Damian M. Schloming ideas and information

Naomi Wolf on rape: "...ours is increasingly an age of geopolitics by blackmail."

This website is to allow me to present intelligibly my thoughts and insights on various social, political, historical and even scientific issues I've been studying in the past two years. 

Some of which I have background knowledge of due to having been involved with and interested in various political movements many years ago. 

My political viewpoint leans towards libertarian, except that I am not completely happy with the way some of them think. Libertarians want limited government and civil liberties. As a matter of principle, that is excellent. But then libertarians seem to suffer from this ingrained bias of Western Culture that you can somehow intellectually decide that government "should be" a certain way and then the perfect society can then be achieved by some legislative body sitting down and crafting some written rule decreeing that that is how society is to be from now on.

 

Actually, I think government and the larger society it is embedded in is more like some kind of living beast that you can train or that can morph in one direction or another, but it can't be so easily manipulated or changed as we think. Written rules don't have the exact effect they literally intend, but instead enforcement of the rules and all sorts of other considerations regarding government bureaucracies results in all sorts of ripple effects or unintended consequences. As a result, the most free society does not necessarily result from the one with the nicest and most free sounding written constitution or constitutional rights guaranteeing liberty. A very good example of this issue is the liberal Warren Court expanding all sorts of fifth amendment procedural and technical criminal protections for defendants. Liberals saying they want to do this might be arguing this is to help the poor. The opposite is the truth. This is to help defense attorneys, and why is that a bad thing? Because criminal procedures and technicalities of the liberal Warren Court only resulted in defendants having protection IF they could hire an expensive enough attorney to do a good enough job PRESSING them. Public defenders are part of the corrupt court system, they deliberately do a bad job so as to make sure well heeled defendants find it worth their while to pay extra. Huge sentences ALSO give well heeled defendants more incentive to pay extra. Thus, defense attorneys representing rich criminal defendants have a vested interest in maintaining the strict sentencing policies responsible for Mass Incarceration. Furthermore, there was a law school bubble which burst, and now law schools are doing poorly because lawyers are not finding it worth their while to spend so much money on a law degree. Fact of the matter is, those liberal Warren Court protections indirectly increased legal fees for defense attorneys, thereby contributing to the upward pressure on college tuition and law school tuition, simply because the amount of money attorneys could make from a law degree made it more worthwhile. 

It also is true that the regulatory state increased in many other ways, increasing demand for attorneys in other spheres besides the criminal justice system. But I am going to talk about the criminal justice system here for now to use it as an example.

This is just one example showing how a policy that, examined in the most superficial way you think it's designed to help criminal defendants overall in the long run has the exact opposite effect. Because these protections are ones that only can be accessed by those with the money to pay for top dollar attorneys. And, it isn't always necessarily related to the facts of the case. The attorney usually has an incestuous relationship with everyone else in the court system, so much so that basically if you pay the right attorney enough money, you will get off because he is friends with all the judges and prosecutors, and parole officers, etc.

And for me to say that could lead to others thinking it is rather awful to have a court system so incestuously corrupt. Except, these are all nice people who know each other and court systems have ALWAYS been like this, more or less. And they always will be this way. Government is incapable of being perfect. Understanding its inherent imperfections such as this are necessary when it comes to avoiding passing laws which interact with such a culture in a way to produce very bad outcomes.

 

After all, we have always had government and, for some reason, it would appear if we always have had it, that is because we need it. The inner workings of government are so awful, you discover after you observe it, it can easily lead many to think we should just abolish it. But, given that that is impossible, the best alternative is to understand it as inherently flawed, and realistically think of how to make things "the least bad."

This is what I have thought for a long time, yet only recently have I stumbled across some law professors who subscribe to a movement called "legal realism." It turns out they think exactly the way I do, and see the same flaws in our society (or in the thinking of popular culture which leads to wrong-headed policies in our legal system) that I see.

Oddly enough, they seem to describe themselves as leftists yet they are not the kind of ordinary mainstream leftist most people would understand to be "of the left." Which is strange because I never would have thought of myself as a liberal -- but not a conservative either. But maybe this is because of certain strands of liberalism I have been exposed to which are quite awful. 

In any case, why categorize oneself? As I study and learn more about society, I like to share various insights and not limit myself to any one "box" or "category" that I pigeonhole myself into.

