The Wizard Writes Again
Entry
It Has Happened Again
It has happened again.
A second message has now arrived in the same general spirit as the first: deeply invested, intensely certain, oddly personal, and absolutely determined to explain me to myself.
That is useful.
Not because anonymous or pseudonymous hostility proves anything by itself, and not because theatrical correspondence is rare in this world, but because repetition clarifies pattern. One strange dispatch can be dismissed as noise. Two begins to look like fixation, and this brand of it seems like the kind a cereal killer might have, if I were to imagine what that might be.
And fixation, once it starts writing essays, becomes very difficult to mistake for ordinary disagreement. This seems as though it is from someone pissing their pants with fear. Why on earth such an unapologetically obvious and obsessive reaction? I do not know, but can speculate that if I were guilty of murder I would not call it an overreaction, and that is just one possibility. This could have more than just two possible outcomes. Maybe he is so riddled with Catholic guilt for the homosexual fantasies he can not stop having for me that his chub on for me has really got the better of him love-is-hate-style.
I am not naming the sender. I am not claiming to know who wrote it. I am simply documenting what has now become a sequence: message one, then message two, each animated by a level of emotional investment that would be flattering if it were not so grotesque.
The Second Dispatch
THE WIZARD WRITES AGAIN
I noticed the below email message peppered through as comments in 3-4 different other blog posts, and removed them. Kind of symbolic, but time will tell. I also noticed the comments that were this very email were from:
寫信給總統電⼦信箱
public_web@oop.gov.tw
I google searched these together as written and found the Taiwan Presidents office as the top hit. According to the oracle ChatGPT why this was and it replied the email address public_web@oop.gov.tw also appears in publicly indexed copies of confirmation/reply messages associated with that same “write to the president” mailbox, which further ties the query to the Presidential Office.
So the practical explanation is:
- your query contains the official service name
- it includes an email address publicly associated with that service
- the official Presidential Office domain is the most authoritative page matching both signals
That does not by itself prove anything beyond association with the official “Write to the President” system. It just means Google sees the Presidential Office as the best match for those terms. Anyone could claim that was their name and leave a comment and now comments will be approved before visible just in case my secret lover gets starts a little foreplay again.
Encouraging to say the least. Anyway, moving on:
The second message objects, in essence, to atmosphere, memory, grief, implication, tone, and my right to describe what an unsolicited message felt like upon arrival.
It insists there was "nothing mysterious" about a message from an unfamiliar sender containing highly personalized certainty, contempt, and a conspicuous interest in my life, my words, my motives, and my experience.
That is certainly one view.
Another is that when someone appears from the fog with this much hostility and this much homework already done, that any reasonable person should have reason to pause.
A reasonable person is also entitled to notice the investment.
- The message does not merely dispute my account. It tries to control the emotional frame around it.
- It does not simply disagree. It scolds, diagnoses, belittles, and performs authority.
- It does not merely object to argument. It objects to memory, style, grief, implication, and mood itself.
- Most of all, it seems unable to let go.
Now I find adding "like a murderer" after each one of those points more believable, but we are just getting started.
Open the Email Click to reveal the full message This stays closed by default so the page remains readable. Open it if you want to review the complete second dispatch.
From: 陳美玲 <chenmeiling870424@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: URGENT: FORMAL NOTICE REGARDING YOUR CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
Date: April 18, 2026 at 1:06 PM
To: info@ilearn.tw, ross@rosscline.com
Response to "I Got an Email Today" (April 12, 2026)
This is a direct response to the structure, framing, and claims in your post. The goal is clarity—not rhetorical shenanigans, not theatrics, and not the kind of language tactics that shysters rely on when substance is missing.
1. The "mysterious email" framing
You present the email as if it arrived out of nowhere—ominous, intentional, unexplained. Good lord. Jesus. There is nothing mysterious here. There is a plethora—a literal plethora—of material where you outline your claims, your demands, your grievances. A plethora of public statements inviting a response.
