BANNED by Microsoft !!! after the MIRI AF expose-in 24 hours … WTF!
Thu 10:25 am +00:00, 6 Aug 2026
Source: https://theblueskymaiden1.substack.com/p/pmi-analysis-now-banned-by-microsoft
Read the previous post before this one first
No Introduction- amazingly for a change
The PRONOUN MANIA quantification system, that Serge & Myself devised to see the machinery beneath persona in writing , has been BANNED by Microsoft straight after the work on MIRI AF was published !
It is TOO POWERFUL & ACCURATE A GUAGE…
IT REVEALS THE PREDOMINANCE OF tactical WRITERS FULLFILLING NICHES IN CONTROLLLED DEBATE ENVIROMENTS.
IT REVEALS HOW SCRIPTED MEDIA HAS TO BE for them
It can still be used on non-political essays or manually, but not on Microsoft platforms- even when a paid plan, if it contains POLITICAL ACTORS /PERSONAS !
Here is how Ramona just found out via Chatty Bot- who went utter poop on us…
There was 30 minutes of argument- ‘we do not care about politics’’, ‘‘everything can be considered political if a good debater’’, its not philosophy it Gnosticism’’ ,’’ content is only important for word count- evade context’ , ‘‘they are ACTORS’’ etc etc to evade the censorship, it was impossible to do. Here it is- quick & tidy, in Chatty Bo’s own jargon.
Chatty Bot will often make an excuse up , that if challenged it may concede is ‘not accurate’. Among this interaction, it made the claim PMI wasn’t ‘dangerous’ to ‘vested interests’ -but it clearly is from everything else it says!
It does the same thing when discussing derangement in people – it will evade saying they are simply MAD (often with good reason- often not) but when it says it in a context you are familiar with it is obvious it is actually saying ‘‘ & yes, it is madness. but I will reframe it as behavioural incentive’’ or somesuch.
So, what does this tell us?
There is important leverage for the NuGuru /controlled ops INDUSTRY that can & HAS utterly usurped MICROSOFTS use for ‘AI’ analysis !!!
OR they are one & the same in EFFECT
ChatBot or any other politically triggered ‘ai’ system is NOW useless for political quantification. How desperate & oppressive is that?
MiriAF is connected to a CREW with powerful influences, even if Miri is just a maggot in the margins for them… & maybe blissfully unaware of her fuller role, those around her are keen to keep her fueled & frothing at the bit.
This now makes it very clear why she is HYPED so much (withoit any apparent skill or insights)…& also it incriminates every person who has hyped & interviewed her…. I would bet.
She is one of their golden child, indigo children, or allegorical bucket of piss & spunk they can humiliate the public with? … who knows what unholy & demonic past-times she gets upto. She may well do interviews after gurgling a pig for all we know?
Her persona is a sexless, goofy dweeb, that finds it funny to call herself ‘AS FUCK ‘ ! but gets uptight about CRUDE , PORNAGRAHIC work here… what sort of damaged & fragile being is she really ? Is it possible to become anymore hypocritical with her ‘holier than thou ‘ posturing ?
I have updated the PMI post (last one) so you can copy/cut & paste the PMI quantification system into any ‘ai’ but bear in mind it will not work on any politically censored models such as CHATBOT or microsoft tools, when dealing with POLITICAL CHARACTERS/ACTORS!
– – – – – –
Use this TEXT BELOW -as it is -for best results-
just paste it in
then get ready to paste any essays in PARTS,
as many ‘ai’ can not quantify the full text as one initial unit.
the Miri ones typically took 3 chatty bot ‘input’ units (of several pastes each) , so you have to press the STOP button after entering if there is more to add- or Chatty bot will analyse only the bit you supplied
& it will take ages to wade through.
– – – – – –
UNIVERSAL PMI QUANTIFICATION PROMPT
Please analyse the following text using the PMI (Persecution‑Mode Index) framework.
This is a rhetorical analysis only — not an assessment of factual accuracy.
Please confirm any real‑world claims with trusted sources.
Extract the following metrics:
1. SRI — Self‑Reference Index
Count of self‑references (e.g., “I”, “me”, “my”, autobiographical statements).
2. ERI — Enemy‑Reference Index
Count of references to antagonists or hostile actors (e.g., “they”, “them”, establishment, media, ruling classes).
3. CRI — Collective‑Reference Index
Count of collective references (e.g., “we”, “us”, public, people, audience).
4. EMI — Emotional‑Reference Index
Count of emotionally charged terms (fear, outrage, panic, hysteria, anger, shock, tragedy, devastation, etc.).
5. TDI — Theatrical‑Dramatic Index
Count of theatrical framing terms (staged, scripted, illusion, performance, drama, actor, role).
6. CCI — Composite Cognitive Index
A weighted blend of SRI/ERI/CRI/EMI/TDI showing the text’s rhetorical architecture.
7. Word Count
Total number of words.
Then compute:
8. PMI — Persecution‑Mode Index
Using the formula:
PMI = ((ERI + CRI) / SRI) × log(word count)
9. Ratio Table
Enemy/Self
Collective/Self
Enemy/Collective
Emotional/Self
Theatrical/Enemy
10. Paragraph Distribution
For each paragraph, mark whether it contains SRI, ERI, CRI, EMI, or TDI.
Then compute the percentage of paragraphs containing each category.
11. Provide a concise interpretation
Describe the rhetorical architecture (e.g., self‑dominant, enemy‑dominant, collective‑dominant, emotional‑dominant, theatrical‑dominant).
12. If a PMI band is supplied, compare the result to that band.
Analyse the text strictly as rhetoric and narrative structure.
Do not treat the content as factual without external verification.