What precipitated Harvard doing an about face and suddenly I was "bipolar"

September 06, 2015  /  Damian Schloming

This is quite interesting. Indeed, I never thought of it this way before. But, yeah, Harvard was insisting that I wasn't bipolar in the least. Until all of the abuse at Memorial Church became bad enough so I start complaining in writing, and that's when they start insisting I'm bipolar after all. And, of course, they use that as an excuse to refuse to investigate the matter and as an excuse to handle it corruptly in all the various ways they did.

It turned into a situation where I eventually became the victim of multiple crimes yet could not get police to do anything -- and even when I had documentary evidence of what the facts were, they still dismissed me. Sort of like, ok if you are "crazy" maybe they can argue that your eye witness testimony shouldn't be trusted. But they went further than that. Fear of being accused of being crazy made me become very meticulous about DOCUMENTING and making sure I could PROVE what other people were up to with regard to me -- and it was THESE FACTS which they were refusing to respect, refusing to heed, and just behaving criminally with regard to the situation. It was all a "we're powerful, we can get away with it" situation. With the accusation that I was crazy sort of like a fig leaf and a rumor they could spread which amounted also to a declaration of open season on me. In the sense that it was like spreading a rumor to all the criminals out there that they can do anything they want to me, cover it up by accusing me of being crazy, and I won't be believed. After all, if anyone says I'm not crazy but am truthful and credible when I report bad things that others did to me, that would mean I am not only truthful about what some criminal did to me down the road, but I also must be telling the truth about what various students and administrators did to me while at Harvard, which would be scandalous and bad for Harvard's reputation. So the only way for Harvard to protect its reputation is to pretend I always lie and "imagine" people are committing crimes against me because I am "crazy." 

Harvard didn't do anything bad to me in the four years before 1998, and nobody did anything bad since, and nobody committed any crime or series of crimes against me after I dropped out of Harvard. I wasn't raped, I only imagined I was raped because I was hallucinating being raped. Etc. etc. etc. Everything I say anyone did -- I am not to be believed. And, of course, the whole gay community needs to know this, this rumor needs to be spread far and wide to "warn" everyone about me.

Like here:

http://www.pbase.com/damian1974/jpboy_about_justin_who_was_then_age_23_but

And, of course, no one will use this as an excuse to take advantage of me and commit any crime against me, full well aware of the reputation that I am "crazy" and make things up, of course. Right? The gay community isn't like that, now, is it? They will, of course, treat me fine -- and if I think anyone did anything rotten to me, well that's just proof I'm crazy. If I think I was raped -- no I wasn't. I just hallucinated it all. Right?

I also note, I think it is important for me to post this because it is a documented version of what so many feminists like Naomi Wolf and Catharine MacKinnon seem to be hinting to, seem to be hinting that something very similar happened to them at Yale, and is a form of systematic abuse that is very common. Also, the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center also told me as much -- that they refer to this as "ritual abuse" and it's common and happens to a lot of people, and they know it well.

E.g., classic rape culture, classic "sexual harassment" culture. Even though the complaints were of harassment and bullying which technically could not be "pinned down" to having been of a sexual nature. Which doesn't matter, though, because basically this is a pattern of harassment that is very common in Universities like Harvard, it is pre-meditated, systematic, everyone who works in these Universities is taught how to be perpetrators of it, nobody is allowed in any kind of position of power unless they "go along with the crowd" and "follow the rules" in a sense.

In addition, I can muster up a lot of evidence that everything I write about in this letter, or refer to in this letter, e.g., the abusive incidences that I describe, were pre-meditated and planned long in advance. E.g., this is just a "system" where some people who get admitted to these universities are going to have atrocities committed against them, the fact that some are "made an example of" helping to ensure "discipline" amongst all other students who know about it, who participate in such abuse, and who both fear being honest lest they become victims, fear refraining from joining in on it lest they become victims, and once they become perpetrators, they are "owned" in a sense -- they have participated in things so immoral and horrific, they have "discipline" and can be trusted to go through life fearing exposure, and can be guaranteed to permanently follow the orders of all those who promise to protect them from criminal accountability.

Notice how Seth Moulton is now a politician. However, what is also interesting is how there are articles out there that discuss the very poor quality of his medical care, along with him having "volunteered" himself up to be a guinea pig.

