[29316] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 560 Volume: 11
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Sat Jun 23 00:10:09 2007
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 21:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Perl-Users Digest <Perl-Users-Request@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>
To: Perl-Users@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Perl-Users Digest Fri, 22 Jun 2007 Volume: 11 Number: 560
Today's topics:
MI5 Persecution: A new Kafka? 3/10/95 (5103) MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk
MI5 Persecution: Dihydrocodeine 26/11/95 (6617) MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk
MI5 Persecution: Do they fear truth? 3/10/95 (3589) MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk
MI5 Persecution: Email Cruelty 11/3/96 (11159) MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk
MI5 Persecution: Fitted up 26/4/96 (17215) MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk
MI5 Persecution: Flight or fight 7/1/96 (8131) MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk
MI5 Persecution: Goldfish and Piranha 29/9/95 (561) MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 23 Jun 2007 02:18:12 GMT
From: MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk
Subject: MI5 Persecution: A new Kafka? 3/10/95 (5103)
Message-Id: <m07052302180420@4ax.com>
Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british,uk.media,uk.politics
From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Subject: Re: What it's like to be watched by the security services
Message-ID: <1995Oct13.225312.6514@ttinews.tti.com>
Sender: usenet@ttinews.tti.com (Usenet Admin)
Nntp-Posting-Host: soldev
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea
References: <DFy9tB.3JK.0.bloor@torfree.net> <813188298snz129.os2.7@blackcat.demon.co.uk> <DGE7uJ.8tF.0.bloor@torfree.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 22:53:12 GMT
Lines: 34
In article <DGE7uJ.8tF.0.bloor@torfree.net> bu765@torfree.net (Mike Corley) writes:
>
>Strangers in the street have recognized me on sight many times, and shown
>awareness of the current thread of abuse. To give you one example, in 1992
>I was seriously ill, and a manager at work somewhat humouroursly said that
>"it wasn't fair" that people were bullying me. A few days later, I
>attended for the first time a clinic in London as an outpatient, and on my
>way out was accosted by someone who asked if "they had paid my fare", with
>emphasis on the word "fare". He repeated the word several times in this
>different context; that they should have paid my "fare", each time
>emphasising the word.
>
>For two and a half years from the time their harassment started until
>November 1992 I refused to see a psychiatrist, because I reasoned that I
>was not ill of my own action or fault, but through the stress caused by
>harassment, and that a lessening of the illness would have to be
>consequent to a removal of its immediate cause, in other words a cessation
>of harassment. I also reasoned that since they were taunting me with jokes
>about mental illness, if I were to seek treatment then the abusers would
>think that they had "won" and been proved "right".
<I've deleted a lot, but I think this gives the idea>
I have so far not contributed to this tread, it has been unpleasant
in my opinion. However, I was struck by the resemblance of the above
passages to the writing of Franz Kafka.
Viz. while from an objective viewpoint it seems to refer to a abnormal
world, in a strange way it does resonate strongly at other levels.
Mr. Corley, have you tried to write for publication? I honestly think
it might lead somewhere positive.
Dick Jackson (serious for a change and expecting to get beaten up)
5103
------------------------------
Date: 23 Jun 2007 02:29:37 GMT
From: MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk
Subject: MI5 Persecution: Dihydrocodeine 26/11/95 (6617)
Message-Id: <m07052302292949@4ax.com>
From: michaelm@easynet.co.uk (michaelm@easynet.co.uk)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.media,uk.politics,alt.politics.british,alt.radio.uk
Subject: Re: Britain's Shame (repost)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 09:19:13 GMT
Organization: ------------
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <817374781.20251@michaelm.easynet.co.uk>
References: <DIM34L.755.0.bloor@torfree.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: michaelm.easynet.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: michaelm.easynet.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
bu765@torfree.net (Mike Corblymee) wrote:
| In June 1990 a horrifying campaign of harassment was initiated in London by
| what are believed to be elements of the security services. The harassment has
| continued for over five years, starting from the broadcast and print media,
| and encompassing abuse through set-up situations and by people in public
| places. It has been brought to the attention of the police and they are aware
| what is happening, but are not taking any action to prevent it.