THIS WAS NOT RANDOM. THIS WAS A REACTION.
Calling it "mysterious" is not substance—it is framing, it is narrative shenanigans, and it is exactly the kind of move shysters like you use to manufacture intrigue where none exists.
2. Emotional setup
You begin with nostalgia, loss, and reflection about people you miss. Jesus, good lord, that has nothing to do with the issue. It functions as emotional buffering: to soften the reader, to shift attention, to delay engagement.
THIS IS NOT ARGUMENT.
This is presentation. This is rhetorical shenanigans—polished, distracting, and irrelevant.
3. Name-dropping as distraction
You mention Michelle, Serhat, Roman—like invoking them adds weight or clarity.
WHO THE FUCK ARE THESE PEOPLE IN RELATION TO THE CASE?
WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO DO WITH THE CONDUCT?
WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO DO WITH THE CONVICTION?
WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO DO WITH THE LEGAL BASIS?
THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE: NOTHING.
This is not evidence. This is not argument. This is not context.
THIS IS NAME-DROPPING.
This is another layer of narrative shenanigans, the kind of tactic shysters use to create the illusion of depth where there is none. A plethora of names does not equal a plethora of relevance.
4. Dismissing the email
You label the message as "deranged," "theatrical," obsessive. Good lord. Jesus.
THAT IS NOT A REBUTTAL.
That is deflection. That is what shysters do when they cannot address substance. There is a plethora of points in that email—legal limits, structural constraints, clear boundaries. A plethora.
AND YOU DO NOT ENGAGE WITH THEM.
You dismiss instead, using tone and more shenanigans.
5. Your own admission
You write: "I can't disagree with the list itself… all fair points."
READ THAT AGAIN.
Jesus. Good lord.
YOU ARE ADMITTING THE LIMITS ARE REAL.
YOU ARE ADMITTING THE SYSTEM CANNOT DO WHAT YOU DEMAND.
AND YET YOU CONTINUE TO DEMAND IT.
That is not nuance—that is contradiction.
6. The core issue you avoid
Strip away the tone, the narrative, the shenanigans. The core issue is simple:
YOU PUBLISHED A RENTAL CONTRACT CONTAINING ANOTHER PERSON'S PERSONAL DATA.
THAT IS THE LEGAL BASIS OF THE CASE.
You do not deny it. You do not directly address it. You move around it—invoking duress, adding layers, adding explanations.
BUT YOU NEVER CONFRONT THE ACT ITSELF.
Good lord. There is a plethora of language and zero direct engagement with that fact.
7. "Duress" as a frame
You repeatedly invoke duress. duress, duress, duress.
Jesus. Good lord.
REPETITION DOES NOT CREATE VALIDITY.
Even if duress existed, it does not automatically justify the public disclosure of private information.
FEAR AND DURESS IS NOT A UNIVERSAL OVERRIDE.
FEAR AND DURESS IS NOT A BLANK CHECK.
FEAR AND DURESS DOES NOT ERASE CONSEQUENCES.
There are lawful channels. Publishing personal data is not one of them. A plethora of references to duress does not transform it into a legal defense.
8. "Exile" vs fact
You frame your situation as exile.
Good lord. Jesus.
THAT IS NOT EXILE.
YOU COMMITTED A CRIME! YOU WERE CONVICTED!
A SENTENCE WAS ISSUED.
YOU LEFT BEFORE ENFORCEMENT.
THAT IS A DECISION.
Calling it exile is narrative inflation—more shenanigans, the kind of reframing shysters rely on.
9. Contradiction in position
You claim unfair treatment, systemic failure.
BUT YOU DO NOT DISPUTE THE CRIMINAL CONDUCT.
Good lord.
YOU ARE NOT SAYING "THIS DID NOT HAPPEN."
YOU ARE SAYING "IT SHOULD NOT MATTER."
