On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 09:05:23 -0400, Maple Tree <none@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Forward the post with all headers to abuse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
dirty netcopping ****!
>Michel 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
>>>
>>
|
