INFO-VAX Wed, 26 Dec 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 708 Contents: M I-5,Persecu tion Fou r Year s of M I5 Persecut ion P osts on Internet New s M'I-5'Pers ecution Compari ng the MI5 Persecution w ith Ge rman Final Solu M,I`5,Per secution , M I5 W aste T axpayer Mi llions on Pointless Hate -Campaig M-I,5-Persecution - BBC N ewscasters Li e & D eny Th eyre Wat ching Me Question about INSTALLing shared images Re: Question about INSTALLing shared images Re: Question about INSTALLing shared images Re: Question about INSTALLing shared images Re: Question about INSTALLing shared images Re: Question about INSTALLing shared images Re: Question about INSTALLing shared images ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Dec 2007 09:00:36 GMT From: emimiefi@bigfoot.com Subject: M I-5,Persecu tion Fou r Year s of M I5 Persecut ion P osts on Internet New s Message-ID: Four Years of "MI5 Persecution" Posts. on Internet Newsgroups For approximately. the first three years of the MI5 persecution, from June 1990 until late 1992, I kept as quiet as possible, in the hope that by. not reacting, MI5s interest in me would decrease and they. would simply go away of their own accord. This is the sort of behaviour. some people employ against bullies; if the bullies. arent getting a reaction, then they might simply go. away and victimize someone else. Unfortunately, this tactic. didnt work. The quieter I became, the more shrill and. hysterical the noise from the Security Service operatives. For about. two years I didnt watch TV news at all. Yet this only heightened their obsessed. fixation; they continued to follow me wherever I went, they continued. to induce harassment at work by managers and fellow workers, and they continued. to encourage me to commit suicide. They seemed to regard my refusal to react. as a crime which they would have to "put right" by ever more extreme forms of. abuse. Finally, in 1995, I changed. tactics radically. Since late 1994 I had had accounts with internet providers in Ontario, Canada. I. discovered the cornucopia of internet. newsgroups, on every topic from consumer electronics, to politics and legal topics, and I. discovered online services such as Compuserve and AOL. In May 1995,. I made the first posting to the conspiracy newsgroup, on the subject of. "BBCs Hidden Shame". BBC's. Hidden Shame The internet newsgroup discussion, which. has now reached its fourth anniversary, started with an article. in alt.conspiracy, which I reproduce here. Date: Thu May 4 18:27:24. 1995 Newsgroups:. alt.conspiracy Subject:. BBC's Hidden Shame Remember the two-way televisions in George Orwell's 1984? The. ones which watched you back? Which you could never get rid of,. only the sound could be turned down? Well the country which brought Orwell into the world. has made his nightmare follow into the. world after him. Since 1990 the British have been waging war against one of their own citizens using surveillance to invade privacy and a campaign of abuse in. the transmitted media in their efforts to. humiliate their "victim". And the most remarkable thing about it is that what. they do is not even illegal - the UK has. no laws to protect the privacy of its citizens, nor does it proscribe harassment or. abuse except in the case of racial abuse. A lot of people. in England know this to be going on, yet so far they have maintained perfect "omerta"; not a sound, not a squeak has escaped into the English press, and. for all the covert harassment absolutely nothing has come. out into the public domain. Have the British gone mad?. I think we should be told At this point, I did not name MI5 as my persecutors. I was still. unsure that they were the ones. responsible for the "psychological terrorism". In followup posts however I did name. them; and the persecutors have never denied the claim; so I. think my guess is valid. (The Security Service Tribunal in 1997 have said "no determination in your favour. was made", but it is a well established fact that MI5 lies routinely to. the Tribunal which has never found. in favour of a plaintiff, so no conclusions can be drawn. from this.) This first. post was made to alt.conspiracy, but further posts were made to the UK-local newsgroups, in particular uk.misc. but also uk.legal and uk.politics (which. is now called uk.politics.misc). Some time ago I tried to. take the battle to the Compuserve forums, UKPOLITICS (which is now called UKCURRENT -. current affairs), but my articles were censored by the forum operators. Such censorship is impossible on the internet. newsgroups. Police Refuse to. Act I have. complained several times to the Metropolitan Police, who have each time. refused to help. From:. Green 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. . 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. 