DHCP server Event ID 1053
Hello,
I have a problem with the DHCP server ond my SBS server 2000. It wont start.
I get the following message (eventID 1053):
The DHCP/BINL service on this Small Business Server has encountered another
server on this network with IP Address, 192.168.2.1, belonging to the
domain: .
I cannot ping this adress from any computer in the network (which are
192.168.16.x adresses)
I have been doing a little searching this morning, and saw 2 possible
causes/solutions, both of which do not seem to work.
First and foremost... you have a router that is also a DHCP server. This is
not the case, I checked and DHCP is disabled on the router.
A second possible casue/solution I found here:
http://forums.windrivers.com/archive/index.php/t-57658.html
Now I am not really an expert in these things, but some searching led me to
believe this is also not the case here. I think this because of the following:
I go to Admin Tools\Routing and Remote Access
I expand <the server>\IP Routing\
I only see General and Static Routes
and I see nothing that has to do with NAT (you can add this, I tried this
and the DHCP checkbox wasn't checked, and afterwards I deleted it again).
As I said, I don't fully understand the last solution, so maybe something is
to be gained there, but I have a feeling that also is not the problem.
Any help would be greatly appriciated.
Jurre Koning (Netherlands) Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179613
Impact of Partitions on RAID
I am running SBS 2000 with hardware RAID (3 disks in one RAID 5 container
partitioned as C: & D:). I have the Exchange database and 2 SQL databases on
partition D:. I recently also moved the page file to D: when I went to 2GB
RAM because C: did not have enough room to hold it. Now, as you might guess,
the disk activity is heavily weighted towards the D:.
Is there any incentive to split the page file between C: & D:? Does a choice
of partitions have any impact on speed when both are in the same container?
Thanks,
Joe M Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179611
Client computer access for SBS2000
Hi,
This may seem like an odd question but. I have a client computer that is
successfully connected to our SBS, all working fine no problems.
However, I have a requirement for that client computer to be able to access
the Internet without going through the SBS.
I have a laptop that can successfully connect to my router and access the
net without going through the SBS but I cannot get this client to do the same.
What I am looking for is for the hardwired network card and cable to go
through the router but to use the wireless net connector to connect to router
when I need to go without SBS.
When I disconnect the hardwire connection and enable wireless it simply
won't connect the router.
Anyone have any ideas?
Thanks in advance,
Gary. Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179609
ISA RAS configuration??
Hello.
I have a question about ISA VPN configuration.
I have sbs2000 with 2 NICS configured has infomation below:
Z:\>ipconfig /all
Windows 2000 IP Configuration
Host Name . . . . . . . . . . . . : golias
Primary DNS Suffix . . . . . . . : CANNONHYGIENE.local
Node Type . . . . . . . . . . . . : Hybrid
IP Routing Enabled. . . . . . . . : No
WINS Proxy Enabled. . . . . . . . : No
DNS Suffix Search List. . . . . . : CANNONHYGIENE.local
Ethernet adapter Internal:
Connection-specific DNS Suffix . :
Description . . . . . . . . . . . : HP NC7781 Gigabit Server Adapter
Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 00-0B-CD-0C-5A-5B
DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No
IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 10.0.0.1
Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . :
DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : 10.0.0.1
Primary WINS Server . . . . . . . : 10.0.0.1
Ethernet adapter External:
Connection-specific DNS Suffix . :
Description . . . . . . . . . . . : HP NC7771 Gigabit Server Adapter
Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 00-11-0A-86-88-3D
DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No
IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.100.10
Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.100.2
DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : 10.0.0.1
NetBIOS over Tcpip. . . . . . . . : Disabled
The router where the ISA external card is connected is 192.168.100.2.
Our branches have routers with the following IP scheme:
10.0.2.2 mask 255.255.255.0
10.0.4.2 mask 255.255.255.0
10.0.5.2 mask 255.255.255.0
10.0.6.2 mask 255.255.255.0
10.0.7.2 mask 255.255.255.0
-When i try to acess one branck from another branche everything goes well.
-If i try to access the SBS network ican connect to the SBS server but i
can't connect to any of the machines inside the network.
-If i try to connect one branch from the a computer inside the SBS network
is also not possible, only if i connect directly from the ISA server.
In some posts i have read that we need to configure RAS, i'm not sure if i
need to do this.
Could anyone give me some ideas about what i must do, if necessary please
put some aditional questions.
Nuno Santos Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179608
enforcing logon times in Win2K Group Policy...
I have an OU where all users in the OU have the same account logon hours
set. I want to set it so that if the user happens to be logged on when the
logon time expires, they will be notified and then be automatically logged
off or disconnected.
I have a windows 2000 small business server. I did some research and did
find in group policy ->Computer Configuration->Windows Settings->Security
Settings->Local Policies where you can enable the automatic log off setting.
So I modified the exisiting group policy to enable this feature and I also
have the security settings set for this group policy so that the box
'Enforce Group Policy' is checked for all "authenticated users". I even
added an individual user in there for test purposes and made sure the
enforce check box was checked... I then did a gpupdate/force on teh machine
the test user woul dbe logging onto.
Even after doing all of this, it does not seem to work. I logged a user on
using a terminal server session and let their session sit idle. It passed
the account expiry time I had set for that account and nothing happened.
They continued to be logged on.. So I then logged the user off and when
attempting to log the user back on again, it did indicate they were unable
to do so due to account restrictions... So that was good.
However, what else needs to be done to ensure that if a user is logged on
when the account logon time expires, they will be notified and then be
automatically logged off?
Thanks, Brad
Thanks, Brad Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179602
Recommended Max Memory for SQL - MSFW, WSUS, SBSMonitoring, SharePoint
It's well known that SQL takes as much memory as it can, and several experts
tell us to manually set the memory size to xxx. But what number should I
use for xxx? I often see "100" as the example. I assume this means 100MB.
But why that number? How could I be more methodical in picking a number?
In the SQL 2005 Enterprise Manager that comes with the Premium Edition, I
can pick a SQL instance, choose properties, and select the 'Memory' page.
Can I get the same result by entering 100 in the field called "Maximum
server memory (in MB)"? What is the recommend Maximum and Minimum for:
MSFW
WSUS
SBSMonitoring
SharePoint
Thanks for your help in fixing the slowness of some services. Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179597
audit logins.
I would like to start an audit trail of who has logged in/out on the network
and when so that I can access the trail from time to time.
Can that that be done?
Thanks!
Joe. Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179596
ATM issue on VPN network connection
Since we have setup some ATM there are lots of problem raised that we
don't know the real cause of problem. But now we have mention
something related to network that also raised some problem to us.
We have notice that ATM location which are installed on network where
is using lease line, micro wave or fiber optic are runnning well than
ATM which are installed on VPN network. The problem is that, ATM goes
out of service wothout reason event we can ping to ATM ip address. We
have contact to ATM vender related to network speed requirement and
they replied the network speed that ATM can work is 64 kbps and there
is not because of VPN or other network type. There is true in this
case because lots of problem are raised on the same ATM running on VPN
network.
Hi reader, you may understand well about problem we facing right? If
you all have any commend related to this problem could share with us
to sold it.
Thanks you very much in advance. Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179592
MI5 Persecution: Stasi 21/4/96 (16079)
Subject: Chief Constable Alderson Condemns "Stasi" MI5
Newsgroups:uk.misc,uk.politics,uk.media,uk.legal,soc.culture.british
Organization: Toronto Free-Net
Summary:
Keywords:
John Alderson, former Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall, had the
following to say about the expansion of the Security Service's powers, in
a recent magazine article;
"It is fatal to let the secret service into the area of ordinary crime.
MI5 is not under the same restraints as the police. They infiltrate
organisations, people's jobs and lives. They operate almost like a cancer."
"At the moment the acorn of a Stasi [the former East German communists'
secret service] has been planted. It is there for future governments to
build on."
The message is clear. Criminal subversion and criminal harassment by an
unpoliced minority not subject to the law, "infiltration of people's jobs
and lives" is with us today.
16079 Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179591
MI5 Persecution: Leant On 7/4/96 (14565)
From: Green <Green@guidion.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.politics,alt.politics.british,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: MI5 Persecution: Why Aren't the British Police Doing Their Job?
Reply-To: Green@guidion.demon.co.uk
Date: Sun Apr 7 21:13:30 1996
In article <DpIE0r.736.0.bloor@torfree.net>
bu765@torfree.net "Mike Corley" writes:
> Last Easter (1995) I went into the local police station in London and spoke to
> an officer about the harassment against me. But I couldn't provide tangible
> evidence; what people said, in many cases years ago, is beyond proof, and
> without something to support my statements I cannot expect a police officer to
> take the complaint seriously.
This in itself dos not suggest that the police have it in for you.
The old bill operates on extremely tight spending limits forced on
them by that pillock Michael Howard, and without evidence, they
often have higher priorities than chasing something that cannot go
to court.
I doubt that the police are actually being leant on, but they probably
realise that if they looked into this, they would be leant on hard.
The met always stays away from anything that looks like it has Defence,
Security or secret service interest already, because they realise that
they are below these government agencies in the general pecking order.
