wrong group dude
<MI5Victim@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message news:m07052301283041@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>I just thought I'd let you know what I've been reading into the
> "Crusader" spam. I don't want to post this to usenet because somebody
> might try to tie that in to my posts in some way (someone already has,
in
> uk.misc).
>
> First of all, I'd like to ask you to believe that my phone line in my
> apartment is bugged, and has been for many months. I have moved a couple
> of times this year, but "they" have faithfully been on my trail.
>
> Anyway, let's suppose my phone line is bugged. Now, when I talk to my
> internet service provider, it's over a SLIP (now PPP) connection. So if
> you wanted to bug what was said, either you'd listen in over the line
and
> have to decode the transmission, or you could go to the service provider
> (more difficult) and ask them to decode a particular user's connection.
>
> OK, so now they're listening to everything I do over my SLIP/PPP
> connection. A couple of months ago I was messing around with faking
> articles through nntp servers and through anonymous remailers. I chose a
> nice inconspicuous newsgroup for my little tests, something no-one would
> ever notice. Guess which newsgroup I chose??? Yes, _FISH_!!! or
> rec.aquaria to be precise
>
> And guess what articles I tried to post? Goldfish, Koi carp and, you'll
> never guess... PIRANHA!!! The goldfish article and the Koi went through,
> but the piranha didn';t appear.
>
> by now you probably think this is too silly for words. But if you look
in
> the papers a few eeks ago you will find John Major, Tonny Blair and
Paddy
> Ashdown sharing a "private joke" about Major's sunburnt goldfish. We
> haven't had anything about Koi yet (they must be too dull ). Now, sent
by
> someone who clearly knew what they were doing (they chose an Italian
> backbone site for their launch point) we have many thousands of messages
> to people all over the globe. All about piranha, and with the punchline
> "that gives you something to think about, doesn't it?"
>
> The way it works is that they're trying to kill two birds with one stone
> again. I don't knoiw why they should be against these national alliance
> people, but my interpretation is that they simultaneously try to
> discredit them, and stem the flow of Corley articles.
>
> =================================================================
>
> In article <DFnE55.8tF.0.bloor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Mike Corley <bu765@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>John J Smith (J.J.Smith@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
) wrote:
>>
>>: b) we do know who you are. Or are you someone else we don't know
about?
>>: You are currently known as "That bloody persistant net nutter, who's
>>: expanding from uk.misc to the rest of the world".
>>
>>I think the point I was trying to make is that I could tell you things
>>from my personal life, at home and at work, which would add credibility
>>to my story. But if I named people, then (a) they would object violently
>>to being included in this shenanigans, and (b) I would be revealing my
>>identity which would be bad for my personal life and my work life. Of
>>course some people in my personal life, and at work, do know who "mike
>>corley" is. But at least we're observing a studied silence for now.
>
> :People can always be called "MR X", to save them being named.
> :
> :I'm completely perplexed as to what you mean by b). Revealing identity?
> :To who? And why would this be bad for any part of your life when you
> :already have a less than respectful reputation here?
>
> I'll just enumerate one or two things that I can still remember.
Sometime
> around August/Sept 1992 I was living in a house in Oxford, and coming
out
> of the house was physically attacked by someone - not punched, just
> grabbed
> by the coat, with some verbals thrown in for good measure. That was
> something
> the people at work shouldn't have known about... but soon after a couple
> of
> people were talking right in front of me about, "yeah, I heard he was
> attacked".
>
> Again, one I went for a walk in some woods outside Oxford. The next day,
> at work, someone said "you know he went to the forest yesterday".
>
> I don't want to put details on usenet of what happened because to do so
> would be to risk it happening again. If you put ideas in peoples' heads
> then you can find them reflecting back at you, and I don't want that.
> Also I can't remember that much from three years ago. From november 1992
> I started taking "major tranquilizers" and just blotted the whole thing
> from my mind.
>
>>This is a feature time and time again, that the security services
>>(presumed) get at you by manipulating other people around you to get at
>>you. If you have their contacts, manpower, resources and technology then
>>you can do that sort of thing.
>
> :But why? Are you a threat?
