I FU****G think you otta post your sh*t someplace else in your own
ng.......Where some body gives a Fu*k about your freekin MI5 Bullshit
<MI5Victim@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message news:m07052303514673@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: MI5? Please can someone explain what's going on here?
> Newsgroups: uk.misc
> References: <4l1khm$4cn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<4l2lhj$6h6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Organization: Toronto Free-Net
> Distribution:
>
> David Stretch (dds@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
) wrote:
> : In article <19960418.000817.55@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> : Iain L M Hotchkies <iain@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <4lge6r$p00@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Organization: Toronto Free-Net
> Distribution:
>
> Illtud Daniel (idaniel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
) 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.
>
> 16805
>
|
