[29881] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 1124 Volume: 11
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Sun Dec 16 14:09:39 2007
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:09:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Perl-Users Digest <Perl-Users-Request@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>
To: Perl-Users@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Perl-Users Digest Sun, 16 Dec 2007 Volume: 11 Number: 1124
Today's topics:
Re: FAQ 4.3 Why isn't my octal data interpreted correct <brian.d.foy@gmail.com>
Re: FAQ 4.3 Why isn't my octal data interpreted correct <john@castleamber.com>
Re: FAQ 4.3 Why isn't my octal data interpreted correct <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at>
MI5-Persecution: MI5 are Afraid to Admit Theyre Behind MI5-Victim@mi5.gov.uk
MI5-Persecution: MI5 Have Systematically Destroyed My L MI5-Victim@mi5.gov.uk
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:59:26 -0600
From: brian d foy <brian.d.foy@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: FAQ 4.3 Why isn't my octal data interpreted correctly?
Message-Id: <161220071059263948%brian.d.foy@gmail.com>
In article <slrnfm8mmg.at5.hjp-usenet2@hrunkner.hjp.at>, Peter J.
Holzer <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> wrote:
> On 2007-12-15 08:03, PerlFAQ Server <brian@stonehenge.com> wrote:
> > 4.3: Why isn't my octal data interpreted correctly?
> >
> > Perl only understands octal and hex numbers as such when they occur as
> > literals in your program. Octal literals in perl must start with a
> > leading 0 and hexadecimal literals must start with a leading "0x". If
> > they are read in from somewhere and assigned, no automatic conversion
> > takes place. You must explicitly use "oct()" or "hex()" if you want the
> > values converted to decimal.
> ^^^^^^^
> Perl numbers aren't decimal,
When you type literal digits in Perl, Perl treats them as base 10
unless you do something to note otherwise. The underlying storage is
not something Perl (the language) cares about.
Numbers aren't binary either. They are just numbers. That most
computers store them as binary is just an implementation detail.
------------------------------
Date: 16 Dec 2007 17:15:52 GMT
From: John Bokma <john@castleamber.com>
Subject: Re: FAQ 4.3 Why isn't my octal data interpreted correctly?
Message-Id: <Xns9A087298088C9castleamber@130.133.1.4>
brian d foy <brian.d.foy@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnfm8mmg.at5.hjp-usenet2@hrunkner.hjp.at>, Peter J.
> Holzer <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> wrote:
>
>> On 2007-12-15 08:03, PerlFAQ Server <brian@stonehenge.com> wrote:
>
>> > 4.3: Why isn't my octal data interpreted correctly?
>> >
>> > Perl only understands octal and hex numbers as such when they
>> > occur as literals in your program. Octal literals in perl must
>> > start with a leading 0 and hexadecimal literals must start with
>> > a leading "0x". If they are read in from somewhere and
>> > assigned, no automatic conversion takes place. You must
>> > explicitly use "oct()" or "hex()" if you want the values
>> > converted to decimal.
>> ^^^^^^^
>> Perl numbers aren't decimal,
>
> When you type literal digits in Perl, Perl treats them as base 10
> unless you do something to note otherwise. The underlying storage is
> not something Perl (the language) cares about.
>
> Numbers aren't binary either. They are just numbers. That most
> computers store them as binary is just an implementation detail.
Maybe:
Perl only understands octal and hex representation of numbers as such when
they occur as literals in your program. Octal literals in perl must
start with a leading 0 and hexadecimal literals must start with
a leading "0x". If they are read in from somewhere and
assigned, no automatic conversion takes place. You must
explicitly use "oct()" or "hex()" if you want the values
converted to decimal representation.
A totally different question, is it easy to add link(s) to the FAQ entries
themselves? Especially if an entry states something like: See also ...
--
John
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 18:36:56 +0100
From: "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at>
Subject: Re: FAQ 4.3 Why isn't my octal data interpreted correctly?
