XPost: at.gesellschaft.recht, soc.culture.romanian, alt.gossip.celebrities   
   XPost: can.talk.guns   
      
   Date: Sat May 13 21:41:57 1995   
   Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv.uk   
   Subject: Re: BBC's Hidden Shame   
      
   >:some pirate radio station in London in 1991, started listening to   
   >   
   >Conclusive proof if ever I heard it.   
   >   
   >Of course you were the only person in the office in the whole of Britain   
      
   Yeah, but this is the point. Each incident is easily and automatically   
   deniable along the lines you're taking. But when this happens every   
   time, and when you get independent corroboration from other people,   
   then there's no escaping it. For example, immediately after I lost   
   my job in 91 I went into the local garage to get some work done on the   
   car, and one of the blokes there said to the other, "so what do you   
   think of it then? it's getting killed on the radio isn't it"   
   Now again, you look at that and no proff; you can ask them what they're   
   referring to and they can say they're talking about something else.   
      
   >I know you may be a little paranoid, but I suggest you sit down   
   >and work out rationally what possible reason anyone off television,   
   >or radio would have for listening to your conversations. After all   
   >it must be hard enough to present a show to millions of people   
   >without the added burden of watching and listening to a single   
   >person and slipping their phrases into the programme.   
      
   These presenters are clever people. They wouldn't be presenters   
   if they weren't - they're easily capable of reacting to an individual   
   in this way.   
      
   What possible reason? I guess because they think it's amusing to do   
   so. They know that if you ever tell anybody, without being able to   
   show any evidence, then the reaction you'll get from just about   
   anybody will be the one you're showing now.   
      
   I realize there are loads of people in England and elsewhere with   
   the sort of thoughts I've described in these postings; and almost   
   all impartial observers would say that nothing other than an   
   go after their private conversations (if they did it to me then I can   
   do it to them, it's a questions of technical competence and money).   
   If you were lucky, you might be able to entrap them into admission.   
   You could of course harass or threaten them back (any coppers reading   
   this?) but that would be illegal and might get a result quite   
   different to the one you're trying to achieve. Of course, it might   
   come out of its own accord given time - if so many people know, if   
   they have an escape valve in their "subtext" through the media,   
   will it not cease to be at a covert level, given time? Surely it   
   is in my interest for it to become overt, since the transgressions   
   at this time are on their side and not on mine?   
      
   Thoughts? There must be some way of breaking the secrecy. This   
   isn't the first time in human history that a conspiracy has taken   
   place on this scale, but the truth tends to out.  The situation   
   now is they think they';re "winning" hence have little stimulus   
   to change the rules - if they started seeing themselves "losing"   
   things could change drastically.   
      
   =================================================================   
      
   From: amh15@cus.cam.ac.uk (Alan Hart)   
   Newsgroups: uk.misc   
   Subject: Re: BBC's Hidden Shame   
   Date: Sun May 14 09:59:54 1995   
      
   : Thoughts? There must be some way of breaking the secrecy. This   
   : isn't the first time in human history that a conspiracy has taken   
   : place on this scale, but the truth tends to out.  The situation   
   : now is they think they';re "winning" hence have little stimulus   
   : to change the rules - if they started seeing themselves "losing"   
   : things could change drastically.   
      
   Mike, if that is your name,   
      
   I'm going to try to rationalise what you're telling us. I can think of three   
   possible explanations for what you are experiencing.   
      
   One is that there _is_ a conspiracy against you. As a previous writer said,   
   though, a lot of these programmes are taped, so it really isn't possible in   
   some of the cases you've named. Further, why were no bugs found in your   
   house? Finally, unless you are a political figure or someone else in the   
   public eye, why would anyone bother? People like me (and I assume you) are   
   small fry; our contribution to society is likely to be minor. Why would   
   anyone spend so much money and effort on you?   
      
   Another possibility is that you are developing some kind of paranoia. There's   
   no stigma attached to this; we're all paranoid to some extent, although   
   perhaps not to the extent that a doctor would call us paranoid. I think   
   paranoia is quite a straightforward explanation here - you really do believe   
   that all these things are aimed at you; you see people everywhere trying to   
   get at you. Logic suggests that this cannot really be the case.   
      
   The third possibility is that not even you really believe any of this, and   
   that this is a "troll". I'm not sure I believe this possibility, but it's   
   possible.   
      
   Anyway, if you want to be sure that you're _not_ going mad, I'd go and see   
   your G.P. if I were you. If you don't trust him/her, why not see someone   
   recommended by a person you can trust? If you don't trust anyone any more,   
   don't you think it's time you got help?   
      
   Alan   
      
   ------------------------------------------------------------------------   
   Alan Hart - amh15@cam.ac.uk - Cambridge University, UK - +44 1223 515460   
    "How many letters are there in the alphabet - is it 27?" - J.R. Histed   
   ------------------------------------------------------------------------   
      
      
   From: Ian Preece    
   Newsgroups: uk.misc   
   Subject: Re: BBC's Hidden Shame   
   Reply-To: ianp@dktower.demon.co.uk   
   Date: Sun May 14 14:58:08 1995   
      
   In article <3p52cq$rsl@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>   
              amh15@cus.cam.ac.uk "Alan Hart" writes:   
      
   > The third possibility is that not even you really believe any of this, and   
   > that this is a "troll". I'm not sure I believe this possibility, but it's   
   > possible.   
      
   For a troll, the posts are remarkably well-informed on paranoid   
   behaviour.. you'd need to be one, or be reasonably well-informed on the   
   subject to sustain the tale... which lead me to my theory...*ahem*...:   
      
   An extension to possibility 3 (Number 3.5, perhaps?) is that the original   
   poster may be somehting like a psychology student writing a term paper   
   on the net community's reactions to this tale.  (Now, there's paranoia   
   for you! Not only are they listening to/watching us, they're writing   
   reports about us too...:-)   
      
   More likely, though, is that the poster is genuinely in need of professional   
   help (he has intimated as much, himself) and, as such, he should be encouraged   
   to seek it.   
      
   regards,   
   IanP   
   --   
   -----------------------------------------------------   
   Ian Preece                 ianp@dktower.demon.co.uk   
      
   IT Project Specialist      Ideas for Hire   
   -----------------------------------------------------   
      
   2805   
      
      
   --   
   Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)