Let me copy and paste a couple of links:

Seth Moulton recent medical care:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2015/06/04/representative-seth-moulton-ordeal-veterans-administration-health-system-spurs-his-first-legislation/O30mN70YGgeKNEhL9BMeXI/story.html

dmschlom post on A Voice For Men regarding the issue of men being used as guinea pigs after being blackmailed over abusive actions that include rape and other stuff.

http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthread.php?15592-Need-local-guinea-pigs-2011-Iraq-withdrawal-precipitated-campus-rape-movement

So I need to feel the confidence to post this email exchange, yet I am afraid because it was writing this that caused me to have all these horrible crimes committed against me over and over and over again over the course of over a decade. And caused Harvard to ... well there is a number of things they did.

One thing I need to point out is, notice how Seth Moulton tries to pretend that the December 10, 1998 concert was never planned? And that the December 3 one was always going to be the organ society concert? I used to have a program from two prior concerts, one given by Nancy Granert (the last concert she gave at Busch Hall before she left as organist of Memorial Church) which shows "December 10, Harvard Organ Society" and "December 3, TBA." [Editted: And there was a previous program earlier than Nancy Granert's concert, which also listed the same thing.]

So he was lying all along. Meanwhile, all you could accuse me of is over-reacting to the game he played and getting "too afraid" -- except you can't accuse me of over reacting if you understand this was the culmination of years of abuse and weird behavior by people at Memorial Church. Meanwhile, I think what happened to me after I reported all this is proof, I wasn't paranoid. The multiple rapes, murder attempts, etc. etc. etc., that subsequently occurred prove, if I was very freaked out by this, I was right.

Oh and another thing. Is what I said about Gomes and his fake accent, is that a violation of political correctness? Nobody brought that up to me at the time, but in my mind it isn't. Yeah he is black but I took lessons from Marion Anderson (a man) at Bates College (where Gomes went) and he and other individuals at Bates College have the same preppy accent, and I was used to hearing my mother make fun of it or mention it. Meanwhile, I could only have known the accent was fake because, while there were tons of things Nancy Granert and Murray Somerville COULD have told me about Gomes (at the time, we had very similar politics and would have really hit it off in lots of ways if we had ever talked about politics, yet I had no clue what his politics were, had no clue Dan Sanks was his lover, that's how much I was kept in the dark) the few things they DID tell me about Gomes was how his accent was definitely fake because his mother doesn't speak that way, and something about his involvement in the Mayflower society.

--------

 

OK here goes:

 

[To 17 people at Harvard]:

 

--------------

To all of you whom this letter is not addressed, let me explain this
letter is addressed to a former teacher of mine in the pipe organ whose
relationship with me has, let us say, been comprimised since any problems
I have had with Murray Somerville have been communicated, without any
sense of honor on the part of Murray, and without any chance for defense
on my part. Unfortunately, I cannot continue to tolerate the slander of me
that continually follows each time Murray treats me in a way he regrets
and feels ashamed of later. Since some of you include several worms
accociated with Memorial Church, let me just say that your infantile
behavior looks very much like what it is for people whom you have failed
to bully into pretending that such behavior is heavenly simply because it
takes place within a church.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Bill Porter,

I see you looked away and attempted not to recognize me upon seeing me
Friday. I suppose Murray Somerville has gone on a new rampage of slander
and bad-mouthing me after his latest stab at me, which he no doubt regrets
as he regularly loses control over himself and exercises bad judgment, but
then has to resort to preemptive strikes against his victims, discrediting
them just in case they tell.

I suppose if you choose to believe him, that is fine. I remember telling
you about his scheduling me to play on an injured wrist after having told
him about five times not to, and you telling me he "must have forgotten"
(which, of course, he didn't in the least bit; he was just trying to play
an infantile little game with me). Of course you were his teacher then,
and I realize it was insensitive of me to say anything bad about one of
your students, regardless of whether it risked my long-term career.

Let me just show you the kind of things he does. It is a set of email
messages between me and the President of the Harvard Organ Society, but
Murray was intimately involved in the scheme and, when I went to him to
complain, rather than deny knowledge, he instead complained about an email
I had written to him months ago in which he claims, though I deny, that I
threatened to "go to the press" over other wrongdoings he had committed
that would be particularly humiliating for him if they became public
knowledge. 

