
Also, I should tell you that I have not smoked any tobacco product or tobacco cigarette on any occasion in my entire life; I have no criminal-conviction record, and I have not received any traffic ticket by any law-enforcement agency on any occasion since the early 1990s, when I resided in the Panhandle region of Texas and during that period I allegedly on one total occasion failed to come to a complete stop along the roadway at what I believe was 'yield' sign before I then drove into a lane of traffic.
Also, Steve, you should keep in mind today that I have one of the most consistently civil records of any of the single adult gentlemen whom you yourself have ever had the good fortune of meeting in your entire life. I last physically assaulted another person with any degree of physical force in 1967, during my fourth grade year of elementary school---and my physical attack on private property away from Eanes Elementary School campus that day, was against one total male classmate of mine. That attack by myself was limited to one total swing at him with a plastic baseball bat I happened to be holding at the time. That one total swing was directed at his lower leg, and he did not require hospitalization as a result of that incident. I immediately identified that attack by myself as a major scandal for myself very damaging to my own future chances of ever being elected President of the United States. I never physically attacked anyone on any occasion since then. I would also like to point out that no person I can recall has ever once stated to me in an accusatory manner that I myself had physically touched or physically grabbed or physically kissed or physically assaulted that person with any degree of impropriety or incivility on any occasion. My consistency of civility and of platonic politeness lend themselves to a very stable and mellow lifestyle, as I'm sure you might agree---regardless of whether I myself choose to live in the downtown area of a wholesome city or in a suburb, or elsewhere, for that matter."

---"The upper-level efficiency apartment unit you're renting in an older home, an apartment in which you are living alone here in southeast Minneapolis, Minnesota, previously was occupied by slaves, from what I understand."

My response to that today: "I find it very curious that you as a resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota, in the year 1983 would volunteer to me in person during an apparently friendly conversation we were having, that the house in which I chose to rent an upper-level efficiency apartment unit while attending graduate school at the University of Minnesota, had a prior role involving the housing of slaves, you very abruptly volunteered. To this day, I cannot imagine what prompted you to make that surprising statement to me without any context to your disclosure. I had never stated to you at any time that I myself am 'intrigued by slavery' or that I myself have studied the subject of slavery, or that I myself have any comment to make to you about slavery, or any permutation of those themes. Furthermore, it is surprising that you would present yourself to me as apparently being a male adult expert on the history of slavery in Minnesota, when few Minneapolis residents in the year 1983 could probably identify a building in Minneapolis as having an 'intriguing' history of housing either slaves or slave owners in any prior century."

---"The voices you are definitely hearing in Austin, Texas, can end in the foreseeable future during your lifetime with yourself being medically healthy and alive at the time."

My response to that today: "Thank you for that apparently empathetic comment that you made to me during a local phone call I made in 2000, if I remember the year correctly, to your magazine office in downtown Austin, Texas. I am fairly sure that I made that local phone call to your media company workplace during a work break of mine inside my state agency workplace in north Austin. Today, with the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had asked you the follow-up question, 'What makes you so confident about that kind prediction of yours?'"

---"The only reason I won't agree to socialize with you today is because I am alarmed by anonymous voices in the background that I'm hearing inside your duplex apartment in El Campo, Texas, in late 1988. Those voices are distracting, irksome, and intrusive, and they convey a lack of respect for my and your privacy rights."

My response to that today: "Thank you for volunteering to me in late 1988 that your leisuretime conversation with me was severely undermined by what you cited as being 'anonymous voices in the background' for which the source of those voices was not apparent to you, you indicated. I don't mind admitting to you today that I met with you on one total occasion in 1988 during a time period in which I was being misled by 'anonymous sources' and other irresponsible persons I directly spoke with, into myself sensing that possibly my ability to enjoy full privacy rights in El Campo, Texas, had somehow been made contingent by Houston-area residents on my pursuing a 'social life' that would meet the sterile and very superficial expectations of others, even if the 'social life' of that cited type that I myself directly observed was very grim and very unappetizing to me. Today, with the benefit of hindsight, I also hope you won't feel offended if I raise the question of why you chose not to verbalize to me any speculations of your own about the possible source of those voices you yourself had cited on your own volition, and why you chose not to volunteer to me any suggestions about how I could lawfully and in a civil manner myself terminate that outside interference in my own life in a manner fully in harmony with my 21st Century
values and human preferences of the year 2009, for instance. I am referring to a context, for instance, not involving a compelled-speech involvement on my part and not involving 'personal relationships' for me that are in any way lacking in specifically stated mutual consent and specifically stated mutual enthusiasm and mutual enjoyment in the present."

---"Your long-distance personal phone call to me at my home in New Ulm, Minnesota, prompts me to recall that there have been some persons I used to associate with whom I regarded as being wholesome---but whom I no longer look upon that way."

My response to that today: "You made that comment to me back in 1990 or 1991, during a time period in which I resided in Sweetwater, Texas, and made a long-distance phone call to your Minnesota home from my private residence in the west Texan city of Sweetwater. I hope you don't mind my mentioning today that I felt demoralized by your surprising disclosure. In that phone conversation, you did not cite to me any specific 'unwholesome' conduct by myself of which you had somehow become aware in the time period since the early 1980s, when I had resided in the same Minnesota town as yourself. Nor did you directly and specificially state to me in our 1990 or 1991 phone conversation that I was among the acquaintances or friends of your own past whom you now regard, as of the year 1990 or 1991, as not being wholesome. Looking back, perhaps I should have asked you if you were in fact referring to myself as allegedly being among the persons from your own life in the early 1980s whom you no longer regarded as being wholesome? Also, may I ask you today what your definition of 'wholesome' consists of? Is it conduct that's law-abiding, illicit-drug-free, honest, civil, alcohol-abstemious or alcohol-abstinent, tobacco-free, clean-talking, platonically polite, longtime celibate, and idealistic? If so, then I can assure you that I still met your cited criteria for wholesomeness as of 1990 or 1991, when I made that phone call to you from west Texas; and, in fact, I would still meet those criteria today as well."

---"I can assure you, John, that the news stories you have been subjected to in Texas about the so-called break-up of the former Soviet Union are completely false and without any validity. The Soviet Union as a nation will remain intact forever."

My response to that today: "I find it interesting to note, Kevin, that you are the only resident of Texas I can recall who, during an in-person conversation we had in 1990 or 1991 inside my apartment in Sweetwater, Texas, specifically cited to me a specific news story I'd been exposed to on a frequent basis through the 'Texan and American news media' that, you volunteered to me, was completely false and completely incorrect. Looking back, I wish that I had asked you how I could somehow obtain more reliable and more accurate news and information services than I was receiving during that time period at each of the Texas Daily Newspaper Association member newspaper workplaces and cities where I was, in fact, working full-time at various time periods in west Texas during that time period of the early 1990s. Those west Texan daily newspapers where I worked full-time as a reporter at various times in 1990 and 1991 included 'The Big Spring Herald' and 'The Sweetwater Reporter'."

---"As your landlady here in New Ulm, Minnesota, in the year 1980, I urge you to remain a single and celibate person throughout your entire life. Once you get over that initial hump, as I call it---that initial period in which you might experience a vulnerability on your part from experiencing romantic or physical attractions toward others in your early 20s---you will find that the best possible life for yourself is to live alone in your own private residence and remain completely celibate. That's what I have done, and I'm much happier that way!"

My response to that today: "With all due respect, Doc Ann, I would like to politely point out at this time that you are a lifelong Roman Catholic lady. You are very accustomed to that very strong Catholic tradition of complete lifelong celibacy. And even within your very fine and idealistic Roman Catholic denomination, I believe that the formal lifelong-celibacy vow is generally applicable only to the priests and nuns, though I'm not completely sure about that point. As for your urging a lifelong celibate lifestyle upon myself, I would like to point out that I personally don't have any such personal reverence for lifelong celibacy. Pre-marital sex and non-marital sex, provided it is strictly-mutual-consent and involves law-abiding conduct, does not pose a concern to me; and after all, human physical intimacy expressive of affection and conscientious empathy and sharing with another legal-status-adult person in a strictly-mutual-consent-context, can even be sublime and tender and heartfelt. I am of course referring to mutual-consent physical intimacy between legal-status-adult persons that does not result in unwanted pregnancy or the infection of either partner with any sexually transmitted disease or any other contagious disease---hepatitis, for instance--- that, in a scenario in which either partner already has that contagious disease, can result from carnal relations between two persons."

---"As a coworker of yours in this restaurant, I would like to be a lifelong personal friend of yours. As for whether I as a lifelong friend of yours want you to have full medical longevity and a full normal lifespan, I wouldn't go that far with it."

My response to that today: "Your comment to me two or three years ago is puzzling. If you were, in fact, a true mutual-consent personal friend of mine, you would definitely want me to enjoy a full medical longevity and full lifespan. So I would like to raise the question at this time of whether you truly do regard yourself as being a true friend of mine. I have observed, for instance, that you never called me, never wrote to me, and you never invited me to join you for friendly conversation and breakfast, lunch, or dinner in a restaurant. Is it possible you were an acquaintance of mine, and not a true friend?"

