XPost: alt.tv.x-files, alt.tv.young+restless, alt.two.zero.four   
   XPost: alt.ufc, uk.misc   
   From: ~vi@comcast.net   
      
   "Just.some.guy"  wrote in message   
   news:466969b1$0$9968$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...   
   > Are you on some type of medication?   
      
      
      
   If not, he or she definitely should be.... sad.....   
      
      
   >   
   >   
   >  wrote in message news:m07050813501580@4ax.com...   
   >>I just thought I'd let you know what I've been reading into the   
   >> "Crusader" spam. I don't want to post this to usenet because somebody   
   >> might try to tie that in to my posts in some way (someone already has, in   
   >> uk.misc).   
   >>   
   >> First of all, I'd like to ask you to believe that my phone line in my   
   >> apartment is bugged, and has been for many months. I have moved a couple   
   >> of times this year, but "they" have faithfully been on my trail.   
   >>   
   >> Anyway, let's suppose my phone line is bugged. Now, when I talk to my   
   >> internet service provider, it's over a SLIP (now PPP) connection. So if   
   >> you wanted to bug what was said, either you'd listen in over the line and   
   >> have to decode the transmission, or you could go to the service provider   
   >> (more difficult) and ask them to decode a particular user's connection.   
   >>   
   >> OK, so now they're listening to everything I do over my SLIP/PPP   
   >> connection. A couple of months ago I was messing around with faking   
   >> articles through nntp servers and through anonymous remailers. I chose a   
   >> nice inconspicuous newsgroup for my little tests, something no-one would   
   >> ever notice. Guess which newsgroup I chose??? Yes, _FISH_!!! or   
   >> rec.aquaria to be precise   
   >>   
   >> And guess what articles I tried to post? Goldfish, Koi carp and, you'll   
   >> never guess... PIRANHA!!! The goldfish article and the Koi went through,   
   >> but the piranha didn';t appear.   
   >>   
   >> by now you probably think this is too silly for words. But if you look in   
   >> the papers a few eeks ago you will find John Major, Tonny Blair and Paddy   
   >> Ashdown sharing a "private joke" about Major's sunburnt goldfish. We   
   >> haven't had anything about Koi yet (they must be too dull ). Now, sent by   
   >> someone who clearly knew what they were doing (they chose an Italian   
   >> backbone site for their launch point) we have many thousands of messages   
   >> to people all over the globe. All about piranha, and with the punchline   
   >> "that gives you something to think about, doesn't it?"   
   >>   
   >> The way it works is that they're trying to kill two birds with one stone   
   >> again. I don't knoiw why they should be against these national alliance   
   >> people, but my interpretation is that they simultaneously try to   
   >> discredit them, and stem the flow of Corley articles.   
   >>   
   >> =================================================================   
   >>   
   >> In article ,   
   >> Mike Corley  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>John J Smith (J.J.Smith@ftel.co.uk) wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>: b) we do know who you are. Or are you someone else we don't know about?   
   >>>: You are currently known as "That bloody persistant net nutter, who's   
   >>>: expanding from uk.misc to the rest of the world".   
   >>>   
   >>>I think the point I was trying to make is that I could tell you things   
   >>>from my personal life, at home and at work, which would add credibility   
   >>>to my story. But if I named people, then (a) they would object violently   
   >>>to being included in this shenanigans, and (b) I would be revealing my   
   >>>identity which would be bad for my personal life and my work life. Of   
   >>>course some people in my personal life, and at work, do know who "mike   
   >>>corley" is. But at least we're observing a studied silence for now.   
   >>   
   >> :People can always be called "MR X", to save them being named.   
   >> :   
   >> :I'm completely perplexed as to what you mean by b). Revealing identity?   
   >> :To who? And why would this be bad for any part of your life when you   
   >> :already have a less than respectful reputation here?   
   >>   
   >> I'll just enumerate one or two things that I can still remember. Sometime   
   >> around August/Sept 1992 I was living in a house in Oxford, and coming out   
   >> of the house was physically attacked by someone - not punched, just   
   >> grabbed   
   >> by the coat, with some verbals thrown in for good measure. That was   
   >> something   
   >> the people at work shouldn't have known about... but soon after a couple   
   >> of   
   >> people were talking right in front of me about, "yeah, I heard he was   
   >> attacked".   
   >>   
   >> Again, one I went for a walk in some woods outside Oxford. The next day,   
   >> at work, someone said "you know he went to the forest yesterday".   
   >>   
   >> I don't want to put details on usenet of what happened because to do so   
   >> would be to risk it happening again. If you put ideas in peoples' heads   
   >> then you can find them reflecting back at you, and I don't want that.   
   >> Also I can't remember that much from three years ago. From november 1992   
   >> I started taking "major tranquilizers" and just blotted the whole thing   
   >> from my mind.   
   >>   
   >>>This is a feature time and time again, that the security services   
   >>>(presumed) get at you by manipulating other people around you to get at   
   >>>you. If you have their contacts, manpower, resources and technology then   
   >>>you can do that sort of thing.   
   >>   
   >> :But why? Are you a threat?   
   >>   
   >> They pretend they "have" to get at me. After the first few weeks they had   
   >> to find a reason to spy and abuse. You can't abuse someone unless they're   
   >> in the wrong in some way. What I did "wrong" was to be ill. So it became   
   >> "nutter" and "monster" and "he's going to attack us" coupled with   
   >> "ha ha ha, he can't do anything to defend himself, it was so funny". That   
   >> obvious contradiction within their propaganda is something they   
   >> blithely ignore.   
   >>   
   >> :So, the Security Services never *actually* appear, and you assume that   
   >> :they get someone else to do your dirty work. This is a bit of a big   
   >> :logical step, here: That person doesn't like me, or is causing me   
   >> trouble,   
   >> :it's not because they've got problems themselves, it must be the   
   >> "Security   
   >> :Services". Yes. Because people are infallible. Or is there more?   
   >>   
   >> A single source is indicated because of the range of harassment.   
   >> BBC + Capital + manipulated_public_at_large + set_up_situations,   
   >> what does that add up to? Add in the technology to carry out the   
   >> covert spying and the manpower and knowhow to follow you around for   
   >> five years without being spotted. It smells very much of the security   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)