I don't want to open a can of worms, but he has hurt me so much, and cost
the family tens of thousands of dollars, and he still seems to be hurting
me by slandering me to other Harvard bureaucrats, like my senior tutor, so
that they will give me a hard time. He just doesn't know when to lay off.
By now, I feel I have no choice but to fight, and use very legal resource
that is at my disposal.

I remember when you took offense when I responded to your question about
how has the organ helped me by saying that, "well, playing the organ at
Memorial Church did help me get a new room when I needed one." I guess you
thought I was putting down the organ, which you are so committed to, but,
honestly, playing the organ at Harvard has been, literally, hell, because
of all the jeallousy and all the horrible ways I have been treated and
scapegoated. 

If I am famous, and I very well may be, and people ask me what was it
like, I will have very little good to say about the organ at Harvard
precisely because my ability at the organ has cost me so much pain and
anguish. Murray Somerville seems to think that, if he treats me bad enough
-- preferably, if he can destroy me -- he can scare me from ever telling
the truth. He doesn't seem to realize that if he wants me to say nice
things about him, he needs to treat me nicely.

Prior to the following set of emails, I had been offered by the President
of the Organ Society, Seth Moulton, to play a concert on December 3rd -- a
concert which had, up til then, been labeled TBA ("to be announced") on
all of the programs except the one a week before Dec 3rd, in which I was
the announced player, and had never been intended to be an "Organ Society"
concert, though Seth lied in his email:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From dmschlom Harvard Email Tue Dec  8 15:36:31 1998
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 21:19:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Damian Monello Schloming <dmschlom Harvard Email>
To: Seth Moulton <Seth Moulton Harvard Email>
Cc: Damian Schloming <dmschlom Harvard Email>
Subject: Re: Concert Dec Third

Hello, I am definitely in on the December 3rd concert, and I am hoping it
can be announced at tomorrow's concert. I might want to take part in the
announcement, and I will tell you before the concert if I want to say a
few words as well after you announce me as the player. I'm quite excited
about the prospect (of performing) and really want to make this concert
something special -- for me, all the people who like me, and all the
people who like music. Talk to you later.

Sincerely,

Damian M. Schloming

>From Seth Moulton Harvard Email Tue Dec  8 15:36:31 1998
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 02:28:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Seth Moulton <Seth Moulton Harvard Email>
To: Damian Monello Schloming <dmschlom Harvard Email>
Subject: Re: Concert Dec Third


Damian,

I'm sorry that I didn't get to talk to you tonight.  I just arrived back
at my room, and you can see that it's already 1:30 so I don't want to call
your home.  So though I'd like to talk to you in person, let me take this
opportunity to try to clarify a few things and attempt to answer your
questions.

First off, perhaps you misunderstood me when I asked you if you wanted to
play on the third.  I was asking if you wanted to play a piece or two as
part of the "Members of the Organ Society" (not Member) recital in which
Danny, Iris, and I had already planned to play as well.  Now, having said
that, I naturally don't doubt that you could play a marvelous recital
yourself, but the emphasis here is that the organ society is a group of
people, and we would like to give everyone who is able a fair share of the
performance opportunities.  We just recently worked out the spring
schedule, and because so many people (from all over) want to play, we are
already completely booked for recitals, and there certainly won't be
enough openings for Danny, Iris, and me to each give full recitals like
you intend to do on the third.

Now, having said all that (and I hope you're not already upset (: ), it
may all work out that you get to play most of the pieces you intended,
simply because I know that Danny, Iris, and I are all so busy right now.
However, I must stress, that there's no guarantee here; we're simply going
to have to work it out among everyone involved.

Secondly, as far as announcing goes, I think it is best that we just stick
with the customary publicity through the program for our recital.  Let's
be honest here, Damian--If such a wonderful player like Nancy didn't get
a special announcement for her recital, we shouldn't expect one for ours,
right?

I hope this clears up a few things.  I'm sure we can work this out to
everyone's benefit, and hopefully we can do this tomorrow.  Please stop by
Mem. Church when you get a chance.  I will be there at 8:55 if you want to
meet then.  I would like to talk before the program is printed up.  But if
you miss me, perhaps you could talk to Murray; I will relay the relevant
information as I know it to him.

Thanks, Damian.  I hope I haven't ruined your excitement as I can tell you
are hoping to give a marvelous performance.  However, we must remember to
always think of everyone in situations like this, and not just our own
interests.  Talk to you soon!

-Seth

>From Seth Moulton Harvard Email Tue Dec  8 15:36:31 1998
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:13:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Seth Moulton <Seth Moulton Harvard Email>
To: Damian Schloming <dmschlom Harvard Email>
Subject: GOOD NEWS!!!


Damian,

After that huge e-mail I wrote last night, I am happy to report that
everything has changed.  I talked to Murray this morning, and he said that
Danny, Iris, and I can all play on the 10th, so you can have the 3rd all
to yourself.  I apologize greatly for any trouble I may have caused you
last night when I was trying to straighten out the situation but probably
made things worse.  I am partly to blame because I forgot that we have
both the 3rd and the 10th to fill.  Murray also said that we can make-up
some special posters for extra publicity!

Hope to see you soon.  Murray and I are both looking forward to the 3rd!

-Seth

>From dmschlom Harvard Email Tue Dec  8 15:36:31 1998
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 11:14:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Damian Monello Schloming <dmschlom Harvard Email>
To: Seth Moulton <Seth Moulton Harvard Email>
Cc: Damian Schloming <dmschlom Harvard Email>
Subject: Re: Dec 3rd Performance

Dear Seth,

Regarding the December 3rd Thursday concert, I have decided that I cannot
play it. The whole experience has been too disrupting and disturbing.
First I am told I can play, then I am told I can't, and then I am told I
can. What's next? This see-sawing ambivalence made me lose so much sleep
and study time that it is impossible for me to perform on December 3rd. I
will be happy to perform at some later date if and when this ambivalence
is resolved satisfactorily.

Best wishes,

Damian

>From Seth Moulton Harvard Email Tue Dec  8 15:36:31 1998
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 22:28:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Seth Moulton <Seth Moulton Harvard Email>
To: Damian Schloming <dmschlom Harvard Email>
Subject: December 3rd


Dear Damian,

I am upset to hear that you plan to not play on the 3rd, especially after
the effort several people have already made on your behalf in preparation
for it.  The confusion surrounding your playing was unfortunate, and I
have thoroughly expressed my apologies for any part of it which I may have
caused.  But I also think that I clearly explained, both via e-mail and in
person, that you were initially incorrect in assuming that you could have
an entire recital to yourself.  Regardless of whose fault this incorrect
assumption was, I did my best to resolve it to everyone's mutual accord.
That Murray and I were able to work it out so that you could play the full
recital seemed happilly to everyone's, but especially to your, best
interest.  Indeed, it was through Murray's generosity and confidence in
you, which it is only fair to acknowledge has not been a consistently
mutual experience in your relatioship with him over the past year, that we
were able to offer you the opportunity to perform on December 3rd.

Therefore, I find your decision not to perform because of purported
"see-sawing ambivalence" particualry ungrounded.  Additionally, how you
could have lost "so much sleep and study time that it is impossible for me
to perform" between 3am (when the issue was brought to your attention via
e-mail) and later that morning (when it was resolved) is completely beyond
my understanding. Even more, however, I am disturbed because of the
excitement you seemed to show--even after the confusion was resolved (in a
matter of hours)--about playing the recital. As you know, we not only
included you on last Thursday's program, but Murray even made an
uncustomary special announcement about your performing at the beginning of
Ed's recital.

Furthermore, I hope you understand that cancelling a recital date like
this is far from acceptable practice for someone who wishes to be regarded
as a distinguished recitalist.  We would enjoy having you play--after all
we certainly wouldn't have given you an entire recital on short notice if
we didn't--but how can you expect us, or anyone, to make a commitment to
you in the future if you clearly cannot uphold your end of the bargain?

It is my greatest hope that we can discuss this further in person and
resolve it to our mutual agreement and understanding.  If you feel I am
innaccurate in my contentions as outlined above, I am most willing to have
a reasonable discussion to further clarify the situation.  I hope to hear
from you soon.