This attitude was made clear in a TV show where a left wing comedian
heckled some aristocratic Tory candidate in a local election. The
police officer gave the comic a ticking off, even though you could see
that this young copper sympathised with the comedian, and regarded
the Tory as an upper-crust wanker. He said, and I quote "I'm giving you
the ticking off and not him because he's a Lord and I'm a Police Constable."
If I walked into my local nick and complained that MI5 were snooping on me,
they would show me the door without even looking at my evidence, because
that bored desk seargant with only five years to go before he retires
doesn't want to start fucking about with somebody who has incurred the
wrath of Stella Rimington. He would rather deal with the lost dogs and
driving licence producers, eat his cheese and pickle sandwiches and piss
off home at the end of his shift than have some high ranking spook having
a go at his boss and getting him a bollocking.
In short, you have earned much sympathy but little surprise. Just remember
that saying about the enemy of your enemies.
Have a nice day.
******************************************* QUOTE OF THE DAY******************
* You have just read the opinons of : * "Common sense is merely the set *
* * of prejudices a person acquires*
=========================================================================
Subject: Re: MI5 Persecution: Why Aren't the British Police Doing Their Job?
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.politics,alt.politics.british,soc.culture.british
Followup-To: uk.misc,uk.politics,alt.politics.british,soc.culture.british
References: <DpIE0r.736.0.bloor@torfree.net>
Organization: Toronto Free-Net
Distribution:
>This in itself dos not suggest that the police have it in for you.
>The old bill operates on extremely tight spending limits forced on
>them by that pillock Michael Howard, and without evidence, they
>often have higher priorities than chasing something that cannot go
>to court.
I think the police know well what's going on. It is up to them to do
something about it. They know I've made a complaint at a police station.
I could probably do more to try to help myself (I think someone suggested
making a written complaint to the chief constable) but even then I nthink
they would not take action.
>
>I doubt that the police are actually being leant on, but they probably
>realise that if they looked into this, they would be leant on hard.
>The met always stays away from anything that looks like it has Defence,
>Security or secret service interest already, because they realise that
>they are below these government agencies in the general pecking order.
>
So we have a situation where the security service breaks the law,
everyone knows MI5 breaks the law, and the police won't investigate
crimes that would otherwise earn a jail sentence.
Oh good, I'm really glad the UK is a democracy. (<sarcasm>, for those of
you who didn't catch that)
>If I walked into my local nick and complained that MI5 were snooping on me,
>they would show me the door without even looking at my evidence, because
>that bored desk seargant with only five years to go before he retires
>doesn't want to start fucking about with somebody who has incurred the
>wrath of Stella Rimington. He would rather deal with the lost dogs and
>driving licence producers, eat his cheese and pickle sandwiches and piss
>off home at the end of his shift than have some high ranking spook having
>a go at his boss and getting him a bollocking.
In this case I think it is 'high-ranking' police officers who are aware
of the persecution, they know a complaint has been made, and they're
doing nothing. What is more, I don't think there is anything I can do
that would make them take action, both because they may be being 'leant
on' and through the wider view that it could be deleterious to the state
to have a persecution by state organs exposed.
They're wrong in taking that point of view, because sooner or later this
will all out anyway, and they it will be n years of police inaction
(n>=6) that will be questioned.
>
>In short, you have earned much sympathy but little surprise. Just remember
>that saying about the enemy of your enemies.
>
>Have a nice day.
14565 Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179590
MI5 Persecution: Shoot to Kill 4/4/96 (13051)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.politics,alt.politics.british,soc.culture.british
From: jbaker@pobox.com (Jill Baker)
Subject: Re: MI5 Persecution: How and Why Did it Start?
Reply-To: jbaker@pobox.com
Date: Thu Apr 4 05:03:01 1996
jbaker@pobox.com (Jill Baker) wrote:
>bu765@torfree.net (Mike Corley) wrote:
>>Why would
>>the security services expend hundreds of thousands of pounds and more than fiv
>>years of manpower to try to kill a British citizen? Because ...
>So why didn't they just shoot you dead?
>It would have been a lot cheaper.
Please make the effort to respond to this point Mike.
It was a serious question.
Jill (my opinions are entirely my own, no-one else's)
=================================================================
Subject: Re: MI5 Persecution: How and Why Did it Start?
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.politics,alt.politics.british,soc.culture.british
Followup-To: uk.misc,uk.politics,alt.politics.british,soc.culture.british
References: <Dp5IAr.1EB.0.bloor@torfree.net>
Organization: Toronto Free-Net
Distribution:
jbaker@pobox.com (Jill Baker) wrote:
>bu765@torfree.net (Mike Corley) wrote:
>>Why would
>>the security services expend hundreds of thousands of pounds and more
than fiv
>>years of manpower to try to kill a British citizen? Because ...
>So why didn't they just shoot you dead?
>It would have been a lot cheaper.
I think there are two reasons nobody has taken physical action as opposed
to verbal;
a) A lot of people "know". Perhaps you the reader might not know, but
lots of people in the media etc do. Remember, I was born in the UK and
lived there until a couple of years ago. I don't think these people would
condone state-sponsored murder of someone who might be seen on a good day
as one of their own.
b) Rather than doind anything directly, they're going for spying, verbal
harassment, media harassment, every form of persecution short of the
physical. Because as soon as anything turns physical, the police become
involved; and unless it turns physical, the police can shrug and say 'not
our problem'.
So they persecute you and try to get you to react, either by hitting one
of them (in which case I clearly find myself in the wrong as far as the
police are concerned), or by trying to harm myself (in which case they
can pretend they weren't responsible).
It's a pretty unproductive form of harassment actually, because if you
don't react then they're wasting they're time. Or perhaps they're just
cheap bullies and trying to wreck someone's life, without any ulterior
motive?
13051 Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179589
MI5 Persecution: Email Cruelty 11/3/96 (11537)
From: D.S.Toube@qmw.ac.uk (David Toube)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.politics,uk.legal,uk.media,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Why Censorship Must Not Be Allowed on Uk.*
Reply-To: D.S.Toube@qmw.ac.uk
Date: Mon Mar 11 11:47:13 1996
A OSHINEYE <TA5330@QMWCC7.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
:D.S.Toube@qmw.ac.uk (David Toube) wrote:
:>I would also be very pleased if Mike Corley would not mailbomb me
:>via my university account with messages entitled 'This Is What
:>You Get For Censorship', thus closing down the entire college
:>email system.
:>
:>Although it does not personally inconvenience me, it is rather
:>dull for the college.
:When did this happen? BTW you can always use Pegasus Mail to send all
:email from Corley's address back to him and see how he likes it.
:--Ade
:
This weekend. The result, Mike Corley will be gratified to hear,
was that all users of the college system were prevented from
using email.
I suspect that there is no stopping Mike Corley. If mail is
automatically returned to him, he will return it back to you
tenfold. If he is thrown off his account, as he surely will be,
he will find another one.
I do not care whether Mike Corley has an email account or not. It
is a matter of supreme indifference to me whether his fanciful
account of persecution is aired or not. If he thinks that he has
been persecuted by M15 and Chris Tarrant, then that is a matter
for him. But there is a world of difference between repeatedly
spamming usenet - which is unacceptable - and setting up a Web
Site containing his post, which is entirely acceptable. Then it
will be possible to choose whether or not to partake of his
fantasy.
However although I would not like to see the censorship of posts
because they demonstrate evidence of mental illness, I suspect
that Mike Corley will inevitably be censored by his ISP following
a number of complaints of usenet abuse and mailbombing.
----
David Toube
Lecturer in Law
QMW, University of London
WWW: http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~ugtl027/index.html
David Boothroyd's British Elections Home Page
WWW: http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~laws/election/home.html
11537 Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179588
MI5 Persecution: Jeff Rooker MP 5/3/96 (10023)
From: rael@midnight.org (Rael A. Fenchurch)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.politics,uk.media,uk.legal,alt.politics.british
Subject: Re: Persecution in the U.K.
Date: Tue Mar 5 04:37:52 1996
Mike,
>"go away" replies, and one from a Labour MP saying he was aware of my situation
>but wouldn't help me because he regarded me as the "bad guy". Gee thanks, they
>do this and then offload the shame they should feel onto you by telling you "oh
>but it's your fault". It's a mad world.
Do you happen to have a copy of this MPs letter? After all, a scanned
copy of it would lend great weight to your case here. At the moment,
you've offered us nothing in the way of evidence, which is one of the
main reasons we all think you've truly gone fishing. So?
Rael...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- Rael A. Fenchurch (rael@midnight.org, http://www.midnight.org/rael/) ---
--- "I don't think compassion's the language of our time" ---
--- "Doubt or Die" ---
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
==========================================================================
From: Andy Howard <andy@kiss100.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.politics,uk.media,uk.legal,alt.politics.british
Subject: Re: Persecution in the U.K.
Reply-To: andy@kiss100.demon.co.uk
Date: Tue Mar 5 06:06:15 1996
In article: <DnrMsq.239.0.bloor@torfree.net> bu765@torfree.net (Mike Corley) wr
I got a few
> "go away" replies, and one from a Labour MP saying he was aware of my situatio
> but wouldn't help me because he regarded me as the "bad guy".
