| |
Main
Date: 18 Nov 2007 00:33:20
From:
Subject: MI5 Persecution: Post Office 14/11/02 (25489)
|
Balham Hill Post Office (14/Nov/2002)
Certainty level: 80%
By mid-November 2002 the persecution had again dwindled, as happens sometimes, when along came this item.
I spent most of my time at home, going occasionally to the shops in Clapham South, or into town to meet people. On this particular
Thursday I only left the house once, for less than fifteen minutes to post a letter (special delivery, because my ordinary and
recorded delivery letters had been disappearing en route for some time - not that anyone would accuse MI5 of such petty harassment).
At the post office counter there was an Asian guy talking into his mobile phone and grinning away. There is a probability that
his comments were directed at me, as I will explain further. The second segment of audio closely follows the first segment.
"you'll do it today? let's meet about 3 o'clock and have some lunch. I got stuff to do and I'll go to the bank,
get this sh.. fucking moving yeah. Even just a little bit do something. He doesn't understand, you know what it is,
I don't want to tell him again cause then he might, he thinks we're having a go at him, I'm not having a go at him,
I'm explain to him"
Explanation: The guy is talking about some bloke who is unnamed, however it might be interpreted as being in code about me.
"I'll go to the bank"... variously interpretable, either literally, or as sounds-like "wank" which has been a consistent
theme in MI5's abuse. "get this shit fucking moving"... abuse... could be interpreted as MI5's criticism of my inertness.
The state spends hundreds of thousands of pounds a year - they want to see some result, not just neutrality and ordinariness.
"he doesn't understand"... MI5 claim I'm stupid... but the numbers and bits of paper prove otherwise, so perhaps what that
is really about is their agents' subconscious perception of themselves.
"having a go at him"... sounds like they're having a go at me, doesn't it? You might take the audio at face value and assume
it's about some other guy, but it's normal MI5 procedure to pretend to be talking about someone else, and make the content of
the message very relevant to me, or their perception of me.
"for some reason it doesn't get into his head, I don't know why... he's lost it completely, hasn't he"
What reason is there for it not getting into his (my) head? Stupidity is implied. Also implied is that it does get into his head;
we're intentionally causing him damage. He's lost it completely... for some time I have suffered from OCD... lost it completely
is the persecutors' observation of my illness, which they see through the surveillance on my home, which they caused.
25489
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------- >>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
|
|
| |
Date: 18 Nov 2007 15:08:43
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Checkmate, Atheists!
|
<EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com > wrote in message
news:fhoc97$3f6$3@reader1.panix.com...
> In misc.survivalism Curly <curly.is.not@home.com> wrote:
>
>> You can't argue religion with crazymotherfuckers, they're insane and it
>> makes you nuts trying to make sense of their babbline.
>
> I just wish that they would accept that thier beliefs are based on faith.
> There's nothing wrong with that. Faith is a good thing in certain
> contexts.
>
> But when they try to claim that there is some kind of evidence, or logic,
> or sense to it all, then they tend to become a problem for rational folks.
Are you aware that the present theories can't explain why the Sun doesn't
produce enough neutrinos? If something as basic as that can't be explained
what the hell makes you think that any of it has a sound footing?
|
| | |
Date: 19 Nov 2007 01:42:34
From:
Subject: Re: Checkmate, Atheists!
|
In misc.survivalism Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> >
> > But when they try to claim that there is some kind of evidence, or logic,
> > or sense to it all, then they tend to become a problem for rational folks.
> Are you aware that the present theories can't explain why the Sun doesn't
> produce enough neutrinos?
No, I wasn't.
If something as basic as that can't be explained
> what the hell makes you think that any of it has a sound footing?
Because so much of it CAN be explained, and because so much of it produces
testable and verifiable theories.
Is it your claim that no science has a sound footing? Or what?
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
|
| | |
Date: 18 Nov 2007 18:30:01
From: Carl Sundquist
Subject: Re: Checkmate, Atheists!
|
"Joseph Gwinn" <joegwinn@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:joegwinn-DA9A91.18312818112007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>>
>> Are you aware that the present theories can't explain why the Sun doesn't
>> produce enough neutrinos? If something as basic as that can't be
>> explained
>> what the hell makes you think that any of it has a sound footing?
