X-Google-Thread: f5cdc,1fb0d560f657e200 X-Google-Thread: 111f74,1fb0d560f657e200 X-Google-Thread: 116147,1fb0d560f657e200 X-Google-Thread: f996b,1fb0d560f657e200 X-Google-Thread: 113c90,1fb0d560f657e200 X-Google-Thread: 10b88a,7d6d0e1b7f231b53,start X-Google-Attributes: gidf5cdc,gid111f74,gid116147,gidf996b,gid113c90,gid10b88a,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 22:23:28 -0500 From: "Amadeus Jinn" Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry,alt.arts.poetry.comments,alt.arts.poetry.urban,alt.ascii-art,alt.asian-image,uk.misc References: Subject: Re: MI5 Persecution: Goldfish and Piranha 29/9/95 (23) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 20:22:40 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original Message-ID: <9_SdnYO-iZuvD-HbnZ2dnUVZ_oSnnZ2d@giganews.com> Lines: 295 X-Trace: sv3-lHLW9DDz6jqhESUeyHdfvtmmYDyKMIMCkaCOGkP52Wr+N4nvmTjeUIuu0g8SQ78jkml6zqFYqWP/2bm!lyh12zq7azG5G0+kfZvF+62ZMCF9KaOPMqdltnCx/Q4DrmELyP7eQ3PQnrywL2RPhiIkOuBq X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.34 Xref: g2news1.google.com alt.arts.poetry:2354 alt.arts.poetry.comments:113932 alt.arts.poetry.urban:11087 alt.ascii-art:4516 alt.asian-image:154 uk.misc:126623 What? No porn pics? Don't make it hard or I'll moan. -- AJ - http://Here.Nu http://Midis.Here.Nu http://Art.Here.Nu wrote in message news:m07052301271765@4ax.com... >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 , > Mike Corley wrote: >> >>John J Smith (J.J.Smith@ftel.co.uk) 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@flames.cityscape.co.uk (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@objmedia.demon.co.uk>, Snail 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. > > 23 >