Which Labour MP Mike?
>
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Andy Howard EMail andy@kiss100.demon.co.uk |
| My opinions, not my employer's (Jolly nice people though they are). |
| If my employers shared my opinions... Well, frankly I'd be amazed |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
====================================================================
Subject: Re: Persecution in the U.K.
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.politics,uk.media,uk.legal,alt.politics.british,soc.culture.br$
Followup-To: uk.misc,uk.politics,uk.media,uk.legal,alt.politics.british,soc.culture.b$
References: <DnFtLs.E37.0.bloor@torfree.net> <4h45nq$87o_002@leeds.ac.uk> <4h6gkb$ivc$
Organization: Toronto Free-Net
Distribution:
Mike Corley (bu765@torfree.net) wrote:
: >Do you happen to have a copy of this MPs letter? After all, a scanned
: >copy of it would lend great weight to your case here. At the moment,
: >you've offered us nothing in the way of evidence, which is one of the
: >main reasons we all think you've truly gone fishing. So?
: The letter was by email, not on paper. (In addition to snail-mailing, I
: emailed all the relevant addresses I could find.) I'll see if I can find
: it, I keep a record of most of this correspondence so I may still have it.
I'm afraid I don't have a copy of the correspondence. In future I will keep
useful letters, so with luck there may be a "next time".
The MP was Jeff Rooker, Labour MP. Having looked again at the Labour web page I
find he doesn't have an address listed, but I have a record of his address as
having been jeff.rooker@geo2.poptel.org.uk. I don't know where I got the
address from. I'm so disorganised!
====================================================================
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.politics,uk.media,uk.legal,alt.politics.british
From: J.J.Smith@ftel.co.uk (John J Smith)
Subject: Re: Persecution in the U.K.
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: death-on-the-rock.ftel.co.uk
Message-ID: <Dnw49L.D1H@ftel.co.uk>
Sender: smid@death-on-the-rock.ftel.co.uk (RFC931)
Organization: Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Ltd
References: <DnFtLs.E37.0.bloor@torfree.net> <DnrMsq.239.0.bloor@torfree.net> <Dnsrnu.Jr1.0.bloor@torfree.net> <DntKEo.86E.0.bloor@torfree.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 09:12:56 GMT
Lines: 54
In article <DntKEo.86E.0.bloor@torfree.net>,
Mike Corley <bu765@torfree.net> wrote:
>Mike Corley (bu765@torfree.net) wrote:
>: >Do you happen to have a copy of this MPs letter? After all, a scanned
>: >copy of it would lend great weight to your case here. At the moment,
>: >you've offered us nothing in the way of evidence, which is one of the
>: >main reasons we all think you've truly gone fishing. So?
>
>: The letter was by email, not on paper. (In addition to snail-mailing, I
>: emailed all the relevant addresses I could find.) I'll see if I can find
>: it, I keep a record of most of this correspondence so I may still have it.
>
>I'm afraid I don't have a copy of the correspondence. In future I will keep
>useful letters, so with luck there may be a "next time".
Don't believe you. Because that might be proof, and we just *cant* have that.
>The MP was Jeff Rooker, Labour MP. Having looked again at the Labour web page I
>find he doesn't have an address listed, but I have a record of his address as
>having been jeff.rooker@geo2.poptel.org.uk. I don't know where I got the
>address from. I'm so disorganised!
I did Email this MP yesterday. This is what I wrote:
Smid>I am sorry to bother you, but there is a person with a known
Smid>personality disorder on the internet usenet, claiming that you
Smid>as an MP have backed up his claims that he is being persecuted
Smid>by MI5.
Smid>His name is Mike Corely, and posts from canada (email address
Smid>available if you require).
Smid>
Smid>He claims that you have told him that his claims that the
Smid>"television is watching him", are justified, yet cannot find the
Smid>email in which he did so..
Smid>I'd be interested in what you have said to him, because we have
Smid>had a long term battle to convince him that he really is schizophrenic
Smid>and that Chris Tarrent, MI5 and Martin Lewis from News On Ten are
Smid>persecuting him... If you do have the original Email, then that'd
Smid>be nice...
Smid>If you nothing of this subject, it would not suprise me, however.
His reply, surpise, suprise was:
MP>No idea what you are on about. I am getting really sick of some of
MP>the junk on E mail. I just dump it so he may have contacted
MP>but as to an answer I 've better things to do.
Your move, Mike.
Smid
10023 Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179587
MI5 Persecution: Flight or fight 7/1/96 (8509)
From: huge@axalotl.demon.co.uk (Hugh Davies)
Newsgroups: uk.misc
Subject: Re: persecution rant (re-post)
Reply-To: huge@axalotl.demon.co.uk
Date: Sun Jan 7 04:43:41 1996
Yo, Mike, Happy New Year! Haven't you killed yourself yet?
In article <DKMIs5.158.0.bloor@torfree.net>, bu765@torfree.net (Mike Corley) wri
>For anyone who hasn't yet read this,
There is no-one in the known Universe who hasn't read this at least 5 times.
>and really really wants to then here
No-one wants to read it, Mike. It's drivel.
>is the article that was posted last year in this newsgroup....
Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again....
--
Regards,
Huge.
==================================================
Subject: persecution rant (re-post)
Newsgroups: uk.misc
Organization: Toronto Free-Net
Summary:
Keywords:
>Yo, Mike, Happy New Year! Haven't you killed yourself yet?
But I can't, you see then I wouldn't know how things would turn out
("we're only doing this because we don't know how it's all going to end"
- logic error in line 100)
>There is no-one in the known Universe who hasn't read this at least 5 times.
It doesn't seem to have done a whole lot of good since the good old
persecution stuff is still going on. Over Christmas I was flying BA and
got hassled by a couple of people on the flight (sounds like something
you've heard before, doesn't it?). All the usual stuff about the town I'd
been staying, "he doesn't know who we are", self-justification that we're
doing it because he's a "nutter" etc. Real friendly like. Also a fairly
obvious wind-up and attempt to get some reaction. I think they're trying
quite hard to get a reaction.
If I hit someone on a flight over the Atlantic, am I actually breaking
any laws, and if so whose? Is a BA aircraft British territory subject to
British laws while it's in mid-flight? It is really tempting to "reply"
and that's obviously what they want, so who am I to refuse a blow to the
head for people who ask for it so consistently?
8509 Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179586
MI5 Persecution: Dihydrocodeine 26/11/95 (6995)
From: michaelm@easynet.co.uk (michaelm@easynet.co.uk)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.media,uk.politics,alt.politics.british,alt.radio.uk
Subject: Re: Britain's Shame (repost)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 09:19:13 GMT
Organization: ------------
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <817374781.20251@michaelm.easynet.co.uk>
References: <DIM34L.755.0.bloor@torfree.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: michaelm.easynet.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: michaelm.easynet.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
bu765@torfree.net (Mike Corblymee) wrote:
| In June 1990 a horrifying campaign of harassment was initiated in London by
| what are believed to be elements of the security services. The harassment has
| continued for over five years, starting from the broadcast and print media,
| and encompassing abuse through set-up situations and by people in public
| places. It has been brought to the attention of the police and they are aware
| what is happening, but are not taking any action to prevent it.
<whopping great snip of 884 lines>
corley, you puzzle me!
i've narrowed your possible motives down to one or more of the following:
1) you work on behalf of the british government with a hidden agenda of
furthering the largely right wing (most to hide) censorship brigade's
cause, "a drug-crazed psycho posting dangerous nonsense - how very very
sad - but in the public interest,we must act." draft internet (censorship)
bills rolling off hm govt's banders at this very moment, I don't doubt it!
2) you work for the daily mail which has started to feel the "internet
pinch" as it suddenly clicks in the chronically adled minds of yet more and
more of their readers - that shudder-inducing realisation that the entire
editorial staff at the mail are scaremongering, imbecilic, blood-leeching ,
totalitarian twats - can any else sense a coordinated campaign on its way
??- "Mail urges (their) government to act - internet safety endangered by
uncontrolled surfing lunatics - boys hands blown off by internet maniacs -
net porn responsible for 392323rd rape " .net porn responsible for
392324th rape " .net porn responsible for 392325th rape " .net porn
responsible for 392326th rape " .net porn responsible for 392327th rape "
net porn responsible for 392328th rape " .net porn responsible for
392329th rape " <yawn> .net porn responsible for 392330th rape " .net porn
responsible for 392331st rape " .net porn responsible for 392332nd rape "
net porn responsible for 392333rd rape " <yawn> .net porn responsible for
392334th rape " .net porn responsible for 392335th rape " .net porn
responsible for 392336th rape " .net porn responsible for 392337th rape "
net porn responsible for 392338th rape " etcetera, straight from the old
nag's mouth..
lee-potter (and english), take particular note.. (how ever you two common
********* managed to avoid encarceration for what was, quite
evidently,wilful contempt of court in the regina v taylforth & knights
case, is frankly beyond me.. those dreaded and now all too familiar words
"endemic corruption" were muttered by at least one Q.C.