>
> Actually, the neutrino deficit problem has been solved, although it took
> something like thirty or forty years.
>
> It turns out that neutrinos have a very tiny mass, which causes them to
> change between the three types that exist, so a beam of one kind will
> soon become an equal mixture of the three kinds. (I don't pretend to
> understand the math and physics, but I think someone got a Nobel Prize
> for solving the "solar neutrino problem".) The original detectors of
> solar neutrinos only responded to one kind, and so saw only 1.3 of the
> expected flux.
>
Results 1 - 10 of about 114,000 for solar neutrino problem, nobel. (0.15
seconds)
|
| | |
Date: 18 Nov 2007 18:31:28
From: Joseph Gwinn
Subject: Re: Checkmate, Atheists!
|
In article <13k1hft5gsldm62@corp.supernews.com >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> <EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
> news:fhoc97$3f6$3@reader1.panix.com...
> > In misc.survivalism Curly <curly.is.not@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >> You can't argue religion with crazymotherfuckers, they're insane and it
> >> makes you nuts trying to make sense of their babbline.
> >
> > I just wish that they would accept that thier beliefs are based on faith.
> > There's nothing wrong with that. Faith is a good thing in certain
> > contexts.
> >
> > But when they try to claim that there is some kind of evidence, or logic,
> > or sense to it all, then they tend to become a problem for rational folks.
>
> Are you aware that the present theories can't explain why the Sun doesn't
> produce enough neutrinos? If something as basic as that can't be explained
> what the hell makes you think that any of it has a sound footing?
Actually, the neutrino deficit problem has been solved, although it took
something like thirty or forty years.
It turns out that neutrinos have a very tiny mass, which causes them to
change between the three types that exist, so a beam of one kind will
soon become an equal mixture of the three kinds. (I don't pretend to
understand the math and physics, but I think someone got a Nobel Prize
for solving the "solar neutrino problem".) The original detectors of
solar neutrinos only responded to one kind, and so saw only 1.3 of the
expected flux.
The issue is pretty clearly explained in Sky and Telescope over the last
few yeaars, and I assume also in Scientific American et al.
Also, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino_problem >.
Joe Gwinn
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Nov 2007 18:40:04
From: Ed Huntress
Subject: Re: Checkmate, Atheists!
|
"Joseph Gwinn" <joegwinn@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:joegwinn-DA9A91.18312818112007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <13k1hft5gsldm62@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> <EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
>> news:fhoc97$3f6$3@reader1.panix.com...
>> > In misc.survivalism Curly <curly.is.not@home.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> You can't argue religion with crazymotherfuckers, they're insane and
>> >> it
>> >> makes you nuts trying to make sense of their babbline.
>> >
>> > I just wish that they would accept that thier beliefs are based on
>> > faith.
>> > There's nothing wrong with that. Faith is a good thing in certain
>> > contexts.
>> >
>> > But when they try to claim that there is some kind of evidence, or
>> > logic,
>> > or sense to it all, then they tend to become a problem for rational
>> > folks.
>>
>> Are you aware that the present theories can't explain why the Sun doesn't
>> produce enough neutrinos? If something as basic as that can't be
>> explained
>> what the hell makes you think that any of it has a sound footing?
>
> Actually, the neutrino deficit problem has been solved, although it took
> something like thirty or forty years.
>
> It turns out that neutrinos have a very tiny mass, which causes them to
> change between the three types that exist, so a beam of one kind will
> soon become an equal mixture of the three kinds. (I don't pretend to
> understand the math and physics, but I think someone got a Nobel Prize
> for solving the "solar neutrino problem".) The original detectors of
> solar neutrinos only responded to one kind, and so saw only 1.3 of the
> expected flux.
>
> The issue is pretty clearly explained in Sky and Telescope over the last
> few yeaars, and I assume also in Scientific American et al.
>
> Also, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino_problem>.
>
> Joe Gwinn
Maybe Tom needs a bigger library. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Nov 2007 09:27:39
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Checkmate, Atheists!
|
Ed Huntress wrote:
> Maybe Tom needs a bigger library. d8-)
He doesn't need a bigger library, he's got his very own universe.
|
|