<whopping great snip of 884 lines>
corley, you puzzle me!
i've narrowed your possible motives down to one or more of the following:
1) you work on behalf of the british government with a hidden agenda of
furthering the largely right wing (most to hide) censorship brigade's
cause, "a drug-crazed psycho posting dangerous nonsense - how very very
sad - but in the public interest,we must act." draft internet (censorship)
bills rolling off hm govt's banders at this very moment, I don't doubt it!
2) you work for the daily mail which has started to feel the "internet
pinch" as it suddenly clicks in the chronically adled minds of yet more and
more of their readers - that shudder-inducing realisation that the entire
editorial staff at the mail are scaremongering, imbecilic, blood-leeching ,
totalitarian twats - can any else sense a coordinated campaign on its way
??- "Mail urges (their) government to act - internet safety endangered by
uncontrolled surfing lunatics - boys hands blown off by internet maniacs -
net porn responsible for 392323rd rape " .net porn responsible for
392324th rape " .net porn responsible for 392325th rape " .net porn
responsible for 392326th rape " .net porn responsible for 392327th rape "
net porn responsible for 392328th rape " .net porn responsible for
392329th rape " <yawn> .net porn responsible for 392330th rape " .net porn
responsible for 392331st rape " .net porn responsible for 392332nd rape "
net porn responsible for 392333rd rape " <yawn> .net porn responsible for
392334th rape " .net porn responsible for 392335th rape " .net porn
responsible for 392336th rape " .net porn responsible for 392337th rape "
net porn responsible for 392338th rape " etcetera, straight from the old
nag's mouth..
lee-potter (and english), take particular note.. (how ever you two common
********* managed to avoid encarceration for what was, quite
evidently,wilful contempt of court in the regina v taylforth & knights
case, is frankly beyond me.. those dreaded and now all too familiar words
"endemic corruption" were muttered by at least one Q.C.
>3) you (at least) believe there's (some) substance to your claim(s) and you
>have a genuine axe to grind. If so, bloody well go for it, but scrape the
>heavy layer of steaming dung off the top (that's assuming you're even
>capable of distinguishing fantasy from reality.)
4) you (as an email address) are serving as some bizarre "educational"
programme orchestrated by the psychiatric industry - ever keen to justify
enforced electrical lobotomies, electroshock and dwugs .All poised for the
echo? - "corley frigging well needs lobotomising"
5) you're just clinically insane with absolutely no comprehension or
insight into the consequences you will possibly face as a result of
repeatedly posting what, certainly on the face of it, looks like complete
and utter bullshit.
6) you're some weirdo prankster(s) - probably a group of student
psychiatrists having a cheap crack whilst high as kites on pilfered
dihydrocodeine.
7) You are infact working for the ss yourself, gauging public awareness of
the extent and methods of bugging - infinity transmitters, microwave
surveillance devices, satellite tracking equipment, 'chipping' of black
crims, say no more.
8) You're fuelling the central usenet administration committee, who, it is
believed, are keen to see the introduction of a wide-reaching framework of
self-created powers relating to posting cancellation. (see the 'son of
RFC1036')
my bet's on (5) - but just fuck off corley- irritate the lard-arsed canucks
instead. The cia's financing of "professor" cameron's brain-washing
experiments in montreal.. would be a good starting point ... or perhaps
"professor" watts and his widely admired masterful double eye-jabbing trick
- a couple of wallops with an icepick. such a waste of perfectly edible
four year old hispanics !!!!.. Perhaps the old marylebone rd posse could
fill us in with a few more facts on this one...?? You are all on the .net
now ????? A very warm welcome :-) ... christmas rapidly approaching..
>business booming?? Do we all get a look in at flotation ??!!
