XPost: alt.os.linux.ubuntu, alt.os.windows-xp, alt.os.windows2000   
   XPost: alt.out-of-body, uk.misc   
   From: toad@sky.net   
      
   MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk wrote:   
      
   > 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 is the degree to which people allow themselves to   
   > be unquestioningly manipulated by an evil element within the state.   
   >   
   > 16886   
      
   The movie MI 5 is not out yet. Only 2 away though.   
      
   Toad   
      
   --   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)