Message-Id: <slrnfmaoho.g0p.hjp-usenet2@hrunkner.hjp.at>
On 2007-12-16 16:59, brian d foy <brian.d.foy@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnfm8mmg.at5.hjp-usenet2@hrunkner.hjp.at>, Peter J.
> Holzer <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> wrote:
>> On 2007-12-15 08:03, PerlFAQ Server <brian@stonehenge.com> wrote:
>> > 4.3: Why isn't my octal data interpreted correctly?
>> >
>> > Perl only understands octal and hex numbers as such when they occur as
>> > literals in your program. Octal literals in perl must start with a
>> > leading 0 and hexadecimal literals must start with a leading "0x". If
>> > they are read in from somewhere and assigned, no automatic conversion
>> > takes place. You must explicitly use "oct()" or "hex()" if you want the
>> > values converted to decimal.
>> ^^^^^^^
>> Perl numbers aren't decimal,
It might help if you read a little more than the first half sentence.
All of your objections were answered in the next few lines.
> When you type literal digits in Perl, Perl treats them as base 10
> unless you do something to note otherwise.
This isn't about literals. This is about numbers which are "read in from
somewhere and assigned". Perl does treat these as decimal, too - when a
string is treated as a number it is converted *from* decimal
representation, and when a number is treated as a string it is converted
*to* decimal. But that doesn't make them decimal.
> The underlying storage is not something Perl (the language) cares
> about.
Right. And hence it is wrong to say that a numeric string is "converted
to decimal" when it is converted to a number. It is converted to
whatever number format perl happens to use, about which the language
Perl makes no guarantees, but which will almost certainly not be
decimal.
> Numbers aren't binary either. They are just numbers. That most
> computers store them as binary is just an implementation detail.
Right. However, pretending that the computers store them as decimal
doesn't help. Also, the mathematical abstraction of a real number has
little to do with the numbers stored and processed by computers -
floating-point numbers are a finite (and rather idiosyncratic) subset of
rational numbers, and integers are a finite subset of integral numbers.
Both clearly reflect the base they are stored in.
hp
------------------------------
Date: 16 Dec 2007 17:04:02 GMT
From: MI5-Victim@mi5.gov.uk
Subject: MI5-Persecution: MI5 are Afraid to Admit Theyre Behind the Persecution (27888)
Message-Id: <m07111617035986@4ax.com>
MI5 are Afraid to Admit They're Behind the Persecution
MI5 have issued a formal denial of any involvement in my life to the
Security Service Tribunal, as you might expect them to; but, more
importantly, the persecutors have never denied that theyre from the
Security Service, despite several years of accusations from my corner on
usenet and in faxed articles. I am not surprised that the Security Service
Tribunal found "no determination in your favour". I am however a little
surprised that the persecutors have refused to confirm my identification
of them; by doing so, they implicitly admit that my guess was right.
"No determination in your favour" says the Security Service Tribunal
In 1997, I made a complaint to the Security Service Tribunal, giving only
the bare outlines of my case. I do not think it would have made very much
difference if Id made a much more detailed complaint, since the Tribunal
has no ability to perform investigatory functions. It can only ask MI5 if
they have an interest in a subject, to which MI5 are of course free to be
"economical with the truth". A couple of months after my complaint the
Tribunal replied that;
The Security Service Tribunal have now investigated your complaint and
have asked me to inform you that no determination in your favour has been
made on your complaint.
Needless to say this reply didnt surprise me in the slightest. It is a
well established fact that the secret service are a den of liars and the
Tribunal a toothless watchdog, so to see them conforming to these
stereotypes might be disappointing but unsurprising.