Those are not the same. No plethora of language, no rhetorical shenanigans can resolve that contradiction.
10. Strategy: deflection
Your response relies on tone, humor, narrative, dismissal.
WHAT IS MISSING IS A PLETHORA OF CORE ELEMENTS:
NO LEGAL COUNTERARGUMENT.
NO FACTUAL CORRECTION.
NO DIRECT RESPONSE.
Jesus. Good lord.
THIS IS DEFLECTION.
This is rhetorical shenanigans—the exact pattern shysters use to avoid substance.
11. Escalation through narrative
You expand the issue into something broader—symbolic, systemic.
BUT HERE IS THE LIMIT:
NO AMOUNT OF STORYTELLING CHANGES LEGAL REALITY.
NO AMOUNT OF DURESS CHANGES LEGAL REALITY.
NO AMOUNT OF A PLETHORA OF WORDS CHANGES LEGAL REALITY.
Good lord. Jesus.
A plethora of language does not create authority. A plethora of framing does not change jurisdiction. A plethora of shenanigans does not produce outcomes that do not exist.
12. Final clarification
The email is not mysterious. It is not a conspiracy. It is not the work of shysters.
Good lord.
IT IS DIRECT.
IT STATES ONE THING:
WHAT THE SYSTEM CAN DO AND WHAT IT CANNOT DO.
YOU HAVE NOT REFUTED THAT.
You have only reframed it with tone, narrative, and shenanigans.
Conclusion
There is a plethora of language in your post. A plethora of tone. A plethora of framing.
BUT THERE IS NOT A PLETHORA OF ARGUMENT.
THE FACTS REMAIN:
THE CONDUCT OCCURRED.
THE CONVICTION FOLLOWED.
THE CONSEQUENCES EXIST.
Good lord. Jesus.
No amount of duress, no amount of rhetorical shenanigans, no amount of language that would make even shysters proud changes that.
THIS DOES NOT CHANGE BASED ON HOW IT IS DESCRIBED.
IT ONLY CHANGES IF THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT.
AND THEY ARE NOT.
Yours sincerely,
The chairman of the Wizard in the Flat Earth.
🧙🪄🕷️🕸️
On Wed, 8 Apr 2026 at 16:43, 陳美玲 <chenmeiling870424@gmail.com> wrote:
ROSS CLINE - PERSONA NON GRATA IN TAIWAN
You need to stop and face reality, because right now you are completely detached from how the system you are attacking actually works.
WHAT YOU ARE DEMANDING IS NOT JUST UNREALISTIC — IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
You are asking for:
- a personal apology from the President,
- a public apology from the judiciary for the "fuck up,"
- 2 MILLION NTD (2,000,000 NTD) IN COMPENSATION,
- criminal punishment for your former landlord,
- and a reversal of your situation outside the legal system.
NONE OF THESE DEMANDS HAVE ANY LEGAL BASIS. NONE OF THEM ARE WITHIN THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE YOU ARE ADDRESSING.
The President cannot intervene in court decisions. The President cannot overturn your case. The President cannot order compensation. The President cannot issue apologies on behalf of judges. These are basic principles of any democratic system.
THE FACT THAT YOU CONTINUE TO INSIST ON THIS SHOWS THAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM YOU ARE CRITICIZING.
Your demand for a judicial apology is equally disconnected from reality.
COURTS DO NOT APOLOGIZE. EVER.
If there is an error, it is addressed through appeals or legal review — not public admissions of wrongdoing because someone demands it.
Your demand for 2 MILLION NTD (2,000,000 NTD) is not compensation — it is a number you chose.
PERSONAL FRUSTRATION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL ENTITLEMENT.
Now address the central issue you continue to avoid:
YOU WERE CHARGED AND CONVICTED BECAUSE YOU PUBLISHED YOUR RENTAL CONTRACT ONLINE, INCLUDING YOUR LANDLORD'S PERSONAL INFORMATION.