---"I am not sure whether you have enough talent and skills to ever yourself earn as much as $20,000 or more in gross annual income."

My response to that today: "That comment of yours to me on the telephone in 2009 has since prompted me to note that over the course of the several decades in which I've known you and you have agreed to have conversations with me or exchange letters or ostensibly friendly E-mail correspondence with me, you have achieved the remarkable feat of never once on any occasion in my entire life ever once directly citing any attribute of mine or any trait of mine or any conduct of mine or any accomplishment of mine that you yourself admired or liked or appreciated. The closest you've ever come to praising me, if you recall, was you comment in 2009 on the telephone that you regard me as being 'possibly likeable', you stated. While I appreciate your professed interest in my own medical health being as first-rate as possible, which you convey through E-mail letters you frequently send me about how to boost my medical lifespan, inevitably I wonder whether your role in my own life is as kind and polite and generous toward me as you have repeatedly maintained."

---"You're good at what you do."

My response to that today: "Do you mind if I ask you what I'm doing, exactly, in your view? During this 1994 phone conversation we're having in which I called your home in Tennesee from Kermit, Texas, all I'm aware of doing in my own life during this time period is writing news and feature stories and taking photographs for the 'Winkler County News' general-circulation newspaper in Kermit, Texas. I also write in a personal journal or diary on a year-round basis. Incidentally, for the record, whatever it is that I'm good at doing is apparently not worth as much as $11,100 per year in total gross annual income, according to official U.S. Social Security Administration records about myself for calendar year 1994. My own total gross personal employment-derived income for all of calendar year 1994, in fact, was only $11,095, according to that federal agency."

----"It's all in your head, John."

My response to that today: "You offered me that 1990 personal advice on the telephone during a time period in which I resided and worked full-time as a reporter and columnist for a daily newspaper in Sweetwater, Texas, and made a long-distance phone call to your residence in Washington, D.C. You thereby suggested to me that my life was a purely cerebral and solitudinous experience. Your comment made no reference to the role of money and material goods, or to strictly-mutual-consent socializing, for instance, in a person's quality of life, since you implied that my own life, in particular, is purely an internal and very abstract and solitary experience. For the record, my total gross annual employment-derived income in calendar year 1990 was $11,274, according to records provided to me by the U.S. Government's Social Security Administration in Washington, D.C. My total gross annual employment-derived income in calendar year 1991, for that matter, was only $10,462, according to that same federal agency."

---"The state in which you are living, Texas, is one of my least favorite states in the entire country and a state I'd never again want to visit or reside in."

My response to that today: "I would like to respond belatedly to each of the persons in Washington State and California and Minnesota, respectively, who during long-distance phone conversations I've had with each of you at various times since October 1989, have yourselves each offered me that very critical outlook toward the state of Texas."

---"Rooming with you in this rental apartment unit in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1985 makes me very fearful every day and every night that the Mafia will break into this apartment and kill both of us! I'm Italian-American, and I know how ruthless nad violent the Mafia are!"

My response to that today: "For your sake, I hope that the Mafia never did attack you, and never do attack you. I also hope that if you ever do obtain any factual criminal-law evidence about any person who is directly involved with the Mafia, you will consider contacting a law-enforcement agency and volunteering to serve as a witness in a court of law against that individual involved with the Mafia or with some other organized crime group."

---"Listen to me, John! You're not that important!"

My response to that today: "Is this what you normally say to someone you identify at the time as being a mutual-consent personal friend of yours? Also, when you say that I myself am not that important, which individual or individuals do come to mind for you as being 'that important', to quote your very words on that. You will recall, incidentally, that you made that 'you're not that important' declaration to me in 1986 in the context of explaining why you were completely sure in the year 1986 that no media company or other entity would invade my own privacy rights and appear to stalk me and somehow 'recruit' me for a great career prospect involving fame and financial wealth for myself."

---"Don't you remember that I had warned you before against your keeping up with that female professor at The University of Texas at Austin!"

My response to that today: "As you will recall, you made that surprisingly domineering and censorious comment to me in 1986 or 1987, during a period when I resided in Quincy, Mass., and made a long-distance phone call to your residence in Washington, D.C. You cited a female UT-Austin professor by name, yet you never once stated that she had ever violated my own privacy rights or restricted my own options or opportunities in life or wronged me in any way. Your primary critical words about her, which you verbalized to me in person back in 1978 when you attended UT-Austin as an undergraduate student, were that your mother had observed inside the supermarket in west Austin that the cited female UT professor 'never bends to inspect her lettuce.' That criticism of the cited UT professor was not exactly substantive, in my opinion. You did add to your 1978 critique of that female professor that your mother says that her sister (your aunt), a University of Texas professor herself, claims that the cited female UT professor is allegedly stand-offish, since the cited female professor declined a lunch invitation from your aunt. This is all the factual evidence you ever cited to me about the female professor in regard to whom, you emphatically stated, I should myself refrain from ever again contacting, in your opinion. I would like to point out today, with the benefit of hinsight, that it's your very repressive censoriousness toward myself that appears to be the real issue here!"

----"Oh, you've inspired me all right---but not in the way that you think you have!"

My response to that today: "When you made that emphatic comment to me in 1992, during a long-distance phone call I made to your home in Washington, D.C., from my rental unit in Zapata, Texas, you chose not to elaborate in any way. It was apparent from your tone of voice that you were alluding to your possible decision to attempt to oppose or censor much of what I myself have stood for or stated or opined in my own life. Your possible role as someone seeking to prevent me from leading my own life on my own terms, was conveyed in part by your decision to never once offer me any significant word of praise about myself on any occasion since 1985. If you will recall, your last word of praise for me that you ever offered me came in the 1985 long-distance phone call you made to my apartment on Beacon Hill in Boston, in which you announced that you thought so highly of me that you would like to suggest that I consider dating a graduate student in English at Harvard University whom you were acquainted with and you admired quite a bit, you indicated. Days later, as you will recall, when I never received a follow-up phone call from you about that very impressive social opportunity, I decided to called you back in order to learn more about that very promising prospective date. At that time, you rather abruptly informed me that the cited romantic dating prospect for myself had decided against meeting me in person or dating me, you stated."

---"My female roommate regards you as being someone from her very distant past. She associates you with memories of her distant past that she cherishes.... She still regards you as a friend, even today in the early 1990s, but she now classifies you as being a low-priority friend of hers. That is why she no longer returns phone messages from you or calls you on her own volition or writes you on her own initiative. Since you are a low-priority friend for her these days, she is not inclined to ever call you or write to you anymore on her own initiative."

My response to that today: "Another option, of course, is to myself not keep up with either you or your female roommate, and to myself be very grateful that each of you is fully honoring the privacy rights of this individual (myself) who you both agree to be 'low priority' and 'not that important', if I might quote in the latter case from your female roommate's noteworthy words to me about myself on the telephone back in 1986."


---"You are one of those persons whose physical appearance will improve and look much better as you grow older."

My response to that today: "Gee, maybe your personal prediction to me back in 1976, back at Washington University in St. Louis, was suggesting that my romantic life will finally bloom when I reach age 90. I'm sure I will enjoy my passionate shuffleboard dates in my 90s."

---"I wouldn't give two bits for the cited male adult person you just mentioned to me in this phone call who had a noteworthy role in your own life circumstances in the northeastern United States."

My response to that today: "Does your 1991 or 1990 disclosure to me on the telephone, during a long-distance phone call I made to your home in Westlake Hills, Texas, from my apartment in Sweetwater, Texas, imply that you would, on the other hand, give one bit for him? Can you tell me how much one bit is, in terms of modern American currency? Also, are you possibly suggesting that the cited northeastern U.S. male adult person is somehow a voluntary participant in a slave auction of some type, and you are pondering whether to bid for the opportunity to become his slaver-owner?"

---"What you are experiencing in Quincy, Massachusetts, is purely an internal process, John! Let the process run! And when it's all over, if you still want the cited individual, you can have the cited individual."

My respnose to that today: "During that long-distance phone call I made from a subway station in Braintree, Mass., or Quincy, Mass., in 1986 or 1987 to your private residence near University of Minnesota campus in Minneapolis where you were employed full-time at the time, I found the materialistic mindset and hideous crassness of your comment to me from your own residence in Minneapolis, Minnesota, to be very offensive to me. You implied in your statement that I myself would ever seek to 'acquire' or 'own' or 'enslave' or 'possess' another human being. I have no such outlook toward anyone. Human beings are not THINGS, and no one should ever take for granted a personal relationship with another adult person. That is a strictly-mutual-consent involvement, and that involvement can be terminated by either party at any time, as you well know. You will also note that I am NOT possessive toward anyone, nor am I stalking anyone. Nor has anyone in my entire life ever directly stated to me or to any legal authority that I had allegedly stalked that individual. Many people also credit me with being very respectful of their and others' privacy rights---and their full range of Constitutional rights, such as Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Mutual-Consent Association, Freedom of Religion, etc. I fully support anyone's freedom to choose to exclude me from their own life; and I also revere my own freedom to exclude any cited person from my own life."

---"As a private attorney member of the State Bar of Texas, I can assure you, John, that I fully support your legal and Constitutional right to limit your search for a prospective romantic dating partner to legal-status adult persons either younger in age than yourself or no more than one year older than yourself."