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. Most recently, I wrote in March 1999 to Charing Cross. Police Station CID.. They did not acknowledge or reply to my letter. When I phoned them up, the detective Id written to treated me to a sadly. not unusual display of police. bigotry, with an uneducated rant about "your paranoid rubbish". It would be nice to think that such. uneducated bigotry is something other than wholly typical of police behaviour, but unfortunately that is. an illusion that is. rapidly dispelled. Uncorruptible Jon Snow of. Channel Four News From previous articles the reader will know what I. think Jon Snow has recently been watching me. while he reads Channel Four News in the evening. Recently I digitized a. few moments of one such broadcast, where his face twists into. a smile, without there being anything in the news broadcast to cause merriment. Here is a usenet. post from some time ago on MI5s "bought and paid for" tools. in the so-called "free" press. Peter Harding (harding@ermine.ox.ac.uk). wrote: : I was at speakers' corner on Sunday. There was. one chap who was bellowing : about something or other, I don't know what,. but one thing he said to : someone. caught my ear: : "BBC, MI5,. same thing." Can't disagree with that. sentiment. Wasn't it documented that MI5 sometimes "bought" journalists and. broadcasters? I remember reading a. report by some jouralist who had been offered an extra tax-free income by MI5. to become their covert mouthpiece, and had refused. ............................................................................. > : >mouthpiece, and. had refused. >. : > : It was Jon Snow. of Channel 4. > > Was it. reported in any of the papers? It has been reported several times. The most recent was in Private. Eye, a few months back. As. I recall they also wanted information from him; journalists would. be a natural choice for members of the Security Service and. the Secret Intelligence Service for information sources. > It might be interesting to see what he. had to say regarding their >. attempt to recruit him. He was most concerned. that many others would have accepted such an offer. However, we can probably make an. educated guess as to some of those who accepted: Nigel West (Rupert. Allason, MP) and Chapman Pincher would. come near to the top of the list. -- \/ David Boothroyd. Socialist and election analyst.. Omne ignotum pro magnifico. British Elections and. Politics at http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~laws/election/home.html I wish I was in North Dakota. Next General. Election must be before 22nd May '97 The House of Commons now : C 324, Lab 272, L Dem 25,. UU 9, PC 4, SDLP 4, SNP 4, UDUP 3, Ind 1, Ind UU 1, Spkrs 4. Government. majority = 1. Telephone Tate 6125. Corrupt Security. Service agents steal millions from taxpayers Money is of course. a factor in the grand equation which is the MI5 persecution. It costs money for the Security Service to "buy" people. in the media etc. But that is only a small part of their. expenditure of taxpayers resources. Most of the expenditure is directly on. the salaries if the agents involved; and in this post I put. forward the theory that MI5 are. trying to draw out their involvement for as long as possible, very cynically, to maximise their income and line their. own pockets. At. each stage they have tried to pretend that I am something out of the ordinary. Either I was very stupid ("he's an idiot") or very clever ("he's like a. genius"). Either I was a threat to Western civilization (Levin once referred to me. as the next Hitler) or. I was completely defenceless ("a soft toy"). Now, it should be obvious to any person with common-sense that I am not out. of the ordinary in any. way. I have an IQ which is average for the Web, I am racially white European, and there are plenty of other people with schizophrenia. or epilepsy out there who haven't. been targeted for MI5 attention, so why me? I. think the answer is that the MI5 agents who harass me have cynically exploited the situation by painting me as extraordinary in order. to assure themselves of well-paid employment. funded by the ordinary British taxpayer. To put it bluntly, they are stealing millions of pounds from the taxpayer to. feed their own pockets. This assertion is supported by the observation that it's the same agents who. are doing the harassment. Six months ago in a local hospital I was harassed by someone. whose face I had seen (he had. stared straight at me aggressively, at the time I just thought it was some nutter but it turns out he was one. of "them") aboard a KLM flight a couple of years ago.. It's presumably been the same people most of the time. I've seen the way contractors act when they don't want their positions. terminated. Would these agents really want to lose their well-paid. employment harassing me? Presumably they are