>
> They pretend they "have" to get at me. After the first few weeks they
had
> to find a reason to spy and abuse. You can't abuse someone unless
they're
> in the wrong in some way. What I did "wrong" was to be ill. So it became
> "nutter" and "monster" and "he's going to attack us" coupled with
> "ha ha ha, he can't do anything to defend himself, it was so funny".
That
> obvious contradiction within their propaganda is something they
> blithely ignore.
>
> :So, the Security Services never *actually* appear, and you assume that
> :they get someone else to do your dirty work. This is a bit of a big
> :logical step, here: That person doesn't like me, or is causing me
> trouble,
> :it's not because they've got problems themselves, it must be the
> "Security
> :Services". Yes. Because people are infallible. Or is there more?
>
> A single source is indicated because of the range of harassment.
> BBC + Capital + manipulated_public_at_large + set_up_situations,
> what does that add up to? Add in the technology to carry out the
> covert spying and the manpower and knowhow to follow you around for
> five years without being spotted. It smells very much of the security
> services, because there is no other organization (to my knowledge)
> which does the things I've seen these people do.
>
> Remember, they have deliberately chosen the softest of soft targets
> to victimize. They purposely chose a mentally ill person who they
thought
> would be likely to kill himself anyway, so that they could get away with
> murder.
>
> And in all likelihood it will have started as a personal vendetta by
> someone.
> Who could that be? I don't know, but I can give you some clues.
>
> The first possibility (deep breath) is that someone from my college set
me
> up. Six years ago I graduated from university in the UK, during the last
> year there I was steadily getting more and more ill. I know that I was
> talking in my sleep; although I don't know what I was saying, it got
> me a reputation, and if someone from my college talked afterwards to
> the "wrong" people then that could be the reason for all that has
> followed.
>
> I think that's the strongest contender for source. Directly beneath my
> room lived another bloke who frequently had his friends round late at
> night, after the time that I went to sleep. So they could have heard
what
> I was saying in my sleep, and that could have got me the reputation for
> "talking to myself".
>
> What I don't know is why that should have rebounded a year after I left.
> You'd think it would have happened sooner; it's a bit odd to wait for a
> year and then start abuse. That leads me to question what in particular
> happened around May/June 1990 for them to start then.
>
>>What I don't know is how it looks from the other side, from the side of
>>the people who are being manipulated to get at me. On a couple of
>>occasions I have challenged people to tell the truth of the matter, but
>>they have alwats ducked the challenge.
>
> :Have you ever considered the possibility, that you have made a mistake,
> and
> :the people don't know what you are talking about?
>
> Yes. I am currently considering the possibility that some people around
me
> know only what is being posted on Usenet, and have not been "contacted"
> by "them". But I _know_ that others have been contacted.
>
> :What words? Are they in common use? Could they be a catchphrase of a
> :popular comedian?: "Nice to see you, to see you nice"?
>
> In England the all-time No. 1 is "nutter". Easter this year, returning
> home
> from Clapham police station to report five years of harassment ("we're
not
> saying it's happening and we're not saying it isn't happening"), another
> "not happening" incident of harassment when a cowardly little slut did
her
> country proud by yelling "nutter, nutter, nutter" in the face of the
> hated enemy.
>
> What can you do about that? You can't yell abuse back in their face,
> because
> they know they're supported by their peers, by the media, by the
murderers
> in
> the security forces. You can't put them down when the fascist
> establishment
> is on their side. You can't hit them, because they would deny their
abuse,
> they would deny knowing anything, and bring charges against the "nutter"
> who attacked them "at random".
>
>>You know, you're
>>passing saomeone, they're hardly going to construct an argument for your
>>benefit, so they work a word of abuse into the conversation which they
>>can giggle at.
>
> :Abuse such as what? We're all adults here, we can take it. Is this
abuse
> :aimed at you? How can you tell it is?
>
> I think I've said already what the words are. Thing is, at any given
time
> the language is consistent. In January everyone's calling you X, then a
> few weeks later people stop calling you X and start calling you Y.
>
> You can tell it's aimed at me, because when people repeatedly say the
same
> words are you walk past, then laugh, you would have to be hard of
> understanding not to recognize it.
>
>>Or they repeat something that's been said somewhere else... the PE thing
>>being a case in point. PE says it, then other people pick up the
refrain.
>
> :Remind me who PE is again.