My response to that today: "Thank you for that invaluable oral assurance you helpfully offered me in person during a legal consultation I had with you inside your law firm in downtown Austin in late 1997 or 1998. I cannot tell you how much emotional duress and weight gain was inflicted on me needlessly because of my having been subjected against my wishes to very alienating rumors in Austin Texas, to the effect that one person or another more than one year older than myself, allegedly sought to have carnal relations with myself or allegedly sought to room with myself. I definitely regard myself as being an adult gentleman who is youthful, and who delights in socializing with other adult persons as youthful as myself. I might add that I'm illicit-drug-free, tobacco-free, alcohol-free, and athletically talented, all of which lends credibility to my emphatic statement about my being an adult youthful gentleman myself."

---"John is my biographer! Isn't that amusing!"

My response to that today: "When you as a young woman in your 20s volunteered that oral statement about me to personal friends of yours and college-student-newspaper colleagues of yours in my presence inside the popular Grandma's nightclub near The University of Minnesota campus in 1983, I found your phrasing most peculiar, even at the time. It was as if you were possibly indicating that I possibly was writing about you, when you never once cited to me any writing of mine that ever referred to you in any way. We never once exchanged any letters or E-mail correspondence, if you will recall, and I chose not to keep up with you after I was liberated from your state in 1984 by my moving to Massachsuetts. I have since wondered whether possibly your 'John is my biographer!' exclamation with seemingly gleeful amusement on your part inside Grandma's nightclub in Minneapolis, may have comprised a secret confession from yourself. You were possibly acknowledging, it seems to me, that you were among the persons secretly manipulating and secretly controlling my own living conditions and life circumstances during that time period of the early 1980s----a time period in which I repeatedly in my diary entries and conversations with 'friends' complained frequently about bizarre and very surprising setbacks and major disappointments and degrading incidents I had experienced during that time period."

---"You would be a better match for Great Britain than for Minnesota. You have a formality and politeness about you that the British would enjoy."

My response to that today: "And if I had heeded your 1983 advice and somehow purchased a plane ticket from Minneapolis, Minnesota, to London, England, I would have been told repeatedly in Great Britain by the local residents there that 'You seem so very Minnesota-esque! Are you sure you weren't born on a dairy farm in the midwest? You are the very personification of what I think of when I imagine a Midwestern personality. You have this earnestness about you that is so very, very midwestern American! I can imagine you shucking corn in Nebraska or Minnesota, in fact. As for your female acquaintance's comment to you in Minneapolis that you are a good match for us British people, you should keep in mind that we place a lot of emphasis here on proper sipping technique during consumption of hot tea. I notice that you drink your cup of hot tea with so much zeal that it's as if you were slurping your tea! Tea-slurpers tend to be excluded from party invitation lists here in London. To slurp hot tea identifies you as either cockney or quasi-cockney----not a lofty status for you here, I'm afraid. Nor are you likely to land a job at a cockney newspaper, since there is no 'Cockney News of London' periodical here. I'm inclined to think you would be a better match for the Midwest, no matter what that female acquaintance told you back in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in 1983. Maybe you'd get recognition in the midwest if you win a corncob-shucking contest. Once you're crowned as 'Best Corncob-shucker' in Iowa or Nebraska or Minnesota, this will give you the fame and wealth and prestige you no doubt deserve. Far better that than the 'Quasi-cockney of the Year' award that would have been your only possible source of fame here in London."

---"Your tennis game is pathetically weak!"

My response to that today: "When you each of you respective gentlemen made that exact same in-person comment to me after each of you had rallied with me on a tennis court in Austin, Texas, and in Bellaire, Texas, respectively, in 1974 and the summer of 1978, respectively, I felt demoralized by each of your very critical evaluations of my capabilities. One of you was a member of a prestigious country club in the Tarrytown section of west Austin in Austin, Texas; the other of you was a college student at Rice University at the time. Looking back, is there anything constructive that either of you could have honestly stated to me about my tennis game? It seems to me now that your respective inability to identify ANY strength of any type in my own tennis game at age 17 and age 21, respectively, was not fair to myself. I can't help but wonder how many total occasions each of you has rallied with a gentleman and then immediately afterward stated to him on that tennis court, whether it be on Stephen F. Austin High School's campus in Austin, Texas, or on Rice University's campus in Bellaire, Texas, respectively, that 'your tennis game is pathetically weak!'"

--"The people of Florida have not been kind to you, John! Come back to Texas, where you belong! The people of Texas are much nicer toward you than Floridians have been!"

My response to that today: "Dorothy, I was very impressed by your apparently friendly personal advice to me back in 1979, during a long-distance phone call I made to your home in Lockhart, Texas, from my rental apartment in either Fort Lauderdale, Florida, or Naples, Florida, or possibly both of those places. You were always very gracious toward me, Dorothy, including during my prior days in 1978 as a UT-Austin administration-beat reporter for 'The Daily Texan' student newspaper on the UT-Austin campus. I will always savor that day in May of 1979 when you gave me 'La Livre de la Cuisine de Lafayette, Louisiana' cookbook as an unexpected graduation present to myself inside the newsroom of 'The Daily Texan' student newspaper. I will also savor your very kind hospitality and generosity you also extended to me in 1986, when you hosted a dinner party inside your home in Lockhart for myself and the male editor of 'The Lockhart (TX) Post-Register' semi-weekly newspaper. As for your emphatic view that Texans are friendlier toward me than Floridians were, I should point out that I resided in Florida for about six months. It would not be fair to Florida for me to compare the two states in that category."

---"As a neighbor of yours in Austin, Texas, and as an honorable member of a Jewish fraternity house in Austin who is myself residing inside that fraternity house that's currently affiliated with UT-Austin, I am very sure that none of the Jewish persons you've encountered in your past were conscientious subscribers of Judaism who actually adhered to the tenets of Judaism."

My response to that today: "I find it noteworthy that you felt very sure about that emphatic and polite oral evaluation you volunteered to me in person that day in 2001. Your comment was apparently in regard to all or nearly all of the Jewish persons I'd myself encountered in my life as of the year 2001. Today, with the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had asked you what might explain the emphatic nature of your own surprisingly critical oral evaluation of all of the Jewish persons I'd encountered in my own life as of 2001."

---"This is a letter being FAXED to you at your 'Denver City Press' newspaper office in Denver City, Texas, from 'The Houston Chronicle'. We at 'The Houston Chronicle' have heard that you have endured very severe living conditions and have experienced considerable misery in recent years in Texas. We would like to help you by hiring you this week to work full-time as a reporter for 'The Houston Chronicle.' We will be hiring you specifically for the job of reporting full-time on the singles bar scene and singles nightclub scene in the Houston area. You will receive a very generous salary from 'The Houston Chronicle' and very fine fringe benefits, including a very generous life insurance policy from New York Met life insurance policy."

My response to that today: "I would like to thank the editor of 'The Houston Chronicle' who informed me, when I called that daily newspaper in 1996 from my city of residence during that time period, Denver City in west Texas, that no editor or other staff member at 'The Houston Chronicle' had sent me any such FAX. I was also informed by that 'Houston Chronicle' editor in that same phone call I made to Houston, Texas, that that editor was not aware of any employment opportunity for me at 'The Houston Chronicle' in 1996. Today, I remain curious as to who the actual source had been for that apparently fraudulent FAX to me---a 1996 FAX offering me a full-time reporting job at 'The Houston Chronicle' and citing the correct office phone number for 'The Houston Chronicle'.

---"You have finally ratted me out in Houston, and I'm infuriated that you somehow obtained my mailing address! You should never have obtained that private information about me! The majority of the members of my Socialist Party in Texas are persecuted, and most of our members are incarcerated in a state prison or county jail in this state. I am an officer of the Socialist Party in Texas, and I emphatically ask you to never again write to me!"

My response to that today: "I had written to you upon prior authorization in 1999 from a work supervisor of mine at my Texas Legislative Council workplace. I had written to you strictly in the hope of meeting some law-abiding and very conscientious and honorable Texans during my leisuretime who support more extensive governmental involvement in the cultural and economic and environnmental life and major societal problems of our state---problems such as urban sprawl, for instance. I myself have never been a member of any Socialist party, but I had hoped that possibly some of the members of your Socialist Party in Texas would have been very conscientious persons who might be compatible with me as prospective personal friends of mine. I am referring to idealistic and polite persons with a democratic orientation who support increased governmental protection of the environment and increased governmental involvement in conservation of land and other natural resources throughout Texas, for instance. Your reply letter to me in 1999 was so vicious and combative in tone that I'm very grateful today that none of my current friends are affiliated with your political party in Texas."

---"You should file a lawsuit against 'The Austin American-Statesman.' Their editor's cited reason for not giving you any consideration for employment there as a writer is not legal, in my opinion. You have a legal and Constitutional right to establish a fully independent religion of your own while still receiving full consideration for employment opportunities in journalism."