>3) you (at least) believe there's (some) substance to your claim(s) and you
>have a genuine axe to grind. If so, bloody well go for it, but scrape the
>heavy layer of steaming dung off the top (that's assuming you're even
>capable of distinguishing fantasy from reality.)
4) you (as an email address) are serving as some bizarre "educational"
programme orchestrated by the psychiatric industry - ever keen to justify
enforced electrical lobotomies, electroshock and dwugs .All poised for the
echo? - "corley frigging well needs lobotomising"
5) you're just clinically insane with absolutely no comprehension or
insight into the consequences you will possibly face as a result of
repeatedly posting what, certainly on the face of it, looks like complete
and utter bullshit.
6) you're some weirdo prankster(s) - probably a group of student
psychiatrists having a cheap crack whilst high as kites on pilfered
dihydrocodeine.
7) You are infact working for the ss yourself, gauging public awareness of
the extent and methods of bugging - infinity transmitters, microwave
surveillance devices, satellite tracking equipment, 'chipping' of black
crims, say no more.
8) You're fuelling the central usenet administration committee, who, it is
believed, are keen to see the introduction of a wide-reaching framework of
self-created powers relating to posting cancellation. (see the 'son of
RFC1036')
my bet's on (5) - but just fuck off corley- irritate the lard-arsed canucks
instead. The cia's financing of "professor" cameron's brain-washing
experiments in montreal.. would be a good starting point ... or perhaps
"professor" watts and his widely admired masterful double eye-jabbing trick
- a couple of wallops with an icepick. such a waste of perfectly edible
four year old hispanics !!!!.. Perhaps the old marylebone rd posse could
fill us in with a few more facts on this one...?? You are all on the .net
now ????? A very warm welcome :-) ... christmas rapidly approaching..
>business booming?? Do we all get a look in at flotation ??!!
======================================================
From: Gulliver <kst2co@herts.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.media,uk.politics,alt.politics.british,alt.radio.uk
Subject: Re: Britain's Shame (repost)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 18:25:32 +0000
Organization: University of Hertfordshire
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951126182156.16879B-100000@altair.herts.ac.uk>
References: <DIM34L.755.0.bloor@torfree.net> <817343873snz@objmedia.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.herts.ac.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
In-Reply-To: <817343873snz@objmedia.demon.co.uk>
Actually, upon thinking about Mike's story it reminds me of someone I
heard about who suffered from a persecution copmlex. He was an immigrant
from some Eastern Bloc country who believed that 30 years after he
emigrated the KGB were still after him. He would blame them if he
had difficulty unlocking his car for instance (he reckoned they were
putting something into the locks!).
Something is very wrong, probably in Mike's head but what the hell,
loonies make life more fun!
--
Angus Gulliver
=======================================================
Subject: Castrate the depraved MI5 buggers now
Newsgroups: uk.misc
Organization: Toronto Free-Net
>Something is very wrong, probably in Mike's head but what the hell,
>loonies make life more fun!
Something is very wrong when the security services abandon their usual
target of politicians and the well-known, to pursue the hitherto unknown
nonentities such as myself.
>corley, you puzzle me!
Why? Because of my pathological truthfulness?
>3) you (at least) believe there's (some) substance to your claim(s) and you
>have a genuine axe to grind. If so, bloody well go for it, but scrape the
>heavy layer of steaming dung off the top (that's assuming you're even
>capable of distinguishing fantasy from reality.)
Bloody well go for it I will.
I think the "standard spiel" is quite studded with facts actually.
There's plenty of "meat" there if the appropriate people can be motivated
to get their act together and pursue the case.
>my bet's on (5) - but just fuck off corley- irritate the lard-arsed canucks
>instead. The cia's financing of "professor" cameron's brain-washing
the lard-arsed canucks (?) are irritating me, but you don't want to hear
about that
>business booming?? Do we all get a look in at flotation ??!!
6995 Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179585
MI5 Persecution: A new Kafka? 3/10/95 (5481)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british,uk.media,uk.politics
From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Subject: Re: What it's like to be watched by the security services
Message-ID: <1995Oct13.225312.6514@ttinews.tti.com>
Sender: usenet@ttinews.tti.com (Usenet Admin)
Nntp-Posting-Host: soldev
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea
References: <DFy9tB.3JK.0.bloor@torfree.net> <813188298snz129.os2.7@blackcat.demon.co.uk> <DGE7uJ.8tF.0.bloor@torfree.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 22:53:12 GMT
Lines: 34
In article <DGE7uJ.8tF.0.bloor@torfree.net> bu765@torfree.net (Mike Corley) writes:
>
>Strangers in the street have recognized me on sight many times, and shown
>awareness of the current thread of abuse. To give you one example, in 1992
>I was seriously ill, and a manager at work somewhat humouroursly said that
>"it wasn't fair" that people were bullying me. A few days later, I
>attended for the first time a clinic in London as an outpatient, and on my
>way out was accosted by someone who asked if "they had paid my fare", with
>emphasis on the word "fare". He repeated the word several times in this
>different context; that they should have paid my "fare", each time
>emphasising the word.
>
>For two and a half years from the time their harassment started until
>November 1992 I refused to see a psychiatrist, because I reasoned that I
>was not ill of my own action or fault, but through the stress caused by
>harassment, and that a lessening of the illness would have to be
>consequent to a removal of its immediate cause, in other words a cessation
>of harassment. I also reasoned that since they were taunting me with jokes
>about mental illness, if I were to seek treatment then the abusers would
>think that they had "won" and been proved "right".
<I've deleted a lot, but I think this gives the idea>
I have so far not contributed to this tread, it has been unpleasant
in my opinion. However, I was struck by the resemblance of the above
passages to the writing of Franz Kafka.
Viz. while from an objective viewpoint it seems to refer to a abnormal
world, in a strange way it does resonate strongly at other levels.
Mr. Corley, have you tried to write for publication? I honestly think
it might lead somewhere positive.
Dick Jackson (serious for a change and expecting to get beaten up)
5481 Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179584
MI5 Persecution: Do they fear truth? 3/10/95 (3967)
From: flames@flames.cityscape.co.uk (Peter Krüger)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british,uk.politics,alt.politics.british
Subject: Re: What it's like to be watched by the security services
Date: 3 Oct 1995 15:38:20 GMT
Organization: Steinkrug Publications
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <44rldc$nrm@news.cityscape.co.uk>
References: <DFus24.HxB.0.bloor@torfree.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: aa040.du.pipex.com
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.6+
In article <DFus24.HxB.0.bloor@torfree.net>, bu765@torfree.net (Mike Corley) says:
>
>It completely mystifies me how it can be done. One night in June 1992 I
>was in a bed-and-breakfast in Oxford (some hard facts now, you?ll be
>bored of the generalisations). I booked the B&B from the office phone.
>So if they had the office bugged, or the phone system bugged, they could
>have heard the call.
If it was as late as 1992 then there was already a system available to
feed digital video out of a domestic TV via the mains. Each raster of
video was preceded by a sixteen bit address which identified the
television set. All that was needed was a decoder box plugged into the
mains somewhere between your room and the grid transformer. The signal
was decoded and then fed down to the phone line. They probably
even had a PC which enabled them to see the picture as well. By 1992 the
technology had moved on from slowscan to near real time video with the
advent of devices from Brooktree and Harris etc.
>the newsreader reacted. Breathed deeply, as if in psychological relief.
Maybe, or perhaps as if in:-
sci.psychology.announce
sci.psychology.consciousness
sci.psychology.journals.psyche
sci.psychology.journals.psycoloquy
sci.psychology.misc
sci.psychology.personality
sci.psychology.psychotherapy
sci.psychology.research
sci.psychology.theory
>I can't describe to you what goes through your mind when you know
>someone on TV is "seeing" you the viewer.
You?re doing OK so far.
>Your instinct is to switch the TV off, to change channel,
Not much point unless you switch off the TV at the mains
>like an ostrich,
Looks like Ostrich farming is going to catch on in the UK as you may have seen in
some of the other uk newsgroups
>The one time I did directly ask someone in the company who knew what was
>going on, first he spewed wool about, "well we have to think what is
>reality and what is proof anyway", then went into barefaced denial liar
>mode. It opens your eyes, if they can't say out loud what they keep
>saying in a disguised fashion, they must fear exposure, they must fear
>the truth.
wool_ barefaced_ denial_ liar_ eyes_ fashion_ fear_ exposure,
How is your mother these days Mike?
And BTW - How is the thesis coming along?
Peter Kruger
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.gold.net/flames/
flames@flames.cityscape.co.uk
3967 Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179583
MI5 Persecution: Grievous Bodily Harm 2/10/95 (2453)
From: jeibisch@revolver.demon.co.uk (James Eibisch)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british,uk.politics,uk.media,rec.arts.tv.uk.misc
Subject: Re: Auntie gets it in the emails
Reply-To: jeibisch@revolver.demon.co.uk
Date: Mon Oct 2 19:44:19 1995
lig0007@queens-belfast.ac.uk (TOM OATES) wrote:
>However, I'm pleased to say that, in the past couple of days, Mike Corley has
>stopped doing it and he appears (I say this cautiously) to be acting more
>reasonably. True, his postings are still based on paranoid delusions.