>
> PE = "Private Eye"
>
>>: >To give you an example, which I mentioned in another posting. In
around
>>: >October 1992, Private Eye ran a cover with the heading "Major's
support
>>: >lowest ever", with John calling to Norma on the cover "come back,
>>Norma".
>>: >Only one obvious interpretation to that, isn';;t there? I certainly
>>: >thought so when I saw that cover. Wrongo!! Down the pub with people
>>from work
>>: >Simon says to phil, "don';t you think it's wrong then?" phil says,
>>"well
>>: >private eye are usuallyright"..."hislop strikes again..
>>
>>: Erm. Mike? Heeeelllllooo? What are you on about. What is the other
>>: interpretation then? Norma having an affair? Seems a bit wrong, with
the
>>: heading "Majors support Lowest ever"...
>>
>>No, this one isn't obvious , it really does need to be explained. I
>>certainly didn't understand it when I first saw it. You see, the kernel
>>of vitriol is in the words "come back". At the time, the themes of
>>abuse were centred around interpretations of those two words (stretch
your
>>mind a little bit, I don't have to spell it out for you, surely).
>
> :You did in your mail item.
> :
> :You seem to be scouting about something called a "Double Entendre". The
> :inference being "Come" = Ejaculation, "Back" = Anus (not the first part
> :of the body I would have went for, I would have foolishly gone for
> "Back",
> :silly old me).
> :
> :You see to have picked a sodomy double entendre out of a Private Eye
> :headline. They are everywhere. The English language has much double
> :meaning in it, and if you put your mind to it, you could pull a double
> :entendre out of a randomly chosen page of the bible. So what?
>
>>The point is that when Simon pointed it out to Phil, he did recognise
>>what it meant after a moment's thought... and so did I... and so did the
>>people who repeated it several times later... so however murky it may
>>seem to you, that is the meaning they intended it to have...
>
> I still don't really know if the meaning was intended when that headline
> was
> written, or if it was simply "found" after the fact. The reason I think
it
> might be the former is that I got quite a lot of abuse along the lines
of
> "sound-alike" or "double-entendre" at work, in particularly from Steve.
> So "double" inevitably came to mean split-personality, "two people in
> one";
> "back" inevitably came to mean "backside", "come" inevitably meant
> you-know-
> what, "split" (well, we'd better split now) again you can guess, "bent"
> (of
> a similar bent), the list goes on forever. These aren't "nice" double-
> entendres intended for comedy, they're nasty words to humiliate and
cause
> pain. If I could turn the clock back three years then I would sue my
> former employers for harassment and I would almost certainly win. I had
to
> take pills after a year of Oxford, so they wouldn't be able to lie their
> way out of it. Actually, I could still take them to court - the main
> obstacle being that three years after the fact is a bit late and much
> of what happened, the details that would be necessary for a case to go
> to court, has just been obliterated by time.
>
> : Smid
>
> ==============================================
> From: flames@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Peter Kr|ger)
> Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british,alt.conspiracy,uk.media,uk.legal
> Subject: Re: Mike Corley - a (helpful) suggestion
> Date: Mon Oct 2 05:43:42 1995
>
> In article <812551172snz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Snail
> <snail@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says:
>
>>Indeed, I feel that my Usenet access is censored simply because I don't
>>want
>>to download groups he is partaking in, because of his behaviour.
>>
>>I wasn't that bothered, but I am starting to get seriously pissed off
>>with him. Which takes a lot.
>
>
> Hi Snail
>
> This person Corley seems quite interesting for three reasons. I put the
> following at the end of a post in another thread just to see if he was
> reading any other threads in uk.media.
>
> It seems he is probably not.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Heres an interesting little story from back in the early days of CCD
> technology. There was this miniature camera which was designed to fit
> behind the infrared receiver lens of the remote control system (just
> beside the IR sensor itself) the camera clocked out the data in 256
lines
> of 256 pixels from a Fairchild chip and fed it out, a line at a time,
> into the VBI within the TV set itself. The signal could be picked up
> remotely from a standard license detector van from where it was stripped
> out of the surrounding RF signal and relayed back to the TV station
where
> it was displayed as a slowscan monochrome image in a corner of the news
> readers monitor.
>
> 167
>
|
