And this is here because ....???
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, | Mike Corley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > | >John 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: [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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 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. | | 5104 | -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