======================================================
From: Gulliver <kst2co@herts.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.media,uk.politics,alt.politics.british,alt.radio.uk
Subject: Re: Britain's Shame (repost)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 18:25:32 +0000
Organization: University of Hertfordshire
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951126182156.16879B-100000@altair.herts.ac.uk>
References: <DIM34L.755.0.bloor@torfree.net> <817343873snz@objmedia.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.herts.ac.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
In-Reply-To: <817343873snz@objmedia.demon.co.uk>
Actually, upon thinking about Mike's story it reminds me of someone I
heard about who suffered from a persecution copmlex. He was an immigrant
from some Eastern Bloc country who believed that 30 years after he
emigrated the KGB were still after him. He would blame them if he
had difficulty unlocking his car for instance (he reckoned they were
putting something into the locks!).
Something is very wrong, probably in Mike's head but what the hell,
loonies make life more fun!
--
Angus Gulliver
=======================================================
Subject: Castrate the depraved MI5 buggers now
Newsgroups: uk.misc
Organization: Toronto Free-Net
>Something is very wrong, probably in Mike's head but what the hell,
>loonies make life more fun!
Something is very wrong when the security services abandon their usual
target of politicians and the well-known, to pursue the hitherto unknown
nonentities such as myself.
>corley, you puzzle me!
Why? Because of my pathological truthfulness?
>3) you (at least) believe there's (some) substance to your claim(s) and you
>have a genuine axe to grind. If so, bloody well go for it, but scrape the
>heavy layer of steaming dung off the top (that's assuming you're even
>capable of distinguishing fantasy from reality.)
Bloody well go for it I will.
I think the "standard spiel" is quite studded with facts actually.
There's plenty of "meat" there if the appropriate people can be motivated
to get their act together and pursue the case.
>my bet's on (5) - but just fuck off corley- irritate the lard-arsed canucks
>instead. The cia's financing of "professor" cameron's brain-washing
the lard-arsed canucks (?) are irritating me, but you don't want to hear
about that
>business booming?? Do we all get a look in at flotation ??!!
6617
------------------------------
Date: 23 Jun 2007 02:04:41 GMT
From: MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk
Subject: MI5 Persecution: Do they fear truth? 3/10/95 (3589)
Message-Id: <m07052302043334@4ax.com>
From: flames@flames.cityscape.co.uk (Peter Krüger)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british,uk.politics,alt.politics.british
Subject: Re: What it's like to be watched by the security services
Date: 3 Oct 1995 15:38:20 GMT
Organization: Steinkrug Publications
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <44rldc$nrm@news.cityscape.co.uk>
References: <DFus24.HxB.0.bloor@torfree.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: aa040.du.pipex.com
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.6+
In article <DFus24.HxB.0.bloor@torfree.net>, bu765@torfree.net (Mike Corley) says:
>
>It completely mystifies me how it can be done. One night in June 1992 I
>was in a bed-and-breakfast in Oxford (some hard facts now, you’ll be
>bored of the generalisations). I booked the B&B from the office phone.
>So if they had the office bugged, or the phone system bugged, they could
>have heard the call.
If it was as late as 1992 then there was already a system available to
feed digital video out of a domestic TV via the mains. Each raster of
video was preceded by a sixteen bit address which identified the
television set. All that was needed was a decoder box plugged into the
mains somewhere between your room and the grid transformer. The signal
was decoded and then fed down to the phone line. They probably
even had a PC which enabled them to see the picture as well. By 1992 the
technology had moved on from slowscan to near real time video with the
advent of devices from Brooktree and Harris etc.
>the newsreader reacted. Breathed deeply, as if in psychological relief.
Maybe, or perhaps as if in:-
sci.psychology.announce
sci.psychology.consciousness
sci.psychology.journals.psyche
sci.psychology.journals.psycoloquy
sci.psychology.misc
sci.psychology.personality
sci.psychology.psychotherapy
sci.psychology.research
sci.psychology.theory
>I can't describe to you what goes through your mind when you know
>someone on TV is "seeing" you the viewer.
You’re doing OK so far.