>However, so long as he doesn't go back to his old practices of multiple,
>identical, unreadable postings, I'm sure that most people on this newsgroup
>are willing to put up with him.
Time to come out of the woodwork of this thread (or variations
thereof)...
I find it annoying that discussion of Mike's situation is spread over
multiple threads - it makes it hard to follow, and especially to follow
up. If it could be consolidated into one thread on relevant newsgroups
(I'm reading this on uk.media btw).
I'm a little surprised with the volume of abuse Mike has received, but
believe strongly in freedom of speech if such a thing were to exist,
which clearly includes abuse as much as anything.
One thing which has been missing from this discussion is this simple
prognosis: that maybe Mike is right and that, despite his admitted
mental condition, there really is a campaign against him organised by
now-influential ex-students of his university.
Does anyone remember the TV series GBH, a fictional account of security
service and governmental power games? Fictional, certainly, but one of
the most powerful pieces of TV drama I've seen in many years,
fascinating and quite believable, even.
The fact is, as Mike has pointed out (oh, so many times :-), that the
security services _do_ have the influence, contacts, resources, and time
to conduct such a campaign of surveillance and even psychological terror
if they so chose. If they have this power, then they will surely use it
We still don't have all the facts from Mike, and the most pertinent here
I think would be about his time at university - the people who took
against him, the ringleaders. We need to know far more about Mike: his
political and social affiliations, put in context with his univeristy
years, the enemies he made, the reasons people ganged up on him at the
very early stages.
I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories generally, but I know there is
far more that goes on in the universities, old boy's clubs, civil and
secret services and Parliament than is ever made public.
Mike, I leave it to you to construct a _single_ thread in a relevant
newsgroup about this topic and keep to this thread to give us new
information and answer questions about your situation. Ignore the 'Mike
Corley is a nutter' posts unless they are relevant.
Give us more detail. Who knows? It may be true, stranger things have
happened.
_
James Eibisch ('v') N : E : T : A : D : E : L : I : C : A
Reading, U.K. (,_,) http://metro.turnpike.net/J/jeibisch/
=======
-------------------------------
Tue, 03 Oct 1995 04:01:34 uk.misc Thread 3 of 14
Lines 58 Re: Auntie gets it in the emails Respno 16 of 16
J.J.Smith@ftel.co.uk John J Smith at Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Ltd
In article <812677261.12841@revolver.demon.co.uk>,
James Eibisch <jeibisch@revolver.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>lig0007@queens-belfast.ac.uk (TOM OATES) wrote:
>One thing which has been missing from this discussion is this simple
>prognosis: that maybe Mike is right and that, despite his admitted
>mental condition, there really is a campaign against him organised by
>now-influential ex-students of his university.
We're trying to find this out on uk.misc. He's posted some *new* *huge*
replies (which I'd have to give up my day job to reply to), detailing
some things like:
a) Mike Corley is *not* his real name
b) Exactly what the "abuse" is (it seems be such things, as taking
completely unrelated newspaper articles, striving to make them a
disgusting insult, then redirecting against himself).
c) How he came to the conclusion.
I think he's doing rather better nowadays..
>Does anyone remember the TV series GBH, a fictional account of security
>service and governmental power games? Fictional, certainly, but one of
>the most powerful pieces of TV drama I've seen in many years,
>fascinating and quite believable, even.
This would be a point, apart from the fact that this was directed against
someone of political importance. I don't believe Mike is...
>The fact is, as Mike has pointed out (oh, so many times :-), that the
>security services _do_ have the influence, contacts, resources, and time
>to conduct such a campaign of surveillance and even psychological terror
>if they so chose. If they have this power, then they will surely use it
>at some point against some people.
It appears he has formed the Security Service conclusion, because they
are the only ones capable of doing it. A "searching for an enemy capable
of it".
>We still don't have all the facts from Mike, and the most pertinent here
>I think would be about his time at university - the people who took
>against him, the ringleaders. We need to know far more about Mike: his
>political and social affiliations, put in context with his univeristy
>years, the enemies he made, the reasons people ganged up on him at the
>very early stages.
I'm beginning to think that we never will get all the facts from Mike. We
may, however, get enough...
>Mike, I leave it to you to construct a _single_ thread in a relevant
>newsgroup about this topic and keep to this thread to give us new
>information and answer questions about your situation. Ignore the 'Mike
>Corley is a nutter' posts unless they are relevant.
Uk.misc, me boy...
Smid
==========================================================
From: flames@flames.cityscape.co.uk (Peter Kr|ger)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british,uk.media,uk.politics,alt.politics.british,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: What it's like to be watched by the security services
Date: Tue Oct 3 15:41:54 1995
In article <44rrrh$t6v@news.ox.ac.uk>, idaniel@jesus.ox.ac.uk (Illtud Daniel) says:
>
>And what do you mean when you state that the symptoms are too
>'textbook'? Are the textbooks wrong?
I think what is meant by 'textbook' is that some of the symptoms
of 'illness' displayed in the posts seem to have been lifted from
textbooks describing mental instability and personality disorders.
I must admit I haven't seen Mike's postings before has he only just
started posting again?
Peter Kruger
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.gold.net/flames/
flames@flames.cityscape.co.uk
2453 Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179582
MI5 Persecution: Goldfish and Piranha 29/9/95 (939)
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 <DFnE55.8tF.0.bloor@torfree.net>,
Mike Corley <bu765@torfree.net> 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
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
hated enemy.
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.
: Smid
==============================================
From: flames@flames.cityscape.co.uk (Peter Kr|ger)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british,alt.conspiracy,uk.media,uk.legal
Subject: Re: Mike Corley - a (helpful) suggestion
Date: Mon Oct 2 05:43:42 1995
In article <812551172snz@objmedia.demon.co.uk>, Snail <snail@objmedia.demon.co.uk> 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.
Hi Snail
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
readers monitor.
939 Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179581
SBS 2000 with ISA and VISTA
I have a user who needs access to pop mail from an external source and has
been happily using the vista firewall client and outlook 2003 to achieve
this.
He has now upgraded to Visat and Office 2007. As the existing firewall
client is not VISTA compatible he has upgraded to the latest ISA 2004
firewall client but is till unable to pop mail.
Questions:
IS the ISA 2004 firewall client useble with ISA 2000?
Has anyone else made this configuration to work??? Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179575
Share your Forte about the Latest in Computers & Internet
Have you submitted articles in koonji.com? Share your expertise in
computers and internet. The world needs Mavens like you who loves to
learn and gather information and share your knowledge to educate
others.
Koonji allows you to share, organize and enhance every kind of
information in a step by step how-to guide. It redefines the way
people search for and use information on the web. It's a great way to
educate others more about the computer and internet. Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179572
SBS 2000 to Windows 2003
I have read some posts sorta pertaining to this but is still unclear.
I have 2 servers. 1 SBS 2000 and 1 win2k3 standard
The 2k3 box is joined to the 2000 domain and is acting as a secondary domain
controller.
1) The goal would be to install Exchange 2003 on the 2k3 box and migrate all
users mailboxes to the new server.
2) Follow the KB to remove the first Exchange server from the domain
3) Move the FSMO roles to the new server
4) Decommission 1st server
Is there any reason that this would not work if the only thing to save is
the Exchange and AD Accounts.
The ultimate goal would be to add another new server as second domain
controller acting as file and print.
Thanks in advance! Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179566
will this work? BO2k domain to 2k3 standard domain - but on new hardware, so not 'upgrading' existing OS
I found no group specific to Microsoft BackOffice 2000 Server, this group is
as close as I found. Hopefully some of you are also familiar with it.
I currently have MS BackOffice 2000 Server accross 3 servers, 2 of which are
acting as domain controllers for a windows 2000 native mode domain. Exchange
2000 is also on one of the DC's and SQL 2000 is on the other DC. ISA lives
by itself on the 3rd. I now have 3 brand new servers on which I have Windows
Server 2003 R2 Standard licenses for. I intend on upgrading the existing
2000 domain to a windows server 2003 domain (one forest, one site, one
domain).
Below is my current plan, which I'm in the middle of researching for issues.
I found reference to not being able to upgrade a SBS 2000 domain to a
standard windows 2003 domain which is the first thing that may wrinkle my
plan... Although I did just find out, thankfully, that SBS 2000 is not the
same as BackOffice 2000 Server, I was not sure of this thinking it may have
just been a name change. So maybe this issue will not apply to me, but,
since I'm assuming this issue takes place when adprep.exe tries to update
the schema and sees the SBS custom objects, thus failing it, that the same
may happen for BackOffice since it also has a modified schema, like SBS.
my plan:
1) fresh install of windows server 2003 R2 on a new server (not trying to
upgrade existing backoffice 2000 machines)
2) join new 2k3 machine to the existing backoffice 2000 domain, then promote
it as an additional domain controller in the existing domain.
3) transfer all FSMO roles to the new 2k3 domain controller
4) dcpromo down (demote) the existing 2 backoffice 2000 domain controllers
back to member servers.
that leaves me with only the 2k3 domain controller at which point I assumed
I could raise the forest and domain functional levels to windows server
2003.
will it work? Not considering any exchange 2000 issues yet, thats next. So
assuming for now that there are no exchange servers involved, does the plan
for upgrading the domain look like it should work? I will be looking into
exchange issues next, as I have already seen refernce to them as well, but
one thing at a time... Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179564
Remove or bypass ISA Server from SBS 2000
I want to discontinue using ISA server and instead rely on a hardware firewall.
