XPost: can.canet.stats, can.community.military, can.forsale 
 XPost: can.francais 
  
 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 
 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 
 murder. 
  
 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 
  
 [continued in next message] 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)