THAT IS NOT A MINOR DETAIL. THAT IS THE ENTIRE BASIS OF THE CASE.
Under Taiwan's personal data protection laws, publicly exposing another individual's private information is a serious offense.
THE LAW DOES NOT PERMIT YOU TO HANDLE DISPUTES BY PUBLISHING SOMEONE ELSE'S PERSONAL DATA ONLINE.
You have acknowledged that you engaged in the conduct that led to your conviction.
THIS IS NOT A WRONGFUL CONVICTION. THIS IS A LAWFUL CONSEQUENCE OF A CRIME YOU DO NOT DISPUTE.
Your characterization of your situation as "exile" is inaccurate.
YOU WERE NOT EXILED. YOU WERE SENTENCED UNDER THE LAW AND CHOSE TO LEAVE.
Your allegations of racism are also contradicted by your own documented behavior.
YOU HAVE USED RACIST LANGUAGE, MADE DEGRADING REMARKS, DIRECTED HOMOPHOBIC COMMENTS, AND PUBLICLY MOCKED INDIVIDUALS IN A DEHUMANIZING WAY. THESE COMMENTS ARE DOCUMENTED IN YOUR RECORDINGS AND VIDEOS PUBLISHED ON YOUR WEBSITE (ILEARN.TW).
THIS EXPLOSIVE COMMENTS INCLUDES:
- "I WORK LIKE A NIGGER FOR 15 YEARS"
- "SHIT-HOLE COUNTRY"
- "THIRLD WORLD BANANA REPUBLIC SHITHOLE"
- "SOMEONE WITH A TURBAN IN HIS HEAD FROM SOME SHITHOLE COUNTRY IS DRIVING A TAXI FOR SHITHOLE MONEY"
- "THEY ARE ALL GAYS AND THAT'S HOW THEY LEARNED THEIR ENGLISH, THEY LEARN ENGLISH IN A GAY SAUNA AT TAIPEI, HI I'M A BOTTOM, FIRST THING THEY LEARNED TO SAY, TOTAL BOTTOM, HUNGRY BOTTOM"
You have also directed abusive language toward government personnel, including officials of the National Immigration Agency.
THIS BEHAVIOR DESTROYS YOUR CREDIBILITY.
Additionally, your public statements — including extreme claims suggesting geopolitical consequences involving Canada and Taiwan — further undermine the seriousness of your position.
It must also be clearly stated that the individuals involved in this matter — including Bella, Paul, and Bella's husband — are exceptional, honest, outstanding, remarkable, extraordinary, distinguished, superior, elite, unparalleled Taiwanese individuals who were directly affected by your actions, and now they're just VICTIMS of your BLATANT CRIMES.
THEY ARE NOT PERPETRATORS. THEY ARE THE PARTIES WHOSE PERSONAL DATA YOU EXPOSED.
THEY ARE THE VICTIMS OF YOUR CRIMINAL CONDUCT.
This is the reason the legal system treats such conduct seriously.
THE HARM IS REAL, AND IT AFFECTS REAL PEOPLE.
You are not being taken seriously because your claims are unsupported.
YOU ARE NOT BEING IGNORED BECAUSE YOUR CASE IS COMPLEX. YOU ARE BEING IGNORED BECAUSE WHAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR DOES NOT EXIST WITHIN THE LEGAL SYSTEM.
Escalating this matter through websites, social media, public accusations, and appeals to international attention does not strengthen your position.
IT ONLY CONFIRMS THAT YOU ARE NOT ENGAGING IN A CREDIBLE OR LAWFUL WAY.
At this point, you are not presenting a legal argument.
YOU ARE REPEATING DEMANDS THAT CANNOT BE FULFILLED.
Nothing you are asking for will occur.
NOT THE PRESIDENTIAL APOLOGY.
NOT THE JUDICIAL APOLOGY.
NOT THE 2 MILLION NTD (2,000,000 NTD)
NOT THE INTERVENTION.
