Posted by MI5Victim on 06/23/07 01:41
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
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 <DFnE55.8tF.firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Mike Corley <email@example.com> 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
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
: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
services, because there is no other organization (to my knowledge)
which does the things I've seen these people do.
Remember, they have deliberately chosen the softest of soft targets
to victimize. They purposely chose a mentally ill person who they thought
would be likely to kill himself anyway, so that they could get away with
And in all likelihood it will have started as a personal vendetta by someone.
Who could that be? I don't know, but I can give you some clues.
The first possibility (deep breath) is that someone from my college set me
up. Six years ago I graduated from university in the UK, during the last
year there I was steadily getting more and more ill. I know that I was
talking in my sleep; although I don't know what I was saying, it got
me a reputation, and if someone from my college talked afterwards to
the "wrong" people then that could be the reason for all that has followed.
I think that's the strongest contender for source. Directly beneath my
room lived another bloke who frequently had his friends round late at
night, after the time that I went to sleep. So they could have heard what
I was saying in my sleep, and that could have got me the reputation for
"talking to myself".
What I don't know is why that should have rebounded a year after I left.
You'd think it would have happened sooner; it's a bit odd to wait for a
year and then start abuse. That leads me to question what in particular
happened around May/June 1990 for them to start then.
>What I don't know is how it looks from the other side, from the side of
>the people who are being manipulated to get at me. On a couple of
>occasions I have challenged people to tell the truth of the matter, but
>they have alwats ducked the challenge.
:Have you ever considered the possibility, that you have made a mistake, and
:the people don't know what you are talking about?
Yes. I am currently considering the possibility that some people around me
know only what is being posted on Usenet, and have not been "contacted"
by "them". But I _know_ that others have been contacted.
:What words? Are they in common use? Could they be a catchphrase of a
:popular comedian?: "Nice to see you, to see you nice"?
In England the all-time No. 1 is "nutter". Easter this year, returning home
from Clapham police station to report five years of harassment ("we're not
saying it's happening and we're not saying it isn't happening"), another
"not happening" incident of harassment when a cowardly little slut did her
country proud by yelling "nutter, nutter, nutter" in the face of the
What can you do about that? You can't yell abuse back in their face, because
they know they're supported by their peers, by the media, by the murderers in
the security forces. You can't put them down when the fascist establishment
is on their side. You can't hit them, because they would deny their abuse,
they would deny knowing anything, and bring charges against the "nutter"
who attacked them "at random".
>You know, you're
>passing saomeone, they're hardly going to construct an argument for your
>benefit, so they work a word of abuse into the conversation which they
>can giggle at.
:Abuse such as what? We're all adults here, we can take it. Is this abuse
:aimed at you? How can you tell it is?
I think I've said already what the words are. Thing is, at any given time
the language is consistent. In January everyone's calling you X, then a
few weeks later people stop calling you X and start calling you Y.
You can tell it's aimed at me, because when people repeatedly say the same
words are you walk past, then laugh, you would have to be hard of
understanding not to recognize it.
>Or they repeat something that's been said somewhere else... the PE thing
>being a case in point. PE says it, then other people pick up the refrain.
:Remind me who PE is again.
PE = "Private Eye"
>: >To give you an example, which I mentioned in another posting. In around
>: >October 1992, Private Eye ran a cover with the heading "Major's support
>: >lowest ever", with John calling to Norma on the cover "come back, Norma".
>: >Only one obvious interpretation to that, isn';;t there? I certainly
>: >thought so when I saw that cover. Wrongo!! Down the pub with people from work
>: >Simon says to phil, "don';t you think it's wrong then?" phil says, "well
>: >private eye are usuallyright"..."hislop strikes again..
>: Erm. Mike? Heeeelllllooo? What are you on about. What is the other
>: interpretation then? Norma having an affair? Seems a bit wrong, with the
>: heading "Majors support Lowest ever"...
>No, this one isn't obvious , it really does need to be explained. I
>certainly didn't understand it when I first saw it. You see, the kernel
>of vitriol is in the words "come back". At the time, the themes of
>abuse were centred around interpretations of those two words (stretch your
>mind a little bit, I don't have to spell it out for you, surely).
:You did in your mail item.
:You seem to be scouting about something called a "Double Entendre". The
:inference being "Come" = Ejaculation, "Back" = Anus (not the first part
:of the body I would have went for, I would have foolishly gone for "Back",
:silly old me).
:You see to have picked a sodomy double entendre out of a Private Eye
:headline. They are everywhere. The English language has much double
:meaning in it, and if you put your mind to it, you could pull a double
:entendre out of a randomly chosen page of the bible. So what?
>The point is that when Simon pointed it out to Phil, he did recognise
>what it meant after a moment's thought... and so did I... and so did the
>people who repeated it several times later... so however murky it may
>seem to you, that is the meaning they intended it to have...
I still don't really know if the meaning was intended when that headline was
written, or if it was simply "found" after the fact. The reason I think it
might be the former is that I got quite a lot of abuse along the lines of
"sound-alike" or "double-entendre" at work, in particularly from Steve.
So "double" inevitably came to mean split-personality, "two people in one";
"back" inevitably came to mean "backside", "come" inevitably meant you-know-
what, "split" (well, we'd better split now) again you can guess, "bent" (of
a similar bent), the list goes on forever. These aren't "nice" double-
entendres intended for comedy, they're nasty words to humiliate and cause
pain. If I could turn the clock back three years then I would sue my
former employers for harassment and I would almost certainly win. I had to
take pills after a year of Oxford, so they wouldn't be able to lie their
way out of it. Actually, I could still take them to court - the main
obstacle being that three years after the fact is a bit late and much
of what happened, the details that would be necessary for a case to go
to court, has just been obliterated by time.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Peter Kr|ger)
Subject: Re: Mike Corley - a (helpful) suggestion
Date: Mon Oct 2 05:43:42 1995
In article <email@example.com>, Snail <firstname.lastname@example.org> says:
>Indeed, I feel that my Usenet access is censored simply because I don't want
>to download groups he is partaking in, because of his behaviour.
>I wasn't that bothered, but I am starting to get seriously pissed off
>with him. Which takes a lot.
This person Corley seems quite interesting for three reasons. I put the
following at the end of a post in another thread just to see if he was
reading any other threads in uk.media.
It seems he is probably not.
Heres an interesting little story from back in the early days of CCD
technology. There was this miniature camera which was designed to fit
behind the infrared receiver lens of the remote control system (just
beside the IR sensor itself) the camera clocked out the data in 256 lines
of 256 pixels from a Fairchild chip and fed it out, a line at a time,
into the VBI within the TV set itself. The signal could be picked up
remotely from a standard license detector van from where it was stripped
out of the surrounding RF signal and relayed back to the TV station where
it was displayed as a slowscan monochrome image in a corner of the news
[Reply to this message]