This Whacko must be a Heli flyer.It's the only flying group that he hasn't contaminated. <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > Eye Say, and Lord Gnome Answers > > My interactions with Private Eye started in May 1995, shortly after I'd > started bleating on usenet. I tried to get the Eye > interested in my case, as I thought they more than anyone have their > finger on the pulse, and would surely already know > something about my case. In my first email to them, entitled "pas de > bouteille?" (wot no bottle?), I asked if they had the > nerve to publish what was known to many thousands of people. Their email > flunky answered; > > Date: Thu, 11 May 95 13:40 BST-1 > From: [email protected] (Private Eye) > Subject: Re: pas de bouteille? > > In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> > Bottle? Dunno really - but I've passed your mail on to the Ed for his > consideration. > > Steve Mann > (strobes) > ========================================================== > Date: Mon, 15 May 95 12:51 BST-1 > From: [email protected] (Private Eye) > Subject: Re: hello again > > In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> > Hello yourself... > > Thanks for the email. Unfortunately, I can't say whether or not the Eye > will do anything with this... I'm only the messenger. As the only > computer-literate peron in the Gnome organisation, I get to read all the > email and then pass it on to the Editor. > > Sorry -- not very helpful, I know. > > Steve Mann > (strobes) > > The following year I gave PE another little prod, which yielded the > following; > > Date: Tue, 13 Feb 96 11:38 GMT > From: [email protected] (Private Eye Magazine) > Subject: Re: Previous communication > > In-Reply-To: <199602102320.SAA26182@[snip]> > Sorry not to reply sooner... we've been swamped with email and I have > very little time to answer it. > > However, the editor sees all the email received here and I'm afraid he > hasn't expressed an interest in your story so I can only assume that he > feels it isn't for us. > > Sorry. > strobes > > Given that I couldn't provide the evidence to persuade the Eye of the > credibility of my claims, I did the next best thing, > which was to take out classified adverts in their "Eye Say" and "Eye Tech" > columns. My motivation for doing so is obvious; > the Eye is read both by many thousands of ordinary folk, but also makes > its way into the homes and consciousness of the UK's > political and media elite. It is also a known favourite with "Five". What > better way of taking the fight to the enemy? > > The first small ad appeared on 10 Jan 1997 in issue 915 in "Eye Say". It > ran in that column on 24/1/97 and 7/2/97. On 21/2/97 > it ran in "Eye Tech", and on 7/3/97 and 21/3/97 again in "Eye Say". > > I then changed the ad's wording to read "BBC Newsreaders Conspiracy", and > the new wording ran in "Eye Say" from 4/4/97 issue 921, > 18/4/97 to 2/5/97. The word "xenophobic" in the first advert had been > intended to convey the sense of exclusion through the bigotry > of my enemies, both on the basis of race and mental condition, but it > seemed a bit too non-specific. "BBC Newscasters Conspiracy" was > a little more immediate, although readers had to actually wade through the > website to find out what it was that the newscasters were > conspiring to do. > > My next effort tried to spice up the text. "MI5/BBC Conspiracy" ran for > six issues in "Eye Say", from 5/9/97 issue 931 until 31/10/97. > I suppose there is something a little sad about somebody who knows he has > mental illness, placing adverts about a conspiracy in which > MI5's watchers enable BBC newscasters to personally and directly > communicate with him while reading the news. It is pretty sad, but > unfortunately it is also true, both in the objective reality we all > inhabit, as well as in my own mind. > > There followed a hiatus of about a year until I resumed advertising on 2 > October 1998. I paid over ꌲ00 for six months advertising > of the new improved text "MI5 Persecution, BBC Newscasters Spying on my > Home". This text ran from issue 960 until issue 972 (19 March > 1999) in "Eye Say". > > Private Eye's editor Ian Hislop denies knowing anything about my case, as > the following email illustrates. > > Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 14:10 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) > From: [email protected] (Private Eye) > Subject: Re: PLEASE ANSWER - THANK YOU > CC: [email protected] > Reply-To: [email protected] > > Sorry to take so long to answer. As soon as the editor > returned from holiday Steve went away. Steve is still away > and so I am answering your letter. > > I have asked the editor and he knows nothing about any > conspiracy between M15 and the BBC. > > Hope this helps. > > Mary Aylmer > Private Eye > > I must say I'm quite surprised he knows nothing; the "Eye" is usually well > clued up on what's going on. > > 768 > > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >