Forward the post with all headers to abuse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oosterbeek wrote:
>
> Is there anyone (like some admin) who can block these messages?
>
>
> MI5Victim@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> 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 re****t 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 **** 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 sup****ted 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 sup****t : >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 sup****t 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.
>>
>> 4789
>>
>
|
