"You can't go home again"

(From one of several angles, it's about the fact that that 'home' never existed as you now think you remember it, and whatever did exist 'then' ... has changed. Too.)

People don't like to be jerked around by the deranged, and they may not ever be induced 'to care' - that's always a voluntarily offered or withheld kind of recognition.

Lastly, while there is indeed a columnist for a prominent newspaper, whose shtik is about ~ "her once having suffered some 'brain damage'" (which putatively accounts for her odd viewpoints on common topics) - she is/was read for the fact that: she is an acute observer of "things we always do".

People read her because she is a good writer, neither from sympathy over (a fanciful or real illness) nor because she is pathetic - and "we are 'supposed to cut her some slack'". Get it? She writes well - and that is enough. For her, such as she is - and for her regular readers. None reads for imagined 'guilt' /obligation.

You need to find All New People upon whom to practice your new academically-credentialled persona.. there you can start from 0, not -n. zIWE's collective reservoir of sympathy or empathy has long since evaporated. Thus, if you imagine to place any value upon your reception here, as some sort of confirmation of your Being Better\ufffd Now? -- well, if you cannot see the odds there, then:

You Aren't 'better', merely stubborn - and perhaps determined. to. 'explain'. no matter what.. That would be your terminal mistake here, IMO.

Simply, "we" aren't good for your fragile state.
Maybe in another year, if you show up completely cleansed of lugubrious references to how persecuted you are / thus how perpetually unfair are your detractors - things might be different. (No guarantees.) This recent dry run indicates that you can't do that, yet. Or fake it well enough, either.


fwiw