It is noteworthy that the Tribunal never gives the plaintiff information
on whether the "no determination in your favour" is because MI5 claims to
have no interest in him, or whether they claim their interest is
"justified". In the 1997 report of the Security Service Commissioner he
writes that "The ambiguity of the terms in which the notification of the
Tribunals decision is expressed is intentional", since a less ambiguous
answer would indicate to the plaintiff whether he were indeed under MI5
surveillance. But I note that the ambiguity also allows MI5 to get away
with lying to the question of their interest in me; they can claim to the
Tribunal that they have no interest, but at a future date, when it becomes
clear that they did indeed place me under surveillance and harassment,
they can claim their interest was "justified" - and the Tribunal will
presumably not admit that in their previous reply MI5 claimed to have no
interest.
"He doesnt know who we are"
In early January 1996 I flew on a British Airways jet from London to
Montreal; also present on the plane, about three or four rows behind me,
were two young men, one of them fat and voluble, the other silent. It was
quite clear that these two had been planted on the aircraft to "wind me
up". The fat youth described the town in Poland where I had spent
Christmas, and made some unpleasant personal slurs against me. Most
interestingly, he said the words, "he doesnt know who we are".
Now I find this particular form of words very interesting, because while
it is not a clear admission, it is only a half-hearted attempt at denial
of my guess that "they" = "MI5". Had my guess been wrong, the fat youth
would surely have said so more clearly. What he was trying to do was to
half-deny something he knew to be true, and he was limited to making
statements which he knew to be not false; so he made a lukewarm denial
which on the face of it means nothing, but in fact acts as a confirmation
of my guess of who "they" are.
On one of the other occasions when I saw the persecutors in person, on the
BA flight to Toronto in June 1993, one of the group of four men said, "if
he tries to run away well find him". But the other three stayed totally
quiet and avoided eye contact. They did so to avoid being apprehended and
identified - since if they were identified, their employers would have
been revealed, and it would become known that it was the secret services
who were behind the persecution.
Why are MI5 So Afraid to admit their involvement?
If you think about it, what has been going on in Britain for the last nine
years is simply beyond belief. The British declare themselves to be
"decent" by definition, so when they engage in indecent activities such as
the persecution of a mentally ill person, their decency "because were
British" is still in the forefront of their minds, and a process of mental
doublethink kicks in, where their antisocial and indecent activities are
blamed on the victim "because its his fault were persecuting him", and
their self-regard and self-image of decency remains untarnished. As
remarked in another article some time ago, this process is basically the
same as a large number of Germans employed fifty years ago against Slavic
"untermenschen" and the Jewish "threat" - the Germans declared, "Germans
are known to be decent and the minorities are at fault for what we do to
them" - so they were able to retain the view of themselves as being
"decent".
Now suppose this entire episode had happened in some other country. The
British have a poor view of the French, so lets say it had all happened in
France. Suppose there was a Frenchman, of non-French extraction, who was
targeted by the French internal security apparatus, for the dubious
amusement of French television newscasters, and tortured for 9 years with
various sexual and other verbal abuse and taunts of "suicide". Suppose
this all came out into the open. Naturally, the French authorities would
try hard to place the blame on their victim - and in their own country,
through the same state-controlled media which the authorities employ as
instruments of torture, their view might prevail - but what on earth would
people overseas make of their actions? Where would their "decency" be
then?
This is why MI5 are so afraid to admit theyre behind the
persecution. Because if they did admit responsibility, then they would be
admitting that there was an action against me - and if the truth came out,
then the walls would come tumbling down. And if the persecutors were to
admit they were from MI5, then you can be sure I would report the
fact; and the persecutors support would fall away, among the mass media as
well as among the general public. When I started identifying MI5 as the
persecutors in 1995 and 1996 there was a sharp reduction in media
harassment, since people read my internet newsgroup posts and knew I was
telling the truth. The persecutors cannot deny my claim that theyre MI5,
because then I would report their denial and they would be seen as liars -
but they cannot admit it either, as that would puncture their campaign
against me. So they are forced to maintain a ridiculous silence on the
issue of their identity, in the face of vociferous accusations on internet
newsgroups and faxed articles.