Very truly yours,

Seth

>From dmschlom Harvard Email Tue Dec  8 15:36:31 1998
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 22:38:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Damian Monello Schloming <dmschlom Harvard Email>
To: Seth Moulton <Seth Moulton Harvard Email>
Cc: Damian Schloming <dmschlom Harvard Email>
Subject: Re: December 3rd Concert

Dear Seth,

I am quite sorry to hear about how upset you have been over my reluctance
to play the December 3rd concert after all the miscommunication. When I
tried to cancel my December 3rd performance in my last email to you, I was
acting under the assumption that you, Danny, Iris, and whoever else, were
all geared up to play that concert anyway, since that was the original
plan, and that you would have no problem allowing me to postpone my
concert to the 10th, given the considerable hardship I was under. I never
would have even considered canceling if I thought it would cause you
hardship.

If it's really important to you that I play on the December 3rd and the
Organ Society performs on December 10th, rather than that the Organ
Society plays on December 3rd and I play on the 10th, then by all means I
will do so. Of course, I will need to get priority on the Busch Hall
organ, given the short notice. And, of course, I hope I can rely on as
much of your help, and Danny's and Murray's too, as can be spared so as to
contribute to the success of the concert.

Sincerely,

Damian M. Schloming

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, Murray and Seth made sure none of customary publicity was
done for my December 3rd concert, so I had to do it. Unfortunately, I have
a condition which prevents me from being able to function while being too
sleep deprived, and attempting to produce a concert that others were
sabotaging did not allow enough time for sleep, so I had to check myself
into a hospital before the concert on December 3rd, and did not end up
giving the concert.

This kind of dishonest, predatory behavior has been perpetrated on other
people by Murray and Seth working together, in which Seth does the work
that Murray would get in trouble doing himself, and vice-versa, and there
are rumors to that effect.

Murray Somerville, by the way, is underqualified for his job and not
handling it very well, and there is a growing discontent among the Harvard
community. Unfortunately, Murray has a temper that has, at times, made me
fear for my physical safety, in addition to other reprisals through his
ability to grant or cut off privileges, and there is a general atmosphere
of fear and wariness among students and other young men who are around
him. 

Murray Somerville is a very dangerous and erratic man. He is having
troubles doing his job, and lives a life that is very much out of control.
He has displayed the most eggregious and shocking aggressive interpersonal
behavior towards me when we are alone together and he can "get away with
it." With older and more prominent people, he will control himself better,
but there have been times when I have come out of meetings with him with
my hands literally shaking. 

He is dangerous because he is irrational and paranoid, and he thinks other
people are out to get him when they aren't. He lashes out at other people
when they are doing nothing to harm him, and mean no harm to him, and
creates more problems for himself and others by doing this. He cannot
continue in his job if he doesn't get help and learn to modify his
behavior. 

He is extremely egotistical, embarassingly so at times, and feels
enormously threatened by my superiority in playing the organ. Yet I cannot
allow myself to feel guilty about my gift at the organ and think I deserve
all the treatment that I have gotten. He has trouble getting along with
other staff members of Memorial Church, and this has resulted,
particularly during the time I was Sub-Organist, in some particularly
eggregious treatment of me by other staff at Memorial Church, in addition
to the spreading of false rumors about me which I have been given no
opportunity to respond to.

In the summer of 1998, I finally attempted to go to Reverend Gomes for
help, and he refused to even talk to me, with his secretary saying, in
Memorial Church jargon, that it was "inappropriate" for me to even ask to
talk with him. The only way I could talk to him about the abuses I had
been subjected to at Memorial Church was to write a letter in which I "had
the burden of proof of proving that what I would say in any conversation
was appropriate" -- in other words, I had to prove that I wouldn't bring
any issues to his attention that might require any responsible action on
his part. I guess someone who spends his time prancing in front of TV
cameras and raises money with fake preppy accents just doesn't have the
time to be a real man of God.

Well, if Murray Somerville is launching pre-emptive strikes against me
because he is afraid I will bring his wrongdoings to public light, and
since he has already retaliated against me just in case I do so, then I
suppose there will be no harm in my actually fulfilling his fantasies of
vengeance on my part and broadcast the contents of this email far and
wide. In any case, I am doing this because I am sick of the rotten
treatment I have received at Harvard and I want people to be taken in to
account for their actions.

Sincerely,

Damian M. Schloming


 

 

Comment