My response to that today: "I was very surprised when you as a male adult customer of mine inside an all-night chain restaurant in Austin volunteered that legal advice to me inside my restaurant workplace during working hours for me in 2002. As you may recall, you had asked me about my professional background on your own volition. When I told you that I had been a newspaper journalist in prior years, you asked me why I was not working for 'The Austin American-Statesman'. I then honestly and accurately replied to your question by citing a signed 1997 signed reply letter to me from the editor of that daily newspaper, Mr. Rich Oppel, stating that since I had myself established an independent religion of my own, this disqualified me from receiving any consideration for employment as a writer or reporter at 'The Austin American-Statesman', according to that very influential newspaper editor, Mr. Rich Oppel."

---"I don't look upon your Progressive Prohibitionist Religion as a true religion."

My response to that today: "You made that comment to me on the telephone in late 1997, during a period when I resided near UT-Austin's campus, and I was very disappointed by your outlook. I would like to point out that the one-member (so far) and non-proselytizing religion I've founded offers very specific moral guidance to its membership. That, to me, is part of what makes my denomination a religion. To name one example of moral guidance offered by my religion, it prohibits its membership from any and all participation in anonymous communications. The only exception to that might be cases in which an individual. You, for instance, are guaranteed that I would never leave you a phone message or subject you to any communication of any type that fails to cite my legal name. Today, you will note that I am using my full legal name, John Kevin McMillan, as the official name for my blog. My non-Christian and quality-of-life-minded religion is strictly limited to persons who lead permanently illicit-drug-free, permanently tobacco-free, and permanently-drinking-alcohol-free (teetotaling) lifestyles, in the complete absence of any previous addiction to any illicit drug, tobacco product, or alcohol product. My religion is also strictly limited to persons who have no felony-conviction record. These are just some of the tenets of my religion for the honorable---a noble religion that assigns highest possible priority to helping and befriending children and other young persons under age 30, along with their parents. My religion advocates Hobby Fairs and Hobby-theme workshops that are particularly designed to help address the leisuretime needs of children and all other persons under age 30. The specificity of my religion is very tangible and clear to me. My religion is very real to me."

---"I'm not sure that I can trust you as a personal friend. If I ever do anything illegal, you might call the Austin Police Department or Federal Bureau of Investigation and turn me in."

My response to that today: "Thank you for raising this point to me in the 21st Century here in Austin, Texas. Would you be willing to tell me the types of illegal activities you anticipate that you might conceivably engage in at some current or future point this year, for instance? I could then tell you whether I would feel honorbound to myself contact the Austin Police Department or the Federal Bureau of Investigation and report your conduct. I say this because I am very opposed to any form of complicity or collusion in crime. If I obtain evidence of flagrantly criminal conduct by another person, I'd be guilty of complicity or collusion in crime if I withheld that criminal-law evidence from a law-enforcement agency. Those who fail to speak up against crime are defacto partners in crime."

---"You are so very thin and emaciated you look like a civilian residing in Europe during World War II. You appear to be living on a starvation diet these days."

My response to that today: "That 1977 observation from a male acquaintance of mine in St. Louis, Missouri, comprised the first time that anyone had compared me to an individual indirectly or directly victimized by a military conflict in which I was myself a civilian residing in one of the nations where the battles were being fought. Today, with the benefit of hindsight, I strongly believe in proper nutritional and dietary balance, as much as possible, on a lifelong basis."

---"As the male adult manager of a phootocopying store situated in downtown Austin, I sense that your leading adversary is a local media company."

My response to that today: "Thank you for that unsolicited comment you kindly volunteered to me in 1997, during a time period in which I visited your store in downtown Austin to pursue photocopying. Looking back, I wish I had asked you if you would have been willing to provide me with the legal names of any employee or official of that cited media company whom you yourself suspected of having wronged me and broken the law in the process."

---"The one person whom my friend and I both agree to be the best possible companion for you here in Minneapolis is someone 15 years older than yourself who's just like yourself. That individual is very egocentric and selfish, talks non-stop, is arrogant, and is insufferable to be around."

My response to that today: "Thank you for honoring my choice to not have any involvement of my own with that individual, whether in 1982 or in any year since then."

---"There is something I would like to tell you about your circumstances here in Sweetwater, Texas, that will be a very big relief for you."

My response to that today: "That comment you made to me in 1991 during a two-person converstaion we had inside my rental apartment in Sweetwater, Texas, has prompted me to wonder in subsequent years what that 'relief' you cited would have been. As it turned out, you chose not to elaborate on that comment you indicated at the time would be very reassuring to me."

---"Immediately after meeting you today in 1982 inside this restaurant in south Minneapolis where my older brother introduced me to you, I sensed that you are the type of person who could reject another human being very abruptly. That personality trait of yours which I immediately identified in you today, during our first-ever meeting, is rather frightening to me."

My response to that today: "I recall now that you as a young woman reportedly were planning to become a professional psychologist in Chicago, Illinois, during that time period when I met you for the first time ever. I think it fair of me to ask you today to please explain to me what prompted you to suddenly announce to me a matter of seconds after I introduced myself to you, that you felt very sure I was capable of rejecting another person very abruptly, and that this was very frightening to you, you stated to me at the time."

---"You are very sharp and incisive, and this is why a lot of people respond to you in an abrasive and combative manner. Those persons are being rude to you here in Minneapolis, and their conduct is not justifiable."

My response to that today: "Thank you for noting that individuals in Minneapolis, Minnesota, whom I was myself being polite toward inside that cultural center in south Minneapolis in 1981 or 1982, were, in fact, responding to me in a hostile manner."

---"Don't take my best friend Doug's comment seriously when he tells you in 1982 that he would not be interested in reviewing your own fiction-writing attempts, since the only fiction writers he likes to study are dead fiction writers, he told you this week here in Minneapolis. I'm sure that Doug was not aware how that might come across to you. That particular male adult fiction writer here in Minneapolis limits his own admiration for fiction writers to those writers who are dead."

My response to that today: "Are you completely sure that your fiction-writing friend Doug was lacking in harmful or injurious or criminal intent toward myself, during that period of 1982 when I became acquainted with that individual in Minneapolis, Minnesota?"

---"I am writing my doctoral dissertation in English here at The University of Minnesota-Minneapolis, and I need to tell you as a next-door neighbor of yours, that that I hate you very intensely! I also need to tell you that I'm a married man neighbor of yours and English-language expert who regards your own writing skills as very weak."

My response to that today: "I find it fascinating that you volunteered to me in 1983 in person in southeast Minneapolis, a matter of blocks from the University of Minnesota-Minneapolis campus, that you hated me very intensely. I should consider myself very fortunate that you were at least civil about your cited intense antipathy toward myself, and you did take the time to offer me some editing suggestions on a humor column I wrote for 'The Minnesota Daily' student newspaper in 1983."

--"Your long-term involuntary celibacy here in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in 1983 that you are complaining about to me today, is not at all unusual. In prior years, I myself, as a very attractive single woman, resided in Cambridge, Massachusetts over a multi-year period while remaining completely celibate the entire time."

My response to that today: "Looking back, maybe I should have identified my own long-term involuntary celibacy as a topic for a new book project. I could have asked you, with your husband's prior permission, if you would be willing to let me interview you about your multi-year period of complete celibacy in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in the 1970s, during a time period in which you as a single woman."

---"I don't know of any member of any alumni group affiliated with Rice University in the Houston area who would be willing to meet with you in person. It's obvious that your own socioeconomic status as a sports reporter for 'The Baytown Sun' daily newspaper in Baytown, Texas, is very low and unimpressive compared with that of all Rice University alumni of whom I'm aware."

My response to that today: "Your comments to me in person during the rather unpleasant meeting I had with you in 1995, have reminded me ever since to myself oppose intellectual elitism in a law-abiding and very emphatic manner. I should also mention at this time that I'm grateful that you and your Rice University alumni have, at least, fully honored my own privacy rights----including my legal right to not myself associate with yourself, in particular, at any time."

---"As a fiction writer here in Minneapolis who is myself a full-time employee of the University of Minnesota-Minenapolis, I know some men in this city who would EAT YOU ALIVE! While you have your native intellect as your primary strength as a human being, they are worldly, savvy, cynical and very aggressive compared to you!"

My response to that: "It's good to sense that I have the option of not being subjected to cannibalism in 1983 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. I am very appalled by the unconscionable crime of attempted homicide or homicide. As for your repeated statements to me that you regard me as being one of the most gentle people whom you have ever met, I would like to respond to that today by pointing out that I identify with politely aggressive and masculine and law-abiding gentlemen, and I take great pride in my being politely aggressive and masculine and law-abiding myself."

---"If I ever do write about you in my fiction-writing, it will always be in a sympathetic manner."

My response to that today: "As a law-abiding and honorable and very benevolent non-alcoholic gentleman, I am very fortunate that you have never written about me. Incidentally, I do not believe that sympathy or empathy toward anyone was a trait I ever observed in you when you made that comment to me in person in 1984 in your U.S. state of Minnesota. I am very grateful that today, with help from a legally wand civilly worded rejection letter I wrote and mailed to your mailing address in Minnesota in the early 1990s, you are legally prohibited by the City of Austin, Travis County Government, and the State Government of Texas from ever violating my own privacy rights or having any involvement in my own life or life circumstnaces."