Have MI5 lied to the Home Secretary?
In order for the Security Services to bug my home, they would either have
needed a warrant from the Home Secretary, or they might have instituted
the bugging without a warrant. Personally I think it is more likely that
they didnt apply for a warrant - I cannot see any Home Secretary giving
MI5 authority to bug a residence to allow television newscasters to
satisfy their rather voyeuristic needs vis-a-vis one of their
audience. But it is possible that the Security Service presented a warrant
in some form before a home secretary at some point in the last nine years,
for telephone tapping or surveillance of my residence, or interception of
postal service.
So the possibility presents itself that a Home Secretary might have signed
a warrant presented to him based on MI5 lies. Just as MI5 lie to the
Security Service Tribunal, so they might have lied to a Home Secretray
himself. MI5 and MI6 are naturally secretive services former home
secretary Roy Jenkins said, they have a "secretive atmosphere
... secretive vis-a-vis the government as well as [enemies]". Jenkins
also said he "did not form a very high regard for how they discharged
their duties".
It was only a few years ago that MI5 was brought into any sot the
extraordinary thing is that British media organisations like the state-
and taxpayer-funded BBC take such an active part in the MI5-inspired
campaign of harassment. We have after all heard of MI5 trying to bribe
broadcast journalists; but surely there must be a substantial number who
are not bought or blackmailed by the Security Services, and who take part
in the "abuse by newscasters" of their own volition? The BBC is supposed
to be independent of the government of the day as well as the
Establishment in general. While perhaps it is childish to think that the
BBC is anything other than effectively state-controlled, the degree of
collusion between the BBC and the British Secret Police MI5 is something
you would not find in many countries. Individual tele-journalists in other
countries would have enough self-esteem not to allow themselves to be
controlled by their secret police - seemingly, BBC broadcasters like
Martyn Lewis and Nicholas Witchell have such a low opinion of their
employing organisation that they see no wrong in dragging the BBCs
no-longer-good name through yet more mud, at the mere request (whether
supported by financial or other inducements) of the British secret Police,
MI5.
And when challenged, these broadcasters LIE about their involvement, with
just as little shame as MI5 themselves. The BBCs Information dept have
said that;
"I can assure you that the BBC would never engage in any form of
surveillance activity such as you describe"
which is an out-and-out lie. Buerk and Lewis have themselves lied to their
colleagues in the BBCs Information department over the "newscaster
watching", but unsurprisingly they refuse to put these denials in
writing. Doubtless if the "newscaster watching" ever comes to light, Buerk
and Lewis will then continue to lie by lying about these denials. So much
for the "impartial" BBC, a nest of liars bought and paid for by the
Security Services!
It is obvious that the persecution is at the instigation of MI5 themselves
- they have read my post, and only they have the surveillance technology
and media/political access. Yet they have lied outright to the Security
Service Tribunal. Similarly, BBC newscasters Michael Buerk and Martyn
Lewis have lied to members of their own organisation. The continuing
harassment indicates they are all petrified of this business coming out
into the open. I will continue to do everything possible to ensure that
their wrongdoing is exposed.
27888
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
------------------------------
Date: 16 Dec 2007 18:15:07 GMT
From: MI5-Victim@mi5.gov.uk
Subject: MI5-Persecution: MI5 Have Systematically Destroyed My Life (32254)
Message-Id: <m07111618150368@4ax.com>
MI5 Have Systematically Destroyed My Life
This is getting depressing. From the feedback Ive received, the recipients
of these faxes are tired of hearing my complaints, and in truth I am tired
of sending them. The reason I havent yet ceased sending faxes is because I
cannot think of any other effective means of replying to MI5s actions
against me, and I feel I have to do something to try to defend
myself. Three/four years ago I got the MI5 harassment out of my system by
posting about it on Internet newsgroups, and for a few months this tactic
was quite effective - I received (and indeed still do today) support from
newsgroup regulars, and felt I could make my voice heard and break the MI5
monopoly on access to the British media. But that was years ago, and today
nobody gives a tinkers cuss about my internet posts - so I have sought to
escalate matters by communicating directly with the politicians who
allegedly say how this country is supposed to be run.
