2007-06-23 03:54:52 UTC
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Organization: Toronto Free-Net
David Stretch (***@leicester.ac.uk) wrote:
: In article <***@hotch.hotch.demon.co.uk>,
: Iain L M Hotchkies <***@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
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"
: David Stretch: Greenwood Institute of Child Health, Univ. of Leicester, UK.
: ***@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
References: <***@anon.penet.fi> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Organization: Toronto Free-Net
Illtud Daniel (***@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.