---"I recommend that you file for personal bankruptcy in the year 2007, since that will give you a chance to get a fresh start in life."

My response to that today: "I am very proud of the fact that I did not follow your bad personal advice on that, which you offered me on the telephone in early 2007. I am very committed to lawfully and in a civil manner repaying each and every one of the financial debts for which I received a receipt or for which I have kept a financial record in my ledger book----no matter how many months or years it takes me to repay all of those debts."

--"As a former schoolmate of yours at Stephen F. Austin High School in Austin, Texas, I urge you to sue the bast-rds (profanity) who have been manipulating your life circumstances in Austin, Texas, and subjecting you to anonymous verbal harassment!"

My response to that today: "Your 1997 advice to me outdoors, a few blocks from The University of Texas at Austin campus, has prompted me to wonder in subsequent years why you offered me that emphatic legal advice without directly citing to me the name of any person whom you yourself identified as blameworthy. I'm sure you would agree that no judge or court of law in Austin, Texas, would permit an individual such as myself to formally file a lawsuit without citing an individual or entity I regard as blameworthy and from which I insist on receiving very generous financial compensation through that litigation I have initiated."

---"You're awfully young to be so cynical!"

My response to that today: "As you may recall, Professor, you made that very emphatic comment to me in 1983 or 1984 inside your faculty office on the campus of The University of Minnesota-Minneapolis School of Journalism and Mass Communications. You appeared to be referring in part to some or several of the oped humor columns I had written for 'The Minnesota Daily' during that time period---oped columns that you apparently regarded as cynical. Today, with the benefit of hindsight about alleged verbal harassment of myself by others over a multi-decade period, do you truly believe that in 1983 or 1984 I was 'too cynical'?"

---"As an official of the American Medical Association based in Chicago, Illinois, I want you to know that my nationwide professional organization is very alarmed by your report you've E-mailed to us about alleged artificial inflation of your abdomen featuring substantial hollowness in your abdomen. Any and all forms of medical malpractice are very opposed by the American Medical Association."

My response to that today: "I would like to thank the American Medical Association in Chicago, Illinois, for sending me that invaluable 2000 E-mail letter on that important subject. It is obvious that the American Medical Association is willing to pursue legal actions to help ensure that any and all forms of medical fraud and injurious medical practices allegedly occurring in Austin, Texas, are prevented or terminated as soon as possible."

---"Your long-distance phone call to me in 1996 from your apartment in Denver City, Texas, to my private residence in Lubbock---a phone call in which you are inviting me in 1996 to have lunch with you in a restaurant in the Panhandle region of Texas--- prompts me to volunteer that I am very busy during my leisuretime. My focus during my leisuretime is on assisting and serving a variety of terminally ill persons in the Panhandle. As a result, I do not have the free time available to meet with you anytime in 1996."

My response to that today: "Each person enjoys the Freedom of Speech-protected legal right to set his own priorities in life. I consider myself very fortunate that I myself am not terminally ill, and that I have the wonderful opportunity to myself enjoy a full and natural human lifespan and creative longevity."

----"Those Brits can be interesting conversationalists."

My response to that today: "When you made that particular comment to me on the telephone, during a long-distance phone call I made in 1993 or 1994 to your Central Texas home from my rental apartment in Pampa, Texas, I was surprised that you referred to 'those Brits'. I had not stated to you in that particular phone conversation that I had spoken with any British citizens anywhere in the Pampa area. Nor can I currently recall any Pampa-area resident I met who ever directly stated to me that he or she was born in Great Britain or a current citizen of Great Britain. To this day, I am baffled by your 'Those Brits can be interesting conversationalists' observation you volunteered to me about cited residents of the Pampa area whom I was interviewing for my newspaper employer, working with at my newspaper workplace, or speaking with during my leisuretime."

---"One of the primary intents of manipulations of your own living conditions in Texas is to encourage you to adapt your own strong identification with European nations into a Texan context. Your over-identification with European citizens is part of the problem in your own outlook that is being addressed through these manipulative circumstances in your life in Texas."

My response to that today: "I find it noteworthy that you volunteered that unsmiling outlook to me in the early 1990s as you stood at the front door to your home in the Austin area of Texas. Many other Americans identify extensively with European cultures without their being subjected against their wishes to a project of entrapment aimed at 'changing' themselves."

---"As a medical physician based in Maryland who is familiar with your circumstances, I can tell you in advance that you will be moving to Europe in the foreseeable future."

My response to that today: "Your cryptic prediction to me in 1990 or 1991, during a long-distance phone call I made to your and your wife's Maryland home from my apartment in Sweetwater, Texas, was very baffling. You did not cite to me the name of any European citizen of whom you were aware, who definitely planned to invite me to emigrate or move to Europe."

---"As a medical physician based in Maryland, I can tell you in 1990 that I have read all about your case in the medical journals. And those medical journals offered a very unflattering profile of yourself."

My response to that today: "Looking back, I wish I had asked you during that long-distance phone call I made in 1990 to your and your wife's home in Maryland from my rental apartment in Sweetwater, Texas, to please send me a list of any and all published medical journals that, according to you, contained cited articles allegedly referring to myself in some context. As you know, I have never authorized any medical experiments or medical studies relating to myself in any way. So any such medical experiments or medical studies about which you apparently referred would have been flagrantly illegal and an automatic basis for a massive lawsuit by myself against that medical physician or medical school or university----regardless of whether it or he or she was situated in Maryland."

---"As a former newspaper publisher of yours who supervised you in the early 1990s when you were a full-time reporter for my newspaper in south Texas, I don't myself recall having ever told the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission state agency in Austin in December of 2001, during a telephone call for a professional reference from myself that that state agency did make to my newspaper office in south Texas, that you yourself cannot be trusted at any job involving in-person conversations with and interactions with children. I made no such comment to a representative for that State of Texas agency who contacted me and posed questions to me about yourself."

My response to that today: "Thank you for conveying to me on the telephone in 2002 or 2003 your apparent impression that the cited State Government of Texas agency in Austin in a legal document it provided me in 2002 or 2003, this in response to a public-information request from myself, may have somehow incorrectly quoted you on that subject. It must pose a concern to you that the cited unflattering comment about myself attributed to yourself may have possibly undermined my own chances for full-time employment with that State of Texas agency in December of 2001. I would like to take this opportunity to politely mention, by the way, that I myself have no criminal-conviction record, as you may be aware, and I lead a completely and permanently illicit-drug-free, tobacco-free, and drinking-alcohol-free lifestyle. Also, I have been a successful official Big Brother on two occasions, both in New Ulm, Minnesota, in 1980 and 1981, and I've been a successful unofficial "Big Brother"-type older adult male friend to a male youth on three separate occasions in Texas. Those three separate occasions included during the time period 1988-1989 in El Campo, Texas; the time period 1990 or 1991 in Sweetwater, Texas; and 1996 in Denver City, Texas. I take great pride in myself being a kind and law-abiding and wholesome and conscientious prospective adult male personal friend for persons of any age, including persons significantly younger than myself in age."

---"I know of only one individual, a man based in the northeastern United States whom I am citing to you today by name, who is the sole financial source of all of the manipulations and outside interference that you have encountered in your own life circumstances and living conditions in the Boston area of Massachusetts in 1986 and 1987."

My response to that today: "I appreciate that helpful disclosure of information to me from an editor of a general-circulation newspaper in Lockhart, Texas, in 1987 or 1986, during a time period in which I resided in Quincy, Massachusetts, and made a long-distance phone call to that editor's newspaper workplace in Lockhart, Texas."

--"As a magazine journalist based in downtown Austin in Texas, I strongly support your own legal right to yourself file a lawsuit against any and all gay media companies that are ever determined to have violated your privacy rights and harassed you."

My response to that today: "I appreciate that support you kindly verbalized to me in 2007 or so in regard to my legal right to myself in a civil and lawful manner file a lawsuit on my own behalf in a court of law in that cited context against one or more citedly unethical gay media companies. I would have been even more grateful if you had been willing to volunteer to me the name of at least one gay media company, regardless of where it is based or or headquartered, that you yourself suspect of having allegedly violated my own privacy rights or of having otherwise wronged me and allegedly broken the law in the pcrocess."

---"There are a lot of staff members here at 'The Patriot Ledger' daily newspaper in Quincy, Massachusetts, who like you and would like to associate with you during their leisuretime. If you would just ease up a little bit, you'll find that several of your coworkers here at 'The Patriot Ledger' daily newspaper will be contacting you in a friendly manner."

My response to that today: "When I did try following your personal advice, which you offered me in a two-person meeting you had with me in late 1985 during a workshift for each of us in a large meeting room of 'The Patriot Ledger' newsroom, I was very surprised to note that I did not receive any friendly phone calls from any of the staff members, with one total exception. That one total exception was a female college-student intern who made several apparently friendly phone calls to my rental apartment in Quincy, Mass., in late 1985 and early 1986. Is it possible that you overestimated my own level of popularity at 'The Patriot Ledger' in late 1985, when you stated to me you were very sure that if I would 'ease up a little bit', several of my coworkers would be making friendly phone calls to me during my and their leisuretime."

---"Don't contact them! They'll contact you!"

