Science Talk
Science Talk
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Forums
Science Forums
Biology
Math
Astronomy
Physics
Technology
Chemistry
Social Sciences
History
Psychology
Philosophy
Sociology
Linguistics
Religious Studies
Economics
Man Woman Ethno
Ask an Expert
World Records
Society Issues
Education
People
Alternative Science
MI5 Persecution: Fitted up 26/4/96 (17091)

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Science Talk Forum Index -> Creationism
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Guest






PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 8:54 am    Post subject: MI5 Persecution: Fitted up 26/4/96 (17091) Reply with quote

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 <iain@hotch.demon.co.uk> 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 Smile

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.

17091
Back to top
  Ads
Advertising
Sponsor


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Science Talk Forum Index -> Creationism All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Australian Debt Consolidation Experts
medical insurance
Wedding Website
Annunci di topclassescort con foto e numeri di telefono in tutta Italia
New Zealand Swingers Contacts
Insurance Talk
Cheap Car Insurance
Make Your Own Website
Free calls to Poland
Cleaning Service
Mold
UK Swingers Genuine Contacts Site
Janitorial Supplies
Sanitaire Vacuum Parts


Board Security

192 Attacks blocked

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group