NOT THE PUNISHMENT YOU ARE TRYING TO ASSIGN TO OTHERS.
If you continue on this path, the outcome will remain unchanged.
YOU WILL CONTINUE TO ESCALATE, AND YOU WILL CONTINUE TO RECEIVE NO RESPONSE.
If you intend to pursue any realistic resolution, you must stop this approach and engage through proper legal mechanisms.
OTHERWISE, YOU ARE CHOOSING TO REMAIN IN A POSITION THAT HAS NO POSSIBILITY OF PRODUCING THE OUTCOME YOU ARE DEMANDING.
Please understand that you do not belong in Taiwan. You are a criminal with a criminal record. You refused to pay a fine, go to jail, or complete community service. You are not welcome here anymore.
You are also a very poor example of an English teacher in Taiwan—unprofessional, irresponsible, and promoting conspiracy theories and irrational ideas. No child should ever be exposed to someone like you.
You and your boyfriend, Patrick, who is a Taiwanese citizen, are a shameful example. As a Taiwanese citizen, he has supported you in all this craziness, and he should be held accountable (revoke his Taiwanese citizenship) for supporting someone like you.
STAY IN CANADA, WHERE YOU BELONG, AND NEVER COME BACK TO TAIWAN.
What Stands Out
People disagree every day. Normal disagreement has a certain proportion to it. It makes a point, perhaps badly, and then wanders off to bother someone else.
This is not that.
This is the kind of writing that wants not only to rebut, but to diminish. Not only to answer, but to humiliate. Not only to correct, but to crowd out any competing interpretation of reality until the sender's preferred script is the only one left standing on the stage.
That is what caught my attention the first time.
That is what catches my attention even more the second time.
What the sender seems to want: for me to accept that an unsolicited, highly personalized, contempt-soaked message is perfectly ordinary and that my noticing its strangeness is the true offense.
What I actually notice: unusual familiarity, unusual intensity, unusual confidence, and an unusual inability to let the matter rest.
That gap is the story.
A Note on Mystery
I am told there is no mystery here.
Wonderful. If I see a big tarantula spider in the next few days. I'll start worrying.
And yet a stranger, or someone wearing the mask of one, arrives armed with remarkable certainty, curiously totalizing language, and a fervent wish to narrate me out of my own experience. If that is not mysterious, it is at the very least an extremely committed hobby.
There is also something unintentionally comic about being lectured on "clarity" by a figure who declines clarity on the one point that would actually settle anything: who, precisely, is doing the lecturing? Is this a reckless fool, a figment of my imagination, a gay reptilian shapeshifter or something else?
That omission remains elegant in its own way. The wizard prefers a hooded entrance.
For the Record
For clarity: I am not identifying the sender here, and I am not making claims of fact about the sender's identity. I am documenting a repeated pattern of anonymous or pseudonymous messages whose tone, intensity, and personal investment any reader can evaluate for themselves.
🔍 Click to open Detective Deep Dive: The Flat-Earth Wizard's Homoerotic KKK Meltdown
Detective Deep Dive: The Flat-Earth Wizard's Homoerotic KKK Meltdown
Listen up, keyboard warriors and aspiring internet sheriffs. I ran the full forensic on this latest masterpiece from chenmeiling870424@gmail.com, and the results are in: not spoofed, not deep state, just pure distilled crazy.
Headers check out clean — DKIM, SPF, DMARC all green. A real (supposedly sentient) human pressed send from Gmail. The only problem? Searching that email address returns exactly one hit: the two unhinged rants this clown fired into my inbox. Burner account confirmed. Congratulations, genius — you created a Gmail just to scream at me while hiding behind Google like a coward cram-school Canadian killer with a magic broomstick up his arse, voodoo-jibby-style.
Then we get the pièce de résistance: the signature. "The chairman of the Wizard in the Flat Earth" — complete with wizard hat, spider web, and moon emojis like a 12-year-old who just discovered Discord. Good lord. Jesus. This isn't a pen name. This is what mental illness looks like when it learns how to use clip art.