My response to that today: "I would like to politely disagree with that personal advice that you offered me during a long distance phone call I made to your Austin-area home in 1986 or 1987, from Quincy, Massachusetts. I take pride in leading a politely aggressive lifestyle for myself in which I take lots of creative initiatives---including on behalf of meeting new people and befriending new acquaintances or new personal friends of mine. I would not feel comfortable about any 'lifestyle' in which I am expected to merely wait in a passive or silent manner for my personal telephone to ring. I believe in leading a full life, including a well-rounded platonic social life, that benefits greatly from my actively taking steps to make my own and others' lives as enjoyable and culturally enriching and heartfelt and joyous and successful as possible."

-----"Your letter to me in 1986 contained noteworthy criticism of myself. I regard that as completely unacceptable on your part, and I hereby insist in this 1986 telephone conversation that we both sever all ties with each other."

My response to that today: "I would have preferred it if you had sent me a signed letter, assuring me in writing that you would never again at any time have any involvement in any aspect of my own life or life circumstances. In my own life, I am much happier without you; and I will, if need be, file any legal complaint I need to file to myself lawfully and in a civil manner permanently exclude you from my own life."

---"You're never relaxed, John."

My response to that today: "While I respect your right to have that opinion of me in the year 1986, I don't feel that your comment to me is a fair evaluation of myself as a human being. I would like to point out that many of the individuals whom I have encountered in my own life have not been honest or law-abiding or polite or kind or constructive in their comments to myself or conduct toward myself. It made good sense for me to lawfully and honorably oppose or criticize or complain about conduct toward me by many of those individuals."


----"Do not expect people to be honest with you. The trait you should emphasize when you evaluate other persons is their level of sincerity toward you. Sincerity is very important."

My response to that today: "Today, I disagree with your emphatic in-person advice to me in 1982, during a period in which I resided in Minneapolis, Minnesota. I yearn for reliable, factual, information in my own life; and I'm particularly appreciative of law-abiding and constructive and down-to-earth persons who exhibit the highest level of honesty and kindness in their communications with myself."

----"You should be very pleased to have this opportunity to have a role, however modest, in which you get to participate and contribute toward the broader collective artistic and creative accomplishments of American society."

My response to that today: "I would like to point out that when you made that comment to me in 1983 or 1984, during a period in which each of us resided in Minneapolis, Minnesota, I had not signed any contract with an artists cooperative of any type. Nor have I ever signed any contract in which I declared that I had no need for privacy rights, and would gladly forfeit my legal privacy rights towaard the 'broader collective artistic and creative good of society', to paraphrase your words to me back in 1983. I also find it noteworthy that you made no reference to my own privacy rights at any time. Nor did you ever cite any scenario in which I would ever be able to somehow pay my bills during this period in which I was expected to contribute, however modestly, toward the overall creative and artistic good of society, as you put it back in 1983 or 1984."

---"You should look upon the new job you've landed in 1986 at the Whataburger chain restaurant fast-food restaurant along Barton Springs Road in Austin, Texas, as a wonderful career opportunity for yourself. Just smile as if it were the very best job in the entire world!"

My response to that today: "Preparing those hamburgers and other sandwiches very quickly was not easy. I did strive to be polite and courteous, but the pace of preparing meals, including takeout orders, for customers of that particular chain restaurant was rather frantic. This made it very difficult for me to smile."

---"As a coworker of yours inside this workplace in Austin, I look upon you as being the most innocent and naive person who ever lived."

My response to that today: "Thank you for kindly volunteering to me back in 2002 during a workshift for each of us that you were yourself aware of circumstances in my own life that prompted skepticism or a critical vantage point toward those circumstances from yourself. Your empathy was greatly appreciated."

---"You describe to me circumstances in your life in which complete strangers have approached you and presented themselves as offering friendly and well-intended unsolicited advice and help to yourself. It seems to me that you may be at risk of developing a form of reverse paranoia in which you are misled into proceeding as if everyone around you is friendly and well-intended toward you. Any such outlook on your part could very injurious toward yourself."

My response to that today: "Thank you, Stefan, for offering me that helpful insight during the in-person conversation I had with you when I happened to spot you in 1986 as I walked near the outdoor patio section of at the Les Amis cafe situated a block or two from The University of Texas at Austin campus. You were sitting alone at an outdoor table there that day, and we spoke for a minute or two. I found it remarkable, incidentally, that you as a native of Germany, a former English major at UT-Austin, and as a former neighbor of mine inside Prather Dormitory on the UT-Austin campus, were willing to speak with me candidly that day on your own volition about what you had somehow observed of my own circumstances in Austin, Texas, and elsewhere in 1986. Your alertness in advising me in a sharply critical manner that some of the individuals whom I encountered in 1986 might actually have harmful intent toward me, belied your own modest and unassuming description of yourself that day as 'one of the many ne'er-do-wells of Austin,' as you put it."

---"I need to warn you in writing that many of the persons you will be encountering in Texas during this time period are Satanically inspired. Beware of their evil ways toward you."

My response to that today: "Thank you for your helpful written warning to me that you as a self-described Mormon gentleman whom I had first met in person at the Mormon student center near UT-Austin, kindly volunteered to me in a 1995 personal letter you wrote and signed and mailed to me from Provo, Utah--- a personal letter that I received in my mailbox in Baytown, Texas."

---"As an ear, nose, and throat medical specialist and physician based in Austin, Texas, who has myself examined your hearing capacity through numerous visits you have made to my medical clinic over a multi-year period, I can tell you that permanent damage to your hearing capacity that you have sustained in Austin, Texas, as a result of noise pollution inside some or several of your various workplaces and in other contexts in Austin, Texas--- noise pollution that you yourself have not authorized or caused, I might point out --- is comparable in magnitude and severity to what a police officer sustains over the course of a career involving frequent exposure to gunshots."

My response to that today: "Thank you, Dr. Tobey, for the great courage and incisiveness you as a first-rate ear, nose, and throat specialist conveyed when you shared that medical determination of yours with me in person in 2009 during a medical appointment I had with you that day inside your medical clinic. I am also very grateful to you for your very kind willingness, upon prior written authorization that I've already provided you, to share your medical findings about me with any person or entity that or who ever at any time contacts your medical clinic in northwest Austin, Texas, at your office phone number of (512) 346-5562, and inquires about your medical findings relating to myself, John Kevin McMillan."

---"I wish to volunteer that I personally feel love toward you. However, I also regard you as evil because you have recently written and mailed letters to me that give me the impression you might be consulting an attorney and you might seek to file a lawsuit against me in a court of law at some point. Please don't send me any more letters---not even friendly greeting cards."

My response to that today: "I was not aware of any such lawsuit threat in any of the personal letters I had written and sent to you. As you know, you had repeatedly emphasized to me over a multi-decade period that you yourself had no involvement of any type in alleged violations of my own privacy rights occurring over a multi-decade period in Texas and, before that, in Massachusetts, for instance. You also emphasized to me in 1990 or 1991, for instance, when I made a long-distance phone call to your Harris County, Texas, private residence from my rental apartment in Sweetwater, Texas, that you were very sure I have no need for an attorney to represent me or provide me with legal consultation services in a court of law at any time. When I asked you why you were so sure about that, you replied, 'You know (the answer to that)', with your tone of voice possibly suggesting that you believed that I had somehow been compromised in some context, in your apparent view, and that I therefore might be perceived by others as somehow lacking credibility in a court of law, in your own possible view. I would like to point out at this time that I am definitely more honorable and more honest and more law-abiding and more wholesome and far more civil than the vast majority of all adult male persons in all of Texas. To this day, I have not understood why you were so emphatic about your emphatic 1990 or 1991 personal advice to me on the telephone, that I should never pay any legal fee to a private attorney whom I might choose to ask to represent me in filing a lawsuit on my behalf in a court of law in Texas, for instance."

---"You sing too loudly in your all-children's choir inside this Unitarian church in Austin."

My response to that today: "When you as an adult choir director one day in the 1960s asked me in front of the entire choir to not sing loudly in the choir anymore, I was very surprised and disappointed by your very critical vantage point toward my singing. Your very unappreciative evaluation of my singing capabilities dramatically undermined my ability to enjoy singing in that choir. As a non-Unitarian today, I am pleased to note that any choir that my own new and fully independent religion might ever sponsor will feature a very constructive style of coaching and guidance toward each and every child participating in that choir."


----"Your own emphatically stated political and religious support for revision of state law in Texas to authorize court-ordered capital punishment for attempted homicide as well as for homicide, has a nauseating effect on me. I cannot stomach capital punishment for homicide, much less the proposed revision of state law you advocate that would authorize court-ordered capital punishment of persons who in a court of law in Texas are convicted having committed attempted homicide in Texas."

My response to that today: "I find it very sad that you as a professedly law-enforcement-minded south Texas resident indicated to me on the telephone in the early 21st Century that you are physically nauseated and repulsed by the very idea of the proposed expansion of court-ordered capital punishment in Texas that would legally authorize the death penalty being imposed on persons convicted of having committed attempted homicide in Texas."

---"Anytime you consult an attorney in Texas, you are just throwing your own money away."