>Your instinct is to switch the TV off, to change channel,
Not much point unless you switch off the TV at the mains
>like an ostrich,
Looks like Ostrich farming is going to catch on in the UK as you may have seen in
some of the other uk newsgroups
>The one time I did directly ask someone in the company who knew what was
>going on, first he spewed wool about, "well we have to think what is
>reality and what is proof anyway", then went into barefaced denial liar
>mode. It opens your eyes, if they can't say out loud what they keep
>saying in a disguised fashion, they must fear exposure, they must fear
>the truth.
wool_ barefaced_ denial_ liar_ eyes_ fashion_ fear_ exposure,
How is your mother these days Mike?
And BTW - How is the thesis coming along?
Peter Kruger
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.gold.net/flames/
flames@flames.cityscape.co.uk
3589
------------------------------
Date: 23 Jun 2007 03:03:28 GMT
From: MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk
Subject: MI5 Persecution: Email Cruelty 11/3/96 (11159)
Message-Id: <m07052303032056@4ax.com>
From: D.S.Toube@qmw.ac.uk (David Toube)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.politics,uk.legal,uk.media,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Why Censorship Must Not Be Allowed on Uk.*
Reply-To: D.S.Toube@qmw.ac.uk
Date: Mon Mar 11 11:47:13 1996
A OSHINEYE <TA5330@QMWCC7.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
:D.S.Toube@qmw.ac.uk (David Toube) wrote:
:>I would also be very pleased if Mike Corley would not mailbomb me
:>via my university account with messages entitled 'This Is What
:>You Get For Censorship', thus closing down the entire college
:>email system.
:>
:>Although it does not personally inconvenience me, it is rather
:>dull for the college.
:When did this happen? BTW you can always use Pegasus Mail to send all
:email from Corley's address back to him and see how he likes it.
:--Ade
:
This weekend. The result, Mike Corley will be gratified to hear,
was that all users of the college system were prevented from
using email.
I suspect that there is no stopping Mike Corley. If mail is
automatically returned to him, he will return it back to you
tenfold. If he is thrown off his account, as he surely will be,
he will find another one.
I do not care whether Mike Corley has an email account or not. It
is a matter of supreme indifference to me whether his fanciful
account of persecution is aired or not. If he thinks that he has
been persecuted by M15 and Chris Tarrant, then that is a matter
for him. But there is a world of difference between repeatedly
spamming usenet - which is unacceptable - and setting up a Web
Site containing his post, which is entirely acceptable. Then it
will be possible to choose whether or not to partake of his
fantasy.
However although I would not like to see the censorship of posts
because they demonstrate evidence of mental illness, I suspect
that Mike Corley will inevitably be censored by his ISP following
a number of complaints of usenet abuse and mailbombing.
----
David Toube
Lecturer in Law
QMW, University of London
WWW: http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~ugtl027/index.html
David Boothroyd's British Elections Home Page
WWW: http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~laws/election/home.html
11159
------------------------------
Date: 23 Jun 2007 03:54:49 GMT
From: MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk
Subject: MI5 Persecution: Fitted up 26/4/96 (17215)
Message-Id: <m07052303544035@4ax.com>
Subject: Re: MI5? Please can someone explain what's going on here?
Newsgroups: uk.misc
References: <4l1khm$4cn@utopia.hacktic.nl> <4l2lhj$6h6@bignews.shef.ac.uk>
Organization: Toronto Free-Net
Distribution:
David Stretch (dds@leicester.ac.uk) wrote:
: In article <19960418.000817.55@hotch.hotch.demon.co.uk>,
: Iain L M Hotchkies <iain@hotch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: >The (remote) possibility remains that 'Mike Corley' is either
: >not schizophrenic (but is 'pretending' to be so) or 'he' is
: >a product of a number of persons (?psychology students).
: Given other ways in which I have seen people exploit some of The Internet's
: capabilities to disrupt or indulge in sophistry, or to exploit a medium
: that resembles speech without the non-verbal and intonation cues, etc
: as a means of denigrating others, I question your use, albeit in quotes,
: of the word "remote". I'm not saying it isn't remote and therefore it is
: great, I'm just saying that I don't think we can easily classify it as
: remote, moderate, or great.