Can I simply use the internet configuration wizard to state I am only using
a single NIC and proceed from there or must I physically uninstall ISA.
Any sugestions as to how to proceed would be appreciated. Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179561
Terminal Services Logon
Windows 2000 SP4. New install and after a day or so the user is unable to
logon remotely to the server using terminal services. After a reboot the
issue is temporarily resolved. This has been an ongoing issu even after the
system has been reloaded several times. Event logs are not full and there
dosent seem to be an apparent reason for it to stop. The web server
functions normally. Local desktop logon is also restricted until restarted.
Shared file acces within the LAN is available. Any suggestions would be
greatly appreciated. Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179556
USER LAN Settings access.
Hi,
I have a group of users who need on a regular basis to be able to change the
LAN settings (more correctly enable or disable proxy settings) in Internet
Explorer.
I.E. Tools > Internet Options > Connections > LAN Settings.
I would like to create a group in AD to achieve this that I can then add the
necessary users to.
One way I am aware is to add these users to the Domain Admins group, I don't
want to do this!
Could anyone advise on this please?
Thanks
Gawen. Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179554
Must Read
An excellent resource on ISA Server providing in depth knowledge of
configuration, ISA Control service, Single-homed ISA server features
and much more. Worth reading!!
http://www.brsx.co.uk/Networking/Articles/ISAServer/isaart.asp Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179553
Moving shared folders
Hi
I've just added some additional space to my RAID array, and want to move
some existing shared folders/files to better balance disk space usage. How
can I do this without cutting off my users? Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179549
Limit external email access
Hi to all,
I have a user that the owner wants restricted external mail to Send/Receive
from only 2 specific external addresses (mother & sister). Does anyone know
of a way to do this? I can filter the "Receive" with Sunbelt Messaging Ninja
but I can't find anything on the "Send".
SBS 2000
Exchange 2000
Thanks,
Teddy Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179540
Great Computing Surface for Road Warriors
I'm sharing with you my secret of the ultimate comfort using a laptop.
Working with a laptop desk helps cool my laptop and it's a lot more
easier to handle. The painful experience of aching wrists, strained
neck and back is a story of the past with ergonomic typing and viewing
angles. I feel more at ease with the wide mousing area and raised
screen. It only pops-up one question in my mind "Why didn't I buy it
earlier? Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179539
MI5 Persecution: Goldfish and Piranha 29/9/95 (5481)
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 <DFnE55.8tF.0.bloor@torfree.net>,
Mike Corley <bu765@torfree.net> 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
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
hated enemy.
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.
: Smid
==============================================
From: flames@flames.cityscape.co.uk (Peter Kr|ger)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british,alt.conspiracy,uk.media,uk.legal
Subject: Re: Mike Corley - a (helpful) suggestion
Date: Mon Oct 2 05:43:42 1995
In article <812551172snz@objmedia.demon.co.uk>, Snail <snail@objmedia.demon.co.uk> 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.
Hi Snail
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
readers monitor.
5481 Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179538
MI5 Persecution: Watch Out, Forger About 27/9/95 (3967)
From: ray@ultimate-tech.com (Ray Dunn)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: An apology from Mike Corley
Date: Wed Sep 27 14:20:36 1995
In referenced article, David Wooding says...
>Well, Mike Corley might or might not have written the apologies, but I
>think not. I thought the following line both witty and imaginative.
>
>>>It was the razor blades stuffed down between the keys that told me.
Corley himself denies posting this "apology", but I'm impressed if it
is a forgery.
Here's the header of my received email. It looks very genuine except
for the fact that postings to newsgroups are directed through demon's
mail to news gateway, which is strange.
Also the message id is <m0sxbx2-000JEeC@bloor.torfree.net> which seems
to be in a different format from previous Corley postings, e.g.
<DFJJB3.6Ft.0.bloor@torfree.net
The mail seems to have been received directly from mail.torfree.net.
One way of telling for sure would be if anyone on the recipient list
contacted torfree, but did not publish any complaints on the newsgroups
- he would not have had access to their address in that case.
>Received: from SpoolDir by ULTIMATE (Mercury 1.20); 26 Sep 95 12:00:14
+0500
>Return-path: <bu765@torfree.net>
>Received: from mail.torfree.net by smtp.ultimate-tech.com (Mercury
1.20);
> 26 Sep 95 12:00:04 +0500
>Received: from bloor.torfree.net ([199.71.188.18]) by mail.torfree.net
> (/\==/\ Smail3.1.28.1 #28.6; 16-jun-94)
> via sendmail with smtp id <m0sxbyy-000LXSC@mail.torfree.net>
> for <ray@ultimate-tech.com>; Tue, 26 Sep 95 11:31 EDT
>Received: from torfree.net by bloor.torfree.net with smtp
> (Smail3.1.28.1 #6) id m0sxbx2-000JEeC; Tue, 26 Sep 95 11:29 EDT
>Message-Id: <m0sxbx2-000JEeC@bloor.torfree.net>
>Apparently-To: bu765@torfree.net, snail@objmedia.demon.co.uk,
> ray@ultimate-tech.com, Frank@acclaim.demon.co.uk,
> p.marshall@axion.bt.co.uk, me93jrb@brunel.ac.uk, >
mikeh@mordor.com,
> michael@everyman.demon.co.uk, tim@xara.co.uk,
> Alan.Holmes@brunel.ac.uk, uk.misc@news.demon.co.uk,
> uk-misc@news.demon.co.uk, uk-media@news.demon.co.uk,
> uk.media@news.demon.co.uk, uk.legal@news.demon.co.uk,
> uk-legal@news.demon.co.uk, alt-conspiracy@news.demon.co.uk,
> alt.conspiracy@news.demon.co.uk,
> soc.culture.british@news.demon.co.uk,
> soc-culture-british@news.demon.co.uk,
> soc-culture-canada@news.demon.co.uk,
> soc.culture.canada@news.demon.co.uk
>Newsgroups: uk.misc, uk.media, soc.culture.british,
soc.culture.canada, uk.legal, alt.conspiracy
>From: bu765@torfree.net (Mike Corley)
>Subject: Oops! Sorry!
>Organization: Toronto Free-Net
>X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
>Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1995 01:23:45 GMT
>Lines: 27
>X-PMFLAGS: 33554560
--
Ray Dunn (opinions are my own) | Phone: (514) 938 9050
Montreal | Phax : (514) 938 5225
ray@ultimate-tech.com | Home : (514) 630 3749
3967 Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179537
MI5 Persecution: Question and Answer 27/9/95 (2453)
In article <DFGxnF.Cr8.0.bloor@torfree.net>
bu765@torfree.net "Mike Corley" writes:
>>> ##: There were also a few other things said at the trial
>>> ##: relating to this which I won't repeat here; it was in the papers
>>> ##: at the time anyway. This quote and others said by and about this
>>> ##: witness were repeating things that had been said by and about
>>> ##: me at around that time.
When, where and by whom ? Let's have some details
that can be checked.
I'm not going to repeat them. They're hurtful to me because they contained abuse that was
directed against me by someone else at the time and which got picked up and thrown again
in the trial. It is a matter of record but I won't repeat it here.
>>> PM: >Who's character is being assassinated? It isn't clear from the post.
>>> PM: >Are we talking about Grenville Janner? I thought he was a spook
>>> PM: >himself? He's certainly able to hold his own on the issue you cite.
>>> ##: Mine, mainly. The reason for putting that episode at the top
>>> ##: of the posting is that they tried to kill two birds with one stone
>>> ##: at the Beck trial - they simultaneously put words into the mouth
>>> ##: of their invented "witness" to smear Janner, and repeated exactly,
>>> ##: word-for-word, stuff which had been said by and about me.
Why would "they" wish to assassinate your character?
Well, let's put it this way - just because this is the first time it's happened in this way,
from these people, on this scale, doesn't mean that it hasn't happened before, on a lesser
scale. At university there were people who quite overtly hated me and would have wished
something nasty to happen to me. Because of where I went making the wrong sort of enemies
is pretty deadly.
"They" would wish to assassinate my character because it had all been done before, and
because they knew I would not be able to react in any other way than I'd reacted previously.
>>> ##: They invaded my home with their bugs, they repeated what I
>>> ##: was saying in the privacy of my home, and they laughed that it
>>> ##: was "so funny", that I was impotent and could not even communicate
>>> ##: what was going on. Who did this? Our friends on BBC television,
>>> ##: our friends in ITN, last but not least our friends in Capital
>>> ##: Radio in London and on Radio 1.
Please give details of when, where and by whom these
comments were made, so that they can be checked.
This was four, five years ago... sorry, I don't remember. I can remember individual incidents,
words which were repeated by different people at different times in different locations.
Around the end of 1992 Private Eye rtan a front-cover with John and Norma Major, with
the title "Major's support lowest ever" and John saying to Norma "Come back norma" on the
front cover. What can you read in to that? Not a lot, seems like standard fare for PE.