Of course, its quite expensive to keep up a campaign of fax messages for
many weeks. Each set of faxes takes approx 50 hours to send over the
weekend, and costs perhaps 35. My phone bill for the last quarter was
350. These figures are naturally insignificant compared to what MI5 have
been spending against me over a similar period. It also takes a lot of
time and energy to create a new article every week, and try and find new
and fresh aspects and viewpoints on MI5s persecution of me. I am beginning
to run out of both new topics and energy to write these articles.
So I have a suggestion to put before the MI5 persecutors who have been
wrecking my life since 1990. In a few days time I will be going on holiday
to Poland and Germany, for a couple of weeks. Previously, almost every
time I have travelled by plane, or gone anywhere on holiday, the MI5
"wreckers" have been most assiduous in destroying these trips. My
suggestion is; if MI5 leave me alone on this next trip, I will cease
transmitting these articles. If, however, there are any clear instances of
harassment (and I am very capable of recognising MI5 harassment when I see
it), then I will make public these instances and publish any recordings I
may make of them, and, unwillingly and unhappily, continue the articles.
Read about the MI5 Persecution on the Web
Keith Hill MP (Labour - Streatham), my elected representative, as ever
refuses to help.
MI5 Refuse to Allow me to have a Normal Life
Its kind of difficult to contemplate having a normal existence when you
know your entire house is bugged from top to bottom, for audio and, very
unpleasantly, video; when your employment is systematically destroyed,
over and over again; when every time you leave the country your travel is
disrupted by MI5 plants on the plane yelling abuse at you..... you get the
idea. I would like to have some semblance of a normal life, like my Polish
and English friends do. But MI5 have made this impossible, and they have
leached massive resources from the taxpayer to institute a life not worthy
of the name on me.
A few years ago MI5 were very open about their aims in persecuting
me. They were shouting "suicide" at me, both in Canada where I lived at
the time, and during my occasional visits to London. You cant get much
clearer than that. There have been instances as recently as a few weeks
ago of this intention being voiced by their side; on 15 April 1999, a
woman at the next ticket counter at the Royal Festival Hall said;
"it would kill it, you know, it would just be overkill... they can't stop
can they"
meaning that "they" were trying to "kill it" i.e. me and they "cant
stop". The audio file is at;
I wonder why they "cant stop". Nobody (who doesnt know already) believes
my claims - so what difference would it make, if they were to
"stop" persecuting me? Perhaps what this persons remarks indicates, is the
depth of the obsession MI5 have with this case. They have chosen at random
a person from the general population, and done their worst to ruin my
life. What is wrong with these people, that they persecute a national of
the country whose citizens they are supposed to protect?
No Chance of a Harassment-Free Job
Since the harassment started in 1990 I have had three jobs, the first near
Guildford, the second in Oxford, and the third overseas in Canada. All
three jobs have been systematically destroyed by MI5. It is so ironic that
MI5 employs a team of agents, each well compensated for their efforts, to
persecute just one person paid a mere fraction of what they get for their
"work". In fact, it is a joke that MI5 is allocated resources for this
sort of effort. If this area of government were run along commercial lines
then MI5 would be very rapidly closed down, they produce nothing of any
value, instead spending their time obsessed with the bugging and
surveillance of their former employees like Shayler, dangerous subversives
like Straw and Mandelson, and "threats to national security" like yours
truly.
Applying for my first post university job
When I was applying for my first post-university job in the closing months
of 1990, I found at two or three job interviews that MI5 had got there
ahead of me. Interviewers knew what words to repeat from what had been
said at my home recently; MI5 had supplied them with words to hurt me, and
the "British secret police" were trying to wreck my job search and
discourage me from joining the world of work. This and the continuing
harassment in the media and by the public meant that the search for a job
took very much longer than it would ordinarily be expected to take for a
person with my qualifications.
