X-Google-Thread: f5cdc,149cb413d4946e32 X-Google-Thread: 111f74,149cb413d4946e32 X-Google-Thread: 116147,149cb413d4946e32 X-Google-Thread: f996b,149cb413d4946e32 X-Google-Thread: 113c90,149cb413d4946e32 X-Google-Thread: 10b88a,3b7cb614bb6243b,start X-Google-Attributes: gidf5cdc,gid111f74,gid116147,gidf996b,gid113c90,gid10b88a,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.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 22:25:38 -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: Grievous Bodily Harm 2/10/95 (1537) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 20:24:49 -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: Lines: 171 X-Trace: sv3-DoncB9c3sKo3MR8pemDljPEDGdWS5/xmC0Vd0HlZNeh9A+GDML7PbdKSSGHe17bF0dqvM/rHlQQI1ip!Mwd7NkgvSoH9YV8ury8Rmiqtck0mTUoOAfnIPVmyQ9Y6P8gBBOm1FFr7W/Z5/dwpk2dZCEGp 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:2356 alt.arts.poetry.comments:113934 alt.arts.poetry.urban:11089 alt.ascii-art:4518 alt.asian-image:156 uk.misc:126624 X-posting this to poetry groups marks you. Gee, wonder? -- AJ - http://Here.Nu http://Midis.Here.Nu http://Art.Here.Nu wrote in message news:m07052301440822@4ax.com... > From: jeibisch@revolver.demon.co.uk (James Eibisch) > Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british,uk.politics,uk.media,rec.arts.tv.uk.misc > Subject: Re: Auntie gets it in the emails > Reply-To: jeibisch@revolver.demon.co.uk > Date: Mon Oct 2 19:44:19 1995 > > lig0007@queens-belfast.ac.uk (TOM OATES) wrote: > >>However, I'm pleased to say that, in the past couple of days, Mike Corley has >>stopped doing it and he appears (I say this cautiously) to be acting more >>reasonably. True, his postings are still based on paranoid delusions. >>However, so long as he doesn't go back to his old practices of multiple, >>identical, unreadable postings, I'm sure that most people on this newsgroup >>are willing to put up with him. > > Time to come out of the woodwork of this thread (or variations > thereof)... > > I find it annoying that discussion of Mike's situation is spread over > multiple threads - it makes it hard to follow, and especially to follow > up. If it could be consolidated into one thread on relevant newsgroups > (I'm reading this on uk.media btw). > > I'm a little surprised with the volume of abuse Mike has received, but > believe strongly in freedom of speech if such a thing were to exist, > which clearly includes abuse as much as anything. > > One thing which has been missing from this discussion is this simple > prognosis: that maybe Mike is right and that, despite his admitted > mental condition, there really is a campaign against him organised by > now-influential ex-students of his university. > > Does anyone remember the TV series GBH, a fictional account of security > service and governmental power games? Fictional, certainly, but one of > the most powerful pieces of TV drama I've seen in many years, > fascinating and quite believable, even. > > The fact is, as Mike has pointed out (oh, so many times :-), that the > security services _do_ have the influence, contacts, resources, and time > to conduct such a campaign of surveillance and even psychological terror > if they so chose. If they have this power, then they will surely use it > > We still don't have all the facts from Mike, and the most pertinent here > I think would be about his time at university - the people who took > against him, the ringleaders. We need to know far more about Mike: his > political and social affiliations, put in context with his univeristy > years, the enemies he made, the reasons people ganged up on him at the > very early stages. > > I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories generally, but I know there is > far more that goes on in the universities, old boy's clubs, civil and > secret services and Parliament than is ever made public. > > Mike, I leave it to you to construct a _single_ thread in a relevant > newsgroup about this topic and keep to this thread to give us new > information and answer questions about your situation. Ignore the 'Mike > Corley is a nutter' posts unless they are relevant. > > Give us more detail. Who knows? It may be true, stranger things have > happened. > > _ > James Eibisch ('v') N : E : T : A : D : E : L : I : C : A > Reading, U.K. (,_,) http://metro.turnpike.net/J/jeibisch/ > ======= > > ------------------------------- > Tue, 03 Oct 1995 04:01:34 uk.misc Thread 3 of 14 > Lines 58 Re: Auntie gets it in the emails Respno 16 of 16 > J.J.Smith@ftel.co.uk John J Smith at Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Ltd > > In article <812677261.12841@revolver.demon.co.uk>, > James Eibisch wrote: >>lig0007@queens-belfast.ac.uk (TOM OATES) wrote: > >>One thing which has been missing from this discussion is this simple >>prognosis: that maybe Mike is right and that, despite his admitted >>mental condition, there really is a campaign against him organised by >>now-influential ex-students of his university. > > We're trying to find this out on uk.misc. He's posted some *new* *huge* > replies (which I'd have to give up my day job to reply to), detailing > some things like: > > a) Mike Corley is *not* his real name > b) Exactly what the "abuse" is (it seems be such things, as taking > completely unrelated newspaper articles, striving to make them a > disgusting insult, then redirecting against himself). > c) How he came to the conclusion. > > I think he's doing rather better nowadays.. > >>Does anyone remember the TV series GBH, a fictional account of security >>service and governmental power games? Fictional, certainly, but one of >>the most powerful pieces of TV drama I've seen in many years, >>fascinating and quite believable, even. > > This would be a point, apart from the fact that this was directed against > someone of political importance. I don't believe Mike is... > >>The fact is, as Mike has pointed out (oh, so many times :-), that the >>security services _do_ have the influence, contacts, resources, and time >>to conduct such a campaign of surveillance and even psychological terror >>if they so chose. If they have this power, then they will surely use it >>at some point against some people. > > It appears he has formed the Security Service conclusion, because they > are the only ones capable of doing it. A "searching for an enemy capable > of it". > >>We still don't have all the facts from Mike, and the most pertinent here >>I think would be about his time at university - the people who took >>against him, the ringleaders. We need to know far more about Mike: his >>political and social affiliations, put in context with his univeristy >>years, the enemies he made, the reasons people ganged up on him at the >>very early stages. > > I'm beginning to think that we never will get all the facts from Mike. We > may, however, get enough... > >>Mike, I leave it to you to construct a _single_ thread in a relevant >>newsgroup about this topic and keep to this thread to give us new >>information and answer questions about your situation. Ignore the 'Mike >>Corley is a nutter' posts unless they are relevant. > > Uk.misc, me boy... > > Smid > > ========================================================== > > From: flames@flames.cityscape.co.uk (Peter Kr|ger) > Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british,uk.media,uk.politics,alt.politics.british,alt.conspiracy > Subject: Re: What it's like to be watched by the security services > Date: Tue Oct 3 15:41:54 1995 > > In article <44rrrh$t6v@news.ox.ac.uk>, idaniel@jesus.ox.ac.uk (Illtud Daniel) says: > >> >>And what do you mean when you state that the symptoms are too >>'textbook'? Are the textbooks wrong? > > I think what is meant by 'textbook' is that some of the symptoms > of 'illness' displayed in the posts seem to have been lifted from > textbooks describing mental instability and personality disorders. > > I must admit I haven't seen Mike's postings before has he only just > started posting again? > > > Peter Kruger > ------------------------------------------------------------ > http://www.gold.net/flames/ > flames@flames.cityscape.co.uk > > 1537 >