The first time I saw it I was in the pub with some people from work. One was expressing doubts
to the other (let's call the first one Simon, shall we? and the second one Phil?) about
whether what was going on was right. Phil's answer was that if Private Eye was doing it
then it must be ok, "they're usually right".
A few days later, again near work, there were some students laughing in the street,
"Were you COMING BACK later? But I thought you said you were COMING BACK ha ha ha?"
Play on words, you see. Not very nice, either. I had start medication soon afterwards.
Clever people, these chaps who think up PE titles. Just slightly lacking in any
sense of morality.
>>> ##: How did they do this? I'll give you an example. About a year ago,
>>> ##: I was listening to Chris Tarrant (Capital Radio DJ among other
>>> ##: pursuits) on his radio morning show, when he said, talking about
>>> ##: someone he didn't identify, "you know this bloke? he says we're
>>> ##: trying to kill him. We should be done for attempted manslaughter"
>>> ##: which mirrored something I had said a day or two before.
>>> ##: Now that got broadcast to the whole of London - if any recordings
>>> ##: are kept of the shows then it'll be there.
What was the date of the broadcast ?
Out of 2 million plus listeners, why should you be
the only one that Tarrant was allegedly referring to ?
Sometyime in spring 1994. I can't remember the date, I heard the broadcast in the
car - I was going into the office from London that day and just happened to snap
on the radio, and hey presto! Mr Tarrant gives us the benefit of his excellent
understanding.
>>> ##: That's exactly what we did. We went to a competent, professional
>>> ##: detective agency in London, paid them over 400 quid to debug our house.
>>> ##: They found nothing.
What was the name of the detective agency and their
address ?
I don't see why I should tell you that, but they're in Yellow Pages; they're
a well-established outfit.
>>> PM: >What? Spend a quarter mil. a year to amuse themselves? And why not
>>> PM: >change every now and again? Why keep watching you? (Unless you _are_
>>> PM: >doing something, and I don't think you are, though you may have some
>>> PM: >deep, dark secret in your past.)
>>>
>>> ##: See the above.
Is there a deep dark secret in your past ?
Apart from "it's all happened before in a different way", no.
>>> ##: In a couple of cases people have even known my name - when I was in
>>> ##: London over Easter somebody (no idea who they were, just some bloke with
>>> ##: his girlfriend) called me by name - quite clearly, and my name is
>>> ##: distinctive.
Is your name truly Mike Corley, or are you using it as
an alias ?
It's an alias. I'm not English by ethnic origin. If someone manages to pronounce
my name as well as that guy did then they must have been really trying.
>>> ##: There's a little story behind this. First of all, in 1992 I worked
>>> ##: for a company where the people made clear they knew what was going on,
>>> ##: first of all directly (the very first evening I was there I went out to
>>> ##: the pub with them and the Technical Director said to another guy,
>>> ##: "is this the bloke who's been on TV?" "yeah, I think so")
Have you appeared, or been reported by name on TV ?
When, where and by whom ?
No. Never. Not directly.
>>> ##: Also, in summer 1992 I went on a trip abroad to Europe by coach,
What was the name of the coach company and your date
of departure ?
It was a national express coach. At dover we boarded a ferry for Holland somewhere.
The company that organized the trip went out of business some time ago, so they won't
have records of passengers - so we can't get any corroboration from anyone else
that way. We tried all that last summer, ran into a brick wall.
The other thing is in summer 1992 I was visibly ill, so other people in the
party might remember that more than anyone getting at me on the coach trip.
>>> ##: >>Yes, this gets me. I think the answer is that I was set up by
>>> ##: >>someone. I was very aware when this started back in 1990 that I
>>> ##: >>was being painted as a "threat" to which people had to "react"
Why were you being painted as a "threat"; is this related
to a "deep,dark, secret" ?
Aaaarrrrgh. I think I should make clear that that's their created justification
rather than the real reason. They started harassing first and then came up with the
reasons for it.
>>>
>>> ##: I think I know who set me up.
Who ?
Someone who knew me some time ago. Someone who would have been able to talk this
little campaign into existence.
>>> ##: The bloke can't even control his own mind without medicine.
Is this true ? What is the medication and dosage ?
Yes, I'm afraid so. Sulpiride, 200mg a day. It's designed to stop people
coming up with the sort of ideas you've heard here for the last few weeks.
Give him a higher dose!!
In the long term it causes tardive dyskinesia, tardive dementia and general
nasty stuff to your brain. So it's three years of sulpiride talking to you here.
>--
>john heelan
2453 Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179536
MI5 Persecution: Options 21/9/95 (939)
From: john heelan <john@lorca.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.misc,alt.current-events.net-abuse,alt.journalism
Subject: Re: CENSORHSIP IS IMMORAL, UNJUST AND WRONG
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 95 19:17:30 GMT
Organization: (Private)
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <811711050snz@lorca.demon.co.uk>
References: <DF8DMu.Dqu.0.bloor@torfree.net> <43qpdh$iki@news3.digex.net>
Reply-To: john@lorca.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: lorca.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29
You have to admit that Mike is persistent and obviously feels
deeply that he is being hounded by the "Security Services" and
there is a Conspiracy out to get him personally. If that is true,
then we should be concerned; if he is just paranoid, then we should
empathise with his sickness. What we should not do is to invite
censorship....that just could be implicitly joining in the
putative Conspiracy.
Let's look at Mike's potential options (and the alleged responses
he has received):
> 1. Complain to the Police: (their alleged response
> "Don't be silly, Sir"; Mike's rationale "They are part
> of the Conspiracy")
>
I don't think the police as an organisation are part of it. They're
certainly not the source.
The officer I spoke to at Easter clearly didn't know anything about it.
And that was at my local police station in London - if anyone in the
police knew you would think the people at your local cop shop would.
A couple of years ago I had to go into the station after a motoring
infraction, the guy I spoke to then said something about "brain like a
computer sir" which my suspicions latched on to - (I'm alleged to be a
programmer as some people reading this know) - but as per the usual
"can';t prove nuthin" and you ask yourself if you're just being stupid
suspecting on the basis of a straw
> 2. Complain to a Member of Parliament (Mike's rationale: "Can't
> because they are part of the Conspiracy")
>
I could do that actually. But he would probably tell me to go see the
police, for which see above.
> 3. Make it visible through the UK Press. (Mike's rationale:
> "Can't because they are part of the Conspiracy")
>
They are actually. There's a difference though in the way journalists
react to this stuff when they're "got to" by the security service.
This is completely giving the game away, but the trouble originally
started with my reading into stuff that was being written by Times
columnists, in particular our antagonistic friend Mr Levin.
But you see that some journalists are taking part in the conspiracy and
others are only doing it because their puppet masters have been feeding
them information which they can't allow themselves to ignore. The
security services have their hooks into the UK media, this case shows
that very explicitly. You also see how things get gradualkly wqorse with
a particular journalist; a couple of weeks ago Peter Tory in the Express
was writing about "nerds seeking their revenge on him through the Net",
guess what that was about.
> 4. Complain to the UK Security Services. (Mike's rationale: "Can't
> because they ARE the Cnspiracy")
>
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? If the fascist Gestapo bastards plot to
see you dead then who's going to deal with it? Not the security
services, that's for sure.
> 5. Make it visible through Internet: (Mike has done this
> suvccessfully; but any gainsayers are "part of the Conspiracy".
>
I don;t think you';re part of the consipracy if you refuse to believe or
email the postmaster. Those who do know are keeping their silence.
> 6. Complain to the Canadian National and State Governments. (Has
> Mike done this yet ?)
>
No. It's a UK problem so that's where it should be dealt with. The
perpetrators are UK residents, are unidentified, and would be difficult
to deal with through the Canadian courts.
Ditto the police in Canada, ditto the press - it isn't their problem,
it's caused by UK people against someone from the UK. Of course Canadian
laws are being broken relating to harassment and "stalking" which do not
exist in the UK, but the Canadian police do not have a very good record
of enforcing those laws anyway.
> 7. Complain to the Canadian Security Services (Has Mike done this
> yet ?)
>
> 8. Complain to the Canadian Press. (Has Mike done this yet ?)
>
I think if they didn't knoiw, they'd just think you were having
delusions; and if they did, then they would side with the people with the
power, the smiling English people with their knives out.
Remember, nobody uis going to side with the person who has less power in
a copfrontation. The team over here in Canada have the resources of their
organization behind them, other broadcasters etc in the UK would have
influence with their counterparts in Canada; after all, this was once a
British colony, there is still a feeling of "looking up to" the UK among
many Canadians, so if a team of security services arrives from the UK
with apparently limitless resources to pursue their target, people
over here will forget anything they ever knew about basic human rights
and go along with what they are told to do and how they are told to behave.
> 9. Complain to non-UK TV Watchdogs (Does Canada have an "Oprah
> Winfrey ? Has Mike done this yet ?)
>
> 10. Complain to the EC Court of Human Rights. (Has Mike done
> this yet ?)
>
> ........or...are 6,7,8,9,10 also all part of
> the Conspiracy ?