With my first job near Guildford came the knowledge that MI5 were doing
everything possible to make me lose the job. Despite their efforts I
managed to stay in work for ten unhappy months, during which they made
very clear to me that they were bugging my workplace, my accomodation in
Woking, my car, my home..... and they also made clear that they had "got
to" my employer in Guildford.
Employment with Oxford
I was able to find a new job, with Oxford Computer Training Services (now
ARIS/Oxford), quite quickly. But it became very clear, very quickly, that
MI5 were treating this job the same as the first; they tried to get the
other employees and in particular the managers to attack me. It was
plainly MI5s intention that I be sacked fro this job. But I was not
sacked; instead, after almost a year of abuse from OCTS managers, I was
forced to seek medical help, and had to take two months off for medical
leave. OCTS MD Hugh Simpson-Wells was motivated in keeping me on by the
fear that if he sacked me, then I would take him to court for the
treatment OCTS managers had meted out to me during 1992.
Emigration to Canada
When I emigrated to Canada in 1994, I did think that perhaps MI5 would
leave me alone, given that I had made the effort to leave the UK and try
to find a new life overseas. I could not see any reason why they would
continue to harass me over in Canada. But clearly the MI5 agents had their
salaries to think about, since continue to harass me they most certainly
did, at my home in Ottawa, and by getting fellow employees to speak
against me, as had happened with previous jobs in the UK.
MI5 are denying me a future in work
Former Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall John Alderson had this to say
regarding MI5's activities;
"MI5 is not under the same restraints as the police. They infiltrate
organisations, people's jobs and lives. They operate almost like a
cancer."
Currently I am on disability, and I can see that MI5 are denying me a
future in work. It would be an insult to logic for me to return to work
and find a job, in the knowledge that an entire team of MI5 agents, paid
in total many times what I would be earning, would have the objective of
seeing me "done down" in the employment, and ejected from the place of
work. This situation is completely wrong and nonsensical - I would very
much like to have a job, but MI5 are preventing me from even thinking
about returning to work. The culture of secrecy in MI5/MI6 means there is
no objective oversight of their expenditure, when external oversight and
greater transparency might lead to wasteful and illogical operations such
as that against me being shelved.
Watched and Harassed at my Home and Accommodation
As you will know if you have been reading these articles, MI5 have watched
and harassed me at my home, and at every accommodation Ive had since
1990. Theyve also watched me at neighbours houses in London, and at
short-term accommodation such as hotels and bed-and-breakfasts. They have
used the "words" gained from these watching activities against me, by
passing these words on to other people such as OCTS managers for them to
make clear that I am being watched where I live.
Harassed at rented rooms in Oxford in 1992
This was at its worst in 1992 in Oxford, where during the week I lived at
rented accommodation in Oxford, and at weekends returned to my parents
home in London. I was being severely harassed by managers at my place of
work, OCTS; and it was clear from the things they said that they were
being supplied by MI5 with details of my home life, that they were being
supplied with words to repeat at me.
In 1992 I moved house in Oxford many times, living at a total of five
rented accommodations in ten months. In January I started off living in a
rented room at Headington near the ring road / A40 intersection; then when
it became clear that house was being bugged, moved to a rented room in
Botley, some miles away. It was at the house in Botley that I had an
"interactive watching" experience with Martyn Lewis while he was reading
the news; I threw a term of abuse at him; he first flinched, then gave a
gsult of what I had just said, he was no longer "on my side".