My response to that today: "It is noteworthy that numerous Texans have offered me that personal advice on the telephone in the period since the early 1990s. I appreciate those Texans' conveyed appreciation for my own lifestyle tradition of my being honest and law-abiding and civil. It's apparent that none of you Texans who offered me that personal advice ever foresee any circumstance in which I myself would ever have a definite need to consult a private-law attorney on my own behalf. I would like to point out, however, that I have obtained considerable legal evidence on my own behalf since 1987, for instance, indicating that one or more persons or business entities or civic groups allegedly wronged myself, such as through alleged verbal harassment of myself and alleged slander and libel and fraudulent communications victimizing myself and, at various times, alleged medical fraud injurious to myself. Since I am not an attorney myself, it seems to me that I might well benefit from myself consulting a private attorney of my direct choosing at some point in the foreseeable future in Texas."

---"You are above average in looks."

My response to that today: "I was very surprised that you made that comment to me on the telephone in 1990 or 1991, during a time period in which I resided in Sweetwater, Texas, and had made a phone call to your North Texas-based newspaper office. During that approximate time period, I myself was reporting full-time for a daily newspaper in Sweetwater. You made that comment to me without any context to it, since I had not asked you if you thought me to be physically attractive. In the years since you made that comment to me with no apparent context to your observation, I have sometimes wondered whether you were suggesting that I consider pursuing a career for myself in television. The fact remains, though, that I am very much of an ideas person, and I love to brainstorm creatively. Those strengths are generally much more conducive to a career with a printed publication, it seems to me. It is possible, though, that your comment was hinting at your expectation that I myself might eventually develop a mutual-consent romantic life in Texas, since I have the physical attractiveness I would need for that. I can assure you, though, that I have been completely celibate throughout all of my waking or conscious hours on 99.9 percent or more of my 24-hour days as an adult American citizen. That makes me one of the least sexually active of all adult male Americans who are not themselves Roman Catholic priests."

---"As a private attorney member of the State Bar of Texas who previously provided you with legal services in the early 1990s, when you resided in Pampa, Texas, I can tell you today, in the year 1997, that there may possibly be a source of outside interference in your life these days in Palestine, Texas. However, I am not able to ascertain the identity of the individual accounting for any such outside interference in your life these days in your east Texas town of Palestine. I can assure you, though, that if that individual is ever identified to you, you definitely have the legal right to yourself reject that individual and exclude that individual from your own life."

My response to that today: "Thank you again for helpfully confirming for me in 1997----this during a long-distance phone call I made at my own financial expense from the newsroom of my daily newspaper workplace in Palestine, Texas, to your law office in Pampa, Texas----that my impression of outside interference during that time period by one or more persons, persons unbeknownst to myself, in my own life circumstances in Palestine, Texas, was a possibly correct impression on my part."

---"We need to inform you at this time that you are yourself filing criminal-law charges today through this meeting you are having with us Austin Police Department officers inside our police station in downtown Austin."

My response to that today: "I appreciate your helpfully volunteering that oral statement to me in 1997, during a meeting I initiated and had with you all at your police headquarters in downtown Austin, Texas, that was attended by myself and three or more officers of the Austin Police Department. Today, though, I would like to politely point that I never heard about any criminal-law prosecutions in a court of law in Austin, Texas, resulting from that closed-door meeting I had with you three or four very fine APD officers in 1997. Nor was I ever informed about any expected payment of restitution money to myself by any cited offender that resulted from the criminal-law charges you emphatically stated to me at the time that you were in fact pursuing for me on my own behalf. I would like to also point out at this time that one of the questions you posed to me toward the end of that very same meeting we had in 1997 at APD headquarters was, 'Are you hearing voices?' You posed that question without any apparent context, and without any predicate to your question. My very accurate response that I offered you that day, as you will no doubt recall, was that 'I'm not hearing any voices that you Austin Police Department officers are not also hearing'. Thank you again for the kind stated interest in my own legal rights being fully protected that you police officers conveyed to me that day in 1997 at APD headquarters in downtown Austin."

---"This is Dr. Madalyn Murray O'Hair speaking with you today on the telephone. My American Atheist Press in Austin, Texas, would never be willing to employ you ever again in any capacity, since you have an obvious need for many additional years of psychiatric care!"

My response to that today: "Dr. O'Hair, thank you for your helpful reminder to me on the telephone that day in the early 1990s that I am very incompatible with your atheist group and atheist media company. Unlike yourself and your very repressive and censorious atheist community, I revere Freedom of Religion. Also unlike yourself and your atheist community, I'm the founder of a new and implicitly deistic religion, the Progressive Prohibitionist Religion----a non-Christian, non-proselytizing religion with very stringent membership eligibility requirements. I would also like to point out to you at this time that your very offensive statement to me on the telephone that day in the early 1990s that according to you, I myself somehow need 'many additional years of psychiatric care,' as you put it, was both very irresponsible, injurious, and slanderous on your part. You were fully aware when you made that outrageous comment to me that I hold full power of attorney on my own behalf, and with one total exception, no mental health services provider has been authorized to have any involvement in my own life at any time since 1991, for instance. The only exception to that was the time period in which I worked part-time as a mental health worker in Dripping Springs, Texas, in late 2001 and early 2002. That was a strictly employment-related involvement between myself and my private-sector employer, Brown-Karhan, which financially compensated me, through paychecks issued to myself, for my contributions as one of its mental health workers. I would also like to point out, Dr. O'Hair, that when you presided over my dismissal as a proofreader at your media company in 1988, your female assistant, Robin Murray O'Hair, stated to me in person inside her office on the day of my dismissal that 'you (John Kevin McMillan) were overheard by us making a phone call during a break inside your office to the State Bar of Texas state agency in Austin or the Travis County Lawyer Referral Service in Austin, Texas, in regard to your seeking an attorney in Austin, Texas, to file a lawsuit for you against the alleged source of alleged violations of your privacy rights inside this workplace. That conduct of yours is completely unaceceptable to this atheist media company which until your dismissal today has been your full-time employer over a multi-week period here in Austin."

----"Your meeting with me inside my law office in Westlake Hills, Texas, in 1992, prompts me to volunteer that the individuals I associate with you the most in my own mind are both phenomenal geniuses! As for yourself, I regard you as being very paranoid, and I refuse to provide you with any legal services for that cited reason."

My response to that today: "I was surprised that you chose to volunteer to cite those two individuals by name during our meeting inside your private law office in Westlake Hills, Texas, in 1992. It is interesting to note that even though you had been acquainted with me in my high school days in Austin, Texas, and you spoke with me for 10 to 15 minutes during my one-to-one meeting with you inside your law firm on that one total occasion in 1992, you never at any time in that 1992 meeting (or before that, I might add at this time) ever once cited to me any attribute or strength of mine that you yourself admired in any context."

----"Your father was a lot straighter than you are."

My response to that today: "When you as a relative of mine and retired U.S. military officer volunteered that observation to me during a 21st Century long-distance phone call I made at my own expense to your Las Vegas-area home in Nevada from my private residence in Austin, Texas, you did not cite to me any factual evidence of any type. Nor did you ever ask me if I had a criminal-conviction record. I don't---which very dramatically sets me apart from the vast majority of all adult American men, I can assure you. Nor did you ask me for my personal response to your unsolicited observation about me in that phone conversation. If you had, I would have pointed out to you that I have not consumed any drinking alcohol on any occasion since the summer of 1990, and I was never addicted to alcohol on any prior occasion. I would have also at this time like to point out that in my career I have worked full-time for three different law-enforcement agencies of the State Government of Texas in Austin, Texas. Furthermore, through the years I have made hundreds of 911 and 311 and other phone calls to local, state, and federal law-enforcement agencies, beginning in Naples, Florida, in 1979, when I called the Naples Police Department from a pay telephone to report that I had observed a man lying unconscious on the front seat of his motor vehicle in Naples, Florida. As it turned out, the dispatcher on his end of the phone actually laughed at my well-intended 911 report and politely refused to send a Naples Police officer to the scene. The dispatcher stated to me during that 1979 phone call from myself that the adult man I had expressed concern about was obviously inebriated and 'sleeping it off', or words to that effect, with no police response needed, according to that dispatcher. Even though my first-ever 911 phone call proved to have been very unpersuasive speaking on my part, I take great pride in being vigilant in the hope that some future 911 call or 311 call by myself will help to save someone's life."

---"In this particular sixth-grade English paper that I've written as a student at Eanes Elementary School in Westlake Hills, Texas, in the year 1969, I am assigning several of my classmates to their expected eventual career roles..... For John McMillan, I hereby assign him the role of The Banker, who will be generously lending money to numerous persons through his career."

My response to that today: "Thank you for your conveyed confidence in my expected future as a banker. So far, though, that prediction of yours has not been borne out. As for lending money to others, I have done that on occasion, but the two individuals who come to mind at the moment are persons who somehow vanished after I lent them money back in the late 1980s or early 1990s. If either of those two persons happens to read this, please feel invited to contact me through this website of mine, as my own finances are very, very tight at present."

---"I hereby predict that my schoolmate and Austin High Debate Squad colleague John McMillan will someday be married and have lots of children in his family's household, and his poverty-stricken family will be relying on food stamps issued by the government."