>
>
>
> --
> john heelan
939 Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179535
Email collected by POP connector but not being delivered
Hi all,
I have a customer whose POP3 connector is picking up the email from a global
POP3 mailbox, collects the messages but none of it is being delivered to the
users' mailboxes. It has been working fine for years up until this morning. I
have upped the logging to max and it appears to collect the messages ok but I
have no idea where they are going. Obviously this is quite a problem as it's
all going down a black hole effectively. Please see the event viewer entries
below.
Would really appreciated any help.
Thanks,
Andy
Event viewer messages:
The POP3 agent is going to open the mailbox <postmaster@domainname.co.uk> on
host <pop.clara.net> with the password <{ Secret Password }>. The
authentication method is: Clear Text Password
The delivery service is logging as a POP3 client on port 110
The POP3 host <pop.clara.net [80.168.70.82]> answered our connection with
<+OK CPOP vCPOP_2_3_1 on minos.uk.clara.net Ready for Action>
We have been granted access to <pop.clara.net [80.168.70.82]> logging as
<postmaster@domainname.co.uk>
There are 11 message(s) with a total of 4905557 byte(s)
A message was downloaded from the POP3 server. The message ID is:
MSG06072007-183052-1.MMD
(11 of the same messages)
The POP3 session transcript was:
<G>: +OK CPOP vCPOP_2_3_1 on minos.uk.clara.net Ready for Action
<C>: USER postmaster@domainname.co.uk
<S>: +OK
<C>: PASS <secret password>
<S>: +OK
<C>: STAT
<S>: +OK 11 4905557
<C> { Downloaded and deleted messages if neccessary. }
<C>: QUIT
<S>: +OK Take it EZ
The shared POP3 accounts have been checked for incoming messages Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179531
Veritas backup
At a client I have a SBS 2000 running where I want to backup both
files and Exchange to a USB-harddrive. FOr a very long time backup
from Veritas has been running like a dream, but for some reason it
stopped a couple of weeks ago.
I am able to do the full backup of the Exchange part and it will
succeed and finish to verify the backup. However, this is not the case
with the file share they are having - each time a backup is made from
this the server will crash (i.e. all icons dissapear and the logon
screen disappearr) and there is only the power swithc left to rescue
us - ane I don't belive this has been the intention from MS or
Veritas :-)
Any experiences like this or any ideas on where to start looking to
get my client start smiling again :-)
Peter Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179527
Custom Software Development
iTechArt Group - Custom Software Development and Offshore outsourcing
Company
http://www.itechart.com/
Offshore custom software development company iTechArt - Web site and
Content Management Solutions development, CMS consulting: Ektron,
Drupal and DotNetNuke
iTechArt Group provides high quality custom software development
services and offshore software development. On December 2006, iTechArt
Group became an authorized Microsoft Certified Partner. This means
that our company has been recognized by Microsoft for our vast
expertise and authorized to custom software development; provide IT
service consulting and custom business solutions.
Custom Software Development and Offshore outsourcing Company iTechArt
has worked together since 2003 to design build and deliver .NET Web
Content Management software solutions that help clients meet their
strategic objectives. We are agile oriented development partner able
to consistently deliver solid results.
iTechArt software development team assemblies specialists in the
development of custom software applications and offshore software
outsourcing services.
Working concepts of our company are based on proven approaches and
international standards used for custom software development such as
Capability Maturity Model Integration for Software Engineering (CMMI-
SW). In the same breath we have our own standpoint on software
development process management which is fully effective and
comprehensible for our clients.
iTechArt offers software development in the next main directions:
1. Custom Software Development (Offshore outsourcing for worldwide
based software development companies.)
2. Software Development for Digital Signage (Media content development
and remote displays / information kiosks Web-based software
application management.)
3. Web Site Development (E-commerce solutions, CMS/DotNetNuke/Ektron/
Drupal, Web 2.0/PHP/MySQL/AJAX, Flash/Action script/Flex and many
more.)
4. Offshore Development Center (Dedicated development team of software
developers. Our offshore development centers operate as an extension
to clients' existing software engineering business.)
Contact iTechArt ( http://www.itechart.com/ )about custom software
development, end-to-end software solutions, outsourcing software
development, custom DotNetNuke module development, DotNetNuke
consulting, dotnetnuke hosting, first class Java and .Net developers,
software application design, software testing, Quality Assurance,
functionality testing and defect analysis, performance and stress
testing, usability testing, Microsoft Media Services and Adobe Media
Flash Server solutions, digital signage solutions and custom
development, Ektron CMS400.NET developers, CMS, .NET Web Content
Management software solutions
Web:
http://www.itechart.com/
http://www.itechart.com/Pages/ProductsServices/HowWeWork.aspx
http://www.itechart.com/Pages/ProductsServices/BusinessModels.aspx
http://www.itechart.com/Pages/ProductsServices/CustomSoftwareDevelopment.aspx
http://www.itechart.com/Pages/ProductsServices/DotNetNukeModuleDevelopment.aspx Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179525
SBS 2000 transition to standard server
Hi.
One of the sites that I look after is currently running SBS 2000 but due to
the company restructure and site locations I have started to rebuild the
network into a single domain structure. This is the problem. I am going to
purchase a new server with 2003 R2 standard edition and run all the usual
services from it. It will be part of the new domain, location.groupname.local
but I want the old SBS server to also join the domain to be the email, print
and archive server as well as a second DC. Now I know I can buy a transition
pack that will upgrade to SBS 2003 R2 but can i get a pack that will upgrade
to 2003 R2 standard plus does it still retain Exchange do I loose it? Also if
I can what are the pit falls?
Thanks for your time.
Jason Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179521
URLScan has entries I can't understand
Hello, all.
This SBS2000 system has about 15 users, and the URLSCAN.yymmdd.LOG file is
usually empty or contains obvious entries. However, I've noticed lately
some regular entries that I can't account for.
Two workstations are involved. Every day, at 2:15 AM, one client's inside
IP address is listed as the source for these in the URLSCAN log:
Raw URL='/COMPANY.bat'
Raw URL='/COMPANY.cmd'
Raw URL='/COMPANY.exe'
Raw URL='/COMPANY.com'
Raw URL='/COMPANY.bat'
Raw URL='/COMPANY.cmd'
Raw URL='/COMPANY.exe'
Raw URL='/COMPANY.com'
Raw URL='/CLIENT%20FILES.bat'
Raw URL='/CLIENT%20FILES.cmd'
Raw URL='/CLIENT%20FILES.exe'
Raw URL='/CLIENT%20FILES.com'
The other workstation is listed as the source for these, always at 2:30 AM:
Raw URL='/Client%20Files.bat'
Raw URL='/Client%20Files.cmd'
Raw URL='/Client%20Files.exe'
Raw URL='/Client%20Files.com'
There is a mapped drive from every workstation to a share on the SBS machine
called "\\servername\Client Files", and COMPANY is a sharename on the SBS
that may be mapped on the workstation that is issuing those commands. I
certainly don't know what the BAT CMD EXE COM series means except it looks
like it's looking for something to run.
There's no untoward behavior on the network or any of the workstations
(including these), so I suspect this is something benign.
Can anyone explain where this is coming from?
Thanks. Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179519
forex business
You can earn upto $250 per day from currency business. for more
details visit
http://affiliates-online.blogspot.com Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179512
forex business
You can earn upto $250 per day from currency business. for more
details visit
http://affiliates-online.blogspot.com Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179511
How do I remove a contact?
Hi all,
I created a contact on the server with an email address of
advice@domainname.com but now I need to give it to a user instead but I can't
as it already exists in the domain.
How do I delete it so I can reassign it to a user? I've tried looking but
can't find it anywhere.
Thanks in advance,
Andy. Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179510
DHCP
I am having problems with clients trying to join the domain. When they try to
join they are showing little or no connectivity on their network connections.
XP clients with sp 2. When I go to the server I show a blue exclamation mark
on the server in the DHCP scope. When I look at the address leases I only
show ten active leases however when I right click on the server and click on
the statistics it shows 202 of 202 leases taken and 100% taken. I am stumped.
Something is not releasing the leases. All VPN clients can connect to the
server no problem. Are the VPN connections not releasing?
--
Mark Hickinbotham Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179508
Mailbox sharing / generic mailbox question
Hi there,
My client has a pop box called advice@domainname.com. This is pulled down
and routed to an individual users mailbox via the POP connector.
When this user is on holiday other users have to log on as this user to
check for any mail coming to the advice mailbox. How do I give other users
access to their mailbox? I have looked in the user account properties
Exchange tabs but can't find the same options as available in SBS 2003.
A better alternative long term would be to create a generic user called
advice, have the email routed there and then give the other users permission
to open that mailbox as well, but I need to know how to do the permission bit
first I guess.
Any help appreciated,
Thanks,
Andy. Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179505
"User" cannot see newly created partitions
Ran Disk Management "remotely" and sliced up the drive.
created a 90 gig D: and a 10 gig P:
logged off and on "remotely" and Administrator can see C: D: P: and F:
(cdrom)
logged in "remotely" as a User and cannot see D: and P:
thanks for any pointers. Tag: slow disk response Tag: 179496