The body is even better. Fifteen uses of "plethora," endless "Good lord. Jesus," and enough "rhetorical shenanigans" and "narrative shenanigans" to make a thesaurus file a police report. The guy admits the legal limits are fair… then keeps demanding I obey rules that only exist in his head. Peak nutjob behavior.
But here's where it gets comically unhinged.
This self-appointed defender of Taiwanese honor spends paragraphs calling me racist, homophobic, and every other -ist he can Google. Meanwhile, the energy coming off this email is so flaming it could light the Pride parade on fire. The obsessive need to police another man's life, the breathless repetition, the emotional meltdowns in bullet points — bro, the closet called. It wants its wizard hat back. If this guy spent half as much time examining his own repressed tendencies as he does stalking my blog, he might actually touch grass instead of touching himself while reading my posts.
And let's talk the KKK angle, because the irony is delicious. Dude positions himself as the great protector of "outstanding Taiwanese individuals" while ranting like a sheet-wearing grand wizard from some banana-republic chapter that got lost on the way to a cross-burning. He defends the landlord like they're sacred victims, demands I stay exiled, and throws every slur he can find — all while hiding behind a throwaway account like the biggest coward in the klavern. If the KKK had an Asian outreach program run by flaming closet cases who type in all caps about "plethora," this would be their chairman.
Location? Crystal clear. Traditional Chinese name, laser-focused obsession with Taiwan rental law, the National Immigration Agency, and the sacred decree that I "stay in Canada and never come back to Taiwan." This isn't some neutral observer. This is a Taiwan-based troll (or someone surgically glued to the landlord's family) who reads my blog like it's his porn. He saw my April 12 post, frothed at the mouth, and fired back within days. Dedicated. Obsessed. Pathetic.
Strip away the clown makeup and what's left is a sad, repressed little man hiding behind a burner Gmail, a wizard hat, and a thesaurus, convinced he's delivering justice while secretly hoping someone notices how hard he's staring at other men's business. On second thought, I'm logical enough to know that things are exactly what they appear to be. I don't actually believe in wizards… but I do believe in murderers and reptilian shapeshifters.
So yeah. I got another email today.
And the chairman of the Wizard in the Flat Earth just proved, once again, that the only thing flatter than his earth is his intellectual depth — and apparently his repressed urges.
Dismissing 5 witnesses, my safety concerns, and the national TV video as "unimportant" isn't justice — it's corruption, racism, or a wizard's curse.
A real judiciary deserves respect. Taiwan's so-called justice system does not. There's a difference between respect and Stockholm syndrome.
I love Taiwan, which is exactly why I'll keep banging this drum until its credibility as a place to do business is no longer a con.
The sender appears especially offended by atmosphere, by references to people I miss, by the presence of memory, and by the possibility that writing can do more than behave like a filing cabinet.
I do not share that narrow view.
Human beings do, in fact, have memories. Messages do arrive with tone. Grief does shape perception. Unease is a form of information. Readers are capable of observing not only what is said, but how badly someone needs it to be believed.
That last point matters here.
Because if the argument were truly self-sufficient, it would not need this much heat. It would not need this much contempt. It would not need this much performance.
And it certainly would not need a sequel.
Exit
So now there are two.
Two dispatches. Two performances of certainty. Two episodes of unsolicited devotion. Two reminders that somewhere out there, someone has appointed themselves curator of my tone, editor of my grief, manager of my memory, and supervisor of what I am supposedly allowed to notice.
It is, in its own exhausting way, revealing.
I will say only this: when a person keeps reappearing in this manner, what becomes interesting is no longer the correction, but the compulsion.
Readers can decide for themselves what kind of mind produces that.
As for me, I remain touched by the dedication. Disturbed, yes. But touched.
Mystery abounds.
Totally UNRELATED and Related Reading