My response to that today: "Thank you for the interest in my future that you expressed at a December of 1973 Holiday Season party I attended in the Tarrytown section of Austin, Texas, during my high school years. I also appreciate the apparent confidence you conveyed at that party that I would be someone determined to help raise children during my adult years. However, it seems from your prediction that you don't expect me to ever have the ability to earn enough money to actually provide for any children I might ever help to raise. I find that lack of confidence from you in my financial earnings capacity, and in my talents and skills, to be worrisome. My only consolation is that in the early 1980s or late 1970s, you did write and mail to me a personal letter in which you kindly predicted that 'you will be the next Art Buchwald' humor columnist for a major newspaper. Most humor columnists earn enough money to avoid having to rely on food stamps from the government. Maybe I should contact a variety of newspapers and magazines and ask them in the year 2009 if they are looking for a humor columnist."

---"I'm glad to offer you this free tarot-card and fortune-telling reading that my female adult friend asked me to give you this evening here in New Ulm, Minnesota, in 1981 or 1983, at no financial expense to yourself. As a fortune-teller with considerable experience at it, I predict that you will lead a life very similar to the great Italian world traveler Marco Polo. You will travel throughout the entire world on a frequent basis in future years. Your biggest hindrance will be your personal tendency to look backward and reflect on your past, which will be very counterproductive for you. For you to achieve the grand lifestyle of a Marco Polo, you need to focus on the present and future at all times, and thereby continue to make progress into your future. In this fortune-telling reading for you today inside either my own home or or my female friend's home in New Ulm, Minnesota, in 1981 or 1983, I also predict that there will be someone playing a role in your future life who resembles a gingerbread man. That individual is not a nice gingerbread man, I might add as I myself chuckle knowingly about that individual in your presence. I need to warn you about that individual in your future possibly being injurious to you."

My response to that today: "As someone who has never met you before on any occasion before you read my fortune for me this Holiday Season evening in 1981 or 1983 inside your or your female friend's residence in New Ulm, Minnesota, I need to point out that in my entire life so far, I don't recall having ever met anyone who resembled a gingerbread man. Also, I myself don't believe in fortune-telling or tarot-card readings or giving predictions of this type to complete strangers such as myself. Your confident prediction that my own life will resemble that of Marco Polo has proved to be very incorrect as of June 2009, at least. In fact, in the entire time period since the early 1980s, when you offered me that Holiday Season prediction for myself, I have never once traveled into any foreign nation. I have not even visited Canada, though I was occasionally curious about Canada during the time period when I lived in your state of Minnesota in the early 1980s. In my entire life so far, I have traveled to only one total foreign nation---Mexico---and all of that traveling to a foreign nation occurred during my childhood. I would be very happy if 2009 eventually proves to be a successful year for me in the way of international travel, such as during the Holiday Season later this year. However, I could not pursue any such travel to a foreign nation in good conscience until my various financial debts are paid in full. Incidentally, I do want to thank you for piquing my curiosity about Marco Polo, the one individual whom you chose to compare me to. I will make a point of reading a biography about Marco Polo sometime in 2009, as I'm sure that the biography of that Italian gentleman would be intriguing. I'm also reminded that I will try to find an Italian recipe book that features Marco Polo's favorite dishes. Perhaps if I cook a meal for myself inside my apartment that features several of Marco Polo's favorite dishes, this will help me to emotionally prepare myself for the prospect of my pursuing international travel at some future date."

---"As a female professor of public policy at The University of Texas at Austin meeting with you today in the year 1988 inside my faculty office, I suggest that you strive for a wholesome restraint in your response to the challenging circumstances in your own life that you've described to me or alluded to in person today."

My response to that today: "It is interesting to note in the year 2009 that during the two-person meeting we had inside your faculty office at UT-Austin in which you volunteered that advice to me, you did not cite any example of any unwholesome conduct on my own part---or on anyone else's part. Your comment to me about that theme had no apparent context to it. The only conduct of mine in the 1980s, 1990s, or 21st Century of my own life that you ever chose to criticize, as you well know, was my 1994 public-policy correspondence with State Government of Texas and University of Texas officials, a copy of which I sent to yourself, in which I urged the government-ordered closing of any and all gay bathhouses situated anywhere in Texas. Your 1994 reply letter to me on that, stated to me that my public-policy correspondence on that subject was inappropriate, in your view. 'I (a female UT-Austin public-policy professor) suggest that you direct your public-policy efforts in other directions,' you emphasized to me in that sternly-written 1994 reply letter of rebuke signed by yourself. You thereby attempted to implicitly define 'wholesome restraint' as not speaking up in opposition to law-breaking and disease-spreading and hazardous and sadistic conduct by that cited subculture, in your own apparent view. As an example of wholesome restraint on my part today, I would like to politely point out in the year 2009 that I tentatively plan to myself in a very civil and clean-talking manner file a multi-billion dollar lawsuit in a very civil and wholesome manner against each of the alleged sources of anonymous verbalized communications or fraudulent communications, regardless of whether any cited 'subculture'-affiliated media company proves to be among the cited defendants, that were inflicted on myself in Texas without my permission."

---"Please don't go on with your oral description to me on the telephone today about alleged verbal harassment of yourself involving anonymous communications to which you allege that you have been subjected against your wishes in Austin, Texas, over a multi-year period."

My response to that today: "Your comment to me in 2002, during a workbreak of mine from a temporary job of mine at an insurance company in north Austin, surprised me. Since you are a staff member for a religious congregation in Austin, I assumed that you would want detailed factual information from me about what I was politely complaining to you about in that civil and polite phone call I made to your religious congregation's house of worship. It has since occurred to me that possibly you had other factual sources of information that would have provided you with the additional details you needed that I was attempting to share with you that day on the telephone. I did note, in any case, that you chose not to advise that I file a lawsuit in a court of law. Apparently you subscribed to the view that the noise pollution victimizing myself and accompanying verbal harassment of myself about which I complained about to you in that 2002 phone call, would eventually end without my having to file a legal complaint in a court of law in Austin."

---"At least the very distracting circumstances and numerous major setbacks you've had in 1986 did not destroy you."

My response to that today: "I shall never forget the very surprising moment in which you very suddenly and unexpectedly volunteered to me in person that personal response of your own to what I had described to you in person that day as having been the challenging circumstances and substandard living conditions in my life in the year 1986 that I had encountered in the Boston area, the New York City area, and in the Austin area of Texas. I was very surprised to sense that in your own mind that day, you apparently were somehow able to imagine a scenario involving complete annihilation of myself and comprehensive injuriousness or destructiveness toward myself. I have also sometimes wondered whether your unexpected oral statement to me in 1986 possibly reflected your personal awareness that one total former or current acquaintance of mine of whom you yourself were possibly somehow aware, allegedly exhibited harmful or criminal intent victimizing myself. Any such criminal-law evidence would be invaluable toward my pressing criminal-law charges against that individual."

---"You obviously are a very insecure young man!"

My response to that today: "That comment, verbalized to me during his leisuretime in Austin, Texas, in 1986 by a male UT-Austin professor who was 25 to 30 years older than myself in age, offers an alarming example of what I refer to as intergenerational exploitation of younger persons. That intergenerational exploitation often consists of an older male adult person seeking to intimidate the adult younger person and making repeated in-person oral statements to the adult younger person that are aimed at undermining the self-confidence of that younger person----this during a time period in which that same older male person never once offers any words of significant praise or admiration to the younger person. In my own life, by contrast, I am very determined to myself be consistently constructive and friendly toward, and generously share sincere and honest praise for, each and every adult younger person whom I agree to myself associate with in person during my leisuretime. I will also always strive to diligently protect my own platonic-politeness credibility with any and all adult younger persons who might ever agree to associate with me in a context that, for that adult younger person, is strictly-platonic (non-romantic and involving no physical contact at all) in nature."

--"The circumstances in your life that you are describing to me in 1988, during this long-distance phone call you've made to me, sound very similar to what my dear mother in the U.S. state of Louisiana experienced. She suffered for years because she imagined she was hearing actual voices in the background, when there were no such voices, of course. It was merely a psychiatric medical problem that my dear mother was having. That delusion of hers about 'hearing voices' was a very traumatic and painful experience for her."

My response to that today: "I find it interesting that your unsolicited observation of 1988 on the telephone compared me to your biological mother residing in Louisiana---a southern lady whom I never had the opportunity to meet in person. Perhaps I should feel honored, in retrospect, that you compared me to the one person from your entire pre-collegiate life whom you apparently loved the most. Incidentally, I hope you won't feel offended if I mention at this time that I have sometimes wondered in recent years whether you were possibly hoping to insinuate through your telephone observation to me in 1988 that you possibly expected me to myself subconsiously 'emulate' your mother by citing you yourself as a 'beneficiary' in my expected eventual last will and testament----at which point you might then prove to be remarkably knowledgeable and 'suddenly savvy' about very sizable wealth and property of mine that I'd myself unwittingly somehow acquired during my lifetime, wealth of mine that you chose to never directly acknowledge to me or ever once cite to me on any occasion during the 1970s or 1980s or 1990s."