So I moved house again. This time to a place in Cowley, near the Rover car
works, where I stayed for a few weeks. Because of continuing harassment at
work, I soon moved from this accommodation, to yet another rented room on
Iffley Road. By this time I was very ill and being abused continuously at
work. Again, MI5 followed me to the rented room on Iffley Road, and
created new instances of "newscaster watching". There was a television in
the room which I watched, and as you can guess the newscasters got at me
when I was watching the television. Also once I was assaulted, if thats
the word for what happened, on leaving the house; a youth grabbed me by
the coat lapels, roughed me up a bit with various terms of abuse. I did
not report this assault to the police, because what was happening to me at
work was very much worse, and nobody seemed to think that that was worthy
of being reported to the police. Later that day at work, Alex G, a fellow
employee, said "I heard he was assaulted".... I had not told anyone at
work about the incident that morning..... so once again it was made very
clear that MI5 were watching my rented accommodation and giving
information about what was going on there to managers at work.
So I moved house yet again in late autumn 1992, this time to a rented room
in a large house on Woodstock Road. I stayed there for several weeks as
the situation at work deteriorated due to OCTS managers abuse, until I was
forced to take sick leave from work for two months and attend hospital as
an outpatient; at which point I gave notice on the room, and returned to
London.
MI5 continued to harass me after the diagnosis of serious illness was
made. As reported previously, they harassed me on a flight to Spain in
December 1992; and in 1993, when I returned to live and work in Oxford,
they again bugged my rooms, as well as my workplace, although the
intensity of the harassment was very much less than in 1992.
Watched, followed and harassed in Canada
It dismayed me to find that MI5 would not leave me alone after I had
settled in Canada. In January 1995 I rented an apartment at the Bayshore
complex in Ottawas west end. For some weeks there was no sign of the
"buggers". But then it started all over again. They first bugged my car,
which had a car alarm installed - the alarm went off two or three times in
a single evening, and the following day gave a signal that the car had
been broken into. Then they bugged my apartment, and in particular they
installed bugs on the phone line in my apartment.
In September 1995 I moved to a new apartment in Ottawas Bytown Market
area, the restaurant and entertainment heart of Canadas capital. This
proved a serious mistake. In the west end I had been fairly distant from
the centre of town where MI5 concentrated their efforts at turning people
against me. In the Market area it was much easier for the persecutors to
motivate people to harass me, and over the next couple of years there were
frequent instances of harassment by the general public.
From 1995 I had some Polish friends in Ottawa, and as the reader can
guess, MI5 have spent much effort trying to break up this friendship. They
supplied various things about my home life to these friends, for example
where I was living in the Market, directly over the road were the studios
of a music radio station, which you had to "look up" to see; and MI5 told
these friends that I was "looking up" to see the radio station; so the
friends then replayed these words back to me, that I was "looking up". MI5
have also made various sexual slanders against me, and these friends also
unwittingly replayed some of the words they had been imprinted with by the
MI5 persecutors.
MI5 Will Never Allow Me to have a Normal Life
I have heard many excuses as to why MI5 continuously prevent me from
having a normal life. We are told that MI5 are defending the country
against a tere to zero.
When I have travelled abroad, they always put their people on the flights,
on the journeys I undertake, to continue the harassment, so that I am put
off further overseas travel, and chained to my home in London. Yet even
this is illogical, because when I lived in Canada, they would still put
people on flights back to the UK.... and what possible reason would they
have for doing that? Perhaps the truest words to describe the MI5
persecution is that reason has nothing to do with their activities - sane
people do not behave in the way the MI5 British Secret Police have been
doing.
Summer 1999 - more MI5 harassment?
In only a few days time I will be going to Europe again. This time I have
deliberately chosen to travel by a non-UK airline; so we will see if they
put their paid agents on this foreign carrier, we will see if they try to
harass me on this non-British flight.
If they do harass me on this trip to Europe, or if they resume the
harassment in London after I return home, then I will continue to report
their activities in these faxes. As I said at the beginning of this
article, I would very much like to not have to send these articles any
more, but that is not my decision to make - it is entirely up to MI5 to
cease their pointless persecution of me, once and for all.
32254
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
------------------------------
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 1124
***************************************