I think you can build up quite a good picture based on what someone says
and on their posting patterns. I don't think "The Internet" (capitals, no
less) is as opaque a medium as you make it out to be.
: It is not easy to determine the validity of all information on The
: Internet without making use of extra supplementary information.
: We do have the problem, pointed out by someone else, of the possibly
: "too perfect" textbook characteristics of what is being posted.
I explained that one, but I don't mind explaining it again (you don't
mind having it explained again to you, do you now?). The reason my
"symptoms" are such a perfect fit to the textbook is because the people
causing the campaign "fitted me up" in such a way that what they did
would resemble the symptoms of schizophrenia. Hence TV, radio, other
media, people in the streets etc. By a fortunate coincidence (for them)
these mthods of harassment are the ones which offer easiest channels of
access (for them).
It's really quite neat. All it takes is for people to start believing
that the "symptoms" aren't symptoms but reality, though, and the house of
cards collapses in a heap. And there are _lots_ of people now who knoiw
full well what has gone on.
: If harrassment by email, etc, has happened by someone out of the country,
: can a complaint be made that results in arrest or whatever upon that
: person's entry into the country? An interesting point which Mike may be
: able to inform us about, as he's said he will be in the UK in a few weeks
: time.
Picture the scene at the airport;
"I arrest you for being Mike Corley and mailbombing people"
"But my name isn't Corley. Who he? Mailbombing isn't illegal is it? You'd
have to lock up a lot of people if sending annoying email was a crime"
"Er....."
: --
: David Stretch: Greenwood Institute of Child Health, Univ. of Leicester, UK.
: dds@leicester.ac.uk Phone:+44 (0)116-254-6100 Fax:+44 (0)116-254-4127
========================================================================
: context-free parts of articles, conversations and things-on-the-TV and
: assume they are meant for you. Mike, this is called paranoia.
But that's the way real abuse works, too. People interject words and
phrases into what they say which they know will have meaning for the listener.
And sometimes, they make it obvious. The very first evening of my job in
Oxford, we went for a drink with the technical director, and a couple
of other employees. The TD said in an "as-if" aside to one of the others,
"Is this the bloke who's been on TV?" (he said it directly in front of
me, and obviously meant mke to hear him saying it). The other person
replied, "Yes, I think so".
I think the subtext of what the TD said was "Why are they bothering with
him? He's so insignificant, why would they possibly want to spend the
resources going after him and putting all that expensive technology in
his home, when there must be much better targets?". The Technical
Director was given to sometimes disrespecting people, you see, and in my
case he couldn't see the point of anyone expending money on harassing me.
====================================================================
Subject: Re: Treatment of Schizophrenia
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.legal,uk.politics,alt.politics.british
Followup-To: uk.misc,uk.legal,uk.politics,alt.politics.british
References: <153321Z22041996@anon.penet.fi> <4lge6r$p00@news.ox.ac.uk>
Organization: Toronto Free-Net
Distribution:
Illtud Daniel (idaniel@jesus.ox.ac.uk) wrote:
: Probably 'cos you come across as reasoned & articulate, it's a pity
: about the other stuff :)
Veracity is so unreasonable.
: >>pps. You should still see a doc again Mike.
: >
: >Doing so. Trouble is, all this mental-illness stuff provides camouflage
: >for the harassment, which is real. It alows people who otherwise would
: >consider the harassment seriously to disregard it. It makes conversations
: >with a lawyer or police brief when otherwise it would merit discussion.
: The point is that there are two possibilities happening here-
: 1. There's a large conspiracy of people out to get you, for no
: other reason than that they have the means to do so, and that
: it involves a lot of the Media & a proportion of the public
: 2. You (who admit to having some headspace problems) are suffering
: from acute paranoid schizophrenia.
: Possibility #1 is _possible_, but would be unprecendented (OTOH,
: how would we know?), unfeasible, and many other things beginning
: with _un_ which I can't think of at the moment. Besides, if there
: was something going on, chances are some of us here would know
: about it, and I'm convinced that nobody does.
