XPost: alt.auto.mercedes, alt.fan.jessica-alba, es.rec.comics
XPost: hamster.de.misc, uk.misc
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 19:32:45 +0200, "RD" wrote:
>This might be a wrong newsgroup for this or ??????
>
>RD
FUCK YOU, ASSHOLE!
> skrev i melding news:m07071916372110@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 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
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
