Then she and the people around made comments about "a secret admirer". I thought it was normal comments.
They were not. The flowers had a specific meaning. When a knowledgeable person was kind enough to give me
some explanations the name of the flowers was relevant.
From that moment on she started to influence my life.
In the beginning she was put in that location as a deterrent to the actions of T. . I firmly believe that I was underestimating the dangerousness of T.
The comments to the flowers "on the part of the people close to her" were kind of significant , though. If I had had more experience in that kind of
environment I would have found more meaning in all that. But I was so concentrated in my music and the languages that I did not want to believe that
other people, for any reason, would center their attention on me. Later on , when I think more about the different ladders that people use to survive, I realize that
my course of action - legal course of action - should have been different since that moment.
A. was a close friend of "I.". She defended her when she was not receiving the proper amount of information for the completion of projects - in public. She did not this with anybody else. For example, when L.L.C. did not provide me with the proper info for months she did not even made a comment about that. She should have been aware of the emails that I had sent requesting info. It was blatantly obvious that I was being blocked.
After the famous P.'s speech, when he gave his people "full authority" when we moved to a new location, she was given wider powers. Again, I should have made the proper correlation of facts. But again, I thought that I was working. Intrigues were for movies, weren't they. Well, they were thinking of movies.
J.O. and M. were among the people in her group too.
Whenever I said something that seem to be relevant to her, she deflected the situation to a meeting with G. We had several meetings in that context. The second meeting G. made a reference to my marital status. Open comment by the end of the meeting, when I was leaving the premises and was out of the room where the meeting had taken place. A. responded to the comment in a jokingly way, it was not a joke though. They did it for "the audience". The non-visible audience of the cubicles was important to them. In this case it was after working hours and there were only a few people around. But that was enough for their purposes. I kept on disregarding obvious attacks , anybody would think. My answer is this: I was too immerse in my music and trying to excel in technical matters, because I thought that technical matters were the key of success in a technical environment.
She gave me an evaluation about my abilities with V.B. that let everybody mouth's open. I had been working successfully with that programming language for years. Then I realized that her apathy about the flow of data coming to me timely was not so naive or casual.
But there is more.
Apparently some of her previous friends were of dubious behavior. Difficult and dangerous people. Explicitly said this way by the ones who made the comments. I should have taken these comments more seriously, because she enjoyed challenges when the challenger was in what she considered an inferior position. This is not a loose comment. She proved to be dangerous in more than one dimension.
For sure , she belonged to the kind of person that does not think that the only relation as supervisor is technical. She went personal because of "P.". Obviously some reward was involved.
It was a matter of concern, for many , that she would do anything she would do anything P. asked if we moved to another location. She did.
Comments