"Unprecedented" hits the nail on the head. It _is_ unprecedented, but we
have only just reached the technical stage at which it is feasible, and
we know video-spying is done to other people (NB the Diana-Hewitt
episode) and is a routine tool of security agencies.
Perhaps what is unprecedented is not the technical side, but the social
manipulation of many people by a concealed element in what other
countries would be called the secret police. The most disturbing element
is the degree to which people allow themselves to be unquestioningly
manipulated by an evil element within the state.
17215
------------------------------
Date: 23 Jun 2007 02:41:53 GMT
From: MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk
Subject: MI5 Persecution: Flight or fight 7/1/96 (8131)
Message-Id: <m07052302414544@4ax.com>
From: huge@axalotl.demon.co.uk (Hugh Davies)
Newsgroups: uk.misc
Subject: Re: persecution rant (re-post)
Reply-To: huge@axalotl.demon.co.uk
Date: Sun Jan 7 04:43:41 1996
Yo, Mike, Happy New Year! Haven't you killed yourself yet?
In article <DKMIs5.158.0.bloor@torfree.net>, bu765@torfree.net (Mike Corley) wri
>For anyone who hasn't yet read this,
There is no-one in the known Universe who hasn't read this at least 5 times.
>and really really wants to then here
No-one wants to read it, Mike. It's drivel.
>is the article that was posted last year in this newsgroup....
Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again....
--
Regards,
Huge.
==================================================
Subject: persecution rant (re-post)
Newsgroups: uk.misc
Organization: Toronto Free-Net
Summary:
Keywords:
>Yo, Mike, Happy New Year! Haven't you killed yourself yet?
But I can't, you see then I wouldn't know how things would turn out
("we're only doing this because we don't know how it's all going to end"
- logic error in line 100)
>There is no-one in the known Universe who hasn't read this at least 5 times.
It doesn't seem to have done a whole lot of good since the good old
persecution stuff is still going on. Over Christmas I was flying BA and
got hassled by a couple of people on the flight (sounds like something
you've heard before, doesn't it?). All the usual stuff about the town I'd
been staying, "he doesn't know who we are", self-justification that we're
doing it because he's a "nutter" etc. Real friendly like. Also a fairly
obvious wind-up and attempt to get some reaction. I think they're trying
quite hard to get a reaction.
If I hit someone on a flight over the Atlantic, am I actually breaking
any laws, and if so whose? Is a BA aircraft British territory subject to
British laws while it's in mid-flight? It is really tempting to "reply"
and that's obviously what they want, so who am I to refuse a blow to the
head for people who ask for it so consistently?
8131
------------------------------
Date: 23 Jun 2007 01:33:41 GMT
From: MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk
Subject: MI5 Persecution: Goldfish and Piranha 29/9/95 (561)
Message-Id: <m07052301333367@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 <DFnE55.8tF.0.bloor@torfree.net>,
Mike Corley <bu765@torfree.net> 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 <snail@objmedia.demon.co.uk> 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.
561
------------------------------
Date: 6 Apr 2001 21:33:47 GMT (Last modified)
From: Perl-Users-Request@ruby.oce.orst.edu (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
Subject: Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01)
Message-Id: <null>
Administrivia:
#The Perl-Users Digest is a retransmission of the USENET newsgroup
#comp.lang.perl.misc. For subscription or unsubscription requests, send
#the single line:
#
# subscribe perl-users
#or:
# unsubscribe perl-users
#
#to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu.
NOTE: due to the current flood of worm email banging on ruby, the smtp
server on ruby has been shut off until further notice.
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.announce, send your article to
clpa@perl.com.
#To request back copies (available for a week or so), send your request
#to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu with the command "send perl-users x.y",
#where x is the volume number and y is the issue number.
#For other requests pertaining to the digest, send mail to
#perl-users-request@ruby.oce.orst.edu. Do not waste your time or mine
#sending perl questions to the -request address, I don't have time to
#answer them even if I did know the answer.
------------------------------
End of Perl-Users Digest V11 Issue 560
**************************************