promising their bosses a "breakthrough" (ie. my demise) real-soon-now and have been for the last seven. years, while all the while these MI5 agents skim millions off the. taxpayer. I wouldn't mind a job like. that. Perhaps if I persecute myself a little bit, like standing in front of a mirror and shouting. mindless obscenities, do you reckon I'd get a slice of. the caky Service Tribunal. This year Nick Brooks, current Tribunal Secretary, confirmed to. me that he could not think of a single case where the Tribunal had found. in favour of a complainant. Here is my usenet post. from two years ago. Subject: MI5: "It. wasn't us" Newsgroups:. uk.misc,uk.legal Organization:. Toronto Free-Net "The Security Service Tribunal have now. investigated your complaint and have asked me to inform you that no. determination in your favour has been made on your. complaint." Signed. ER Wilson, Tribunal Secretary Well that's a relief then. All that spamming for nothing eh.. Gaw blimey, if they say they're. not doing it then it can't be them, can it? In a recent letter to Mr Brooks I expressed the. opinion that the Tribunal were unable to fulfil their responsibilities in the face. of MI5 falsehoods. Nevertheless, I do intend to make another. complaint to the Tribunal in the near future, despite the Tribunal appearing to. be a toothless. watchdog. Discrimination. against a Unit Minority MI5 have been very clear in their instructions as to. what I should do. They have openly shouted at me the. word "suicide", and also from the other abuse it is clear that they want my existence. terminated. This point is covered in. more detail in a previous article. The following post describes the xenophobic. nature of MI5s campaign against me. They have refined their bigotry down to. a unit minority, yet they make use of the discrimination against the. mentally ill which is a feature of current British. society. Subject:. Re: MI5 says "Kill Yourself" Newsgroups:. uk.misc,uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.media References:. <53eeev$cmg@axalotl.demon.co.uk> Organization:. Toronto Free-Net Distribution: iain@hotch.demon.co.uk (Iain. L M Hotchkies) wrote: >Indeed. If you've ever. had a 'conversation' with someone suffering >from florid schizophrenia, you'll know how difficult it can be. to >'argue'. with them. I don't. have florid symptoms. But I'm in a difficult situation, because those people who don't know, aren't going to believe, and. those who do, they just go along with the crowd.. It's never a good idea to go against the grain, and the grain. here is defined by interests in the establishment and the media. Even people who could say out loud what was happening won't, because. then there's a risk that they'll. be seen as traitors and ostracised. Usually this type of. 'hidden abuse' is racial and targetted at a racial minority within a country. You. keep the minorities out of the good jobs, but you don't admit discrimination exists. It happens everywhere, not just. in Britain. The persecution. that is going on now is in reality a refined form of racism. Instead of "nigger" it's "nutter",. and abusing the mentally ill is still socially acceptable today. In 50 years it might not be, but today. there isn't any social or legal. sanction against it. So really they've. refined racial harassment down to a minority of one. The words may be different,. but the methods are the same. 3416 ------------------------------ Date: 26 Dec 2007 08:33:29 GMT From: vmvfve@bigfoot.com Subject: M'I-5'Pers ecution Compari ng the MI5 Persecution w ith Ge rman Final Solu Message-ID: MI5 Persecution Update: Friday 16. April, 1999 If You. Intend To Reply, Please Read This Please.... keep your response to one page!. Faxes over a page or two. will be deleted without being. read. BBC newscaster. Nicholas Witchell cant stop himself laughing During 1990-91. there were very many instances of "interactive television" where newscasters and other TV presenters saw on. a screen before them. what was happening in my home, and reacted, frequently by laughing at me. During this period I unfortunately did. not record these programmes. For. the last year or two, I have been recording everything I watch, and there has been. a drastic decrease in such incidents. However, on occasion, television. presenters do still engage in "interactive watching" and react. to what they see. This has been evident with Jon Snow of Channel Four News recently - a. particularly interesting case, since it has been established that he cannot be corrupted. by money (it is well-documented that MI5 offered him a. tax-free salary and he turned them down).. I wonder what device MI5 are using to encourage him to do the. "interactive watching"? On Saturday 10. April 1999 at 7pm, Nicholas Witchell on BBC2 News reacted when he saw that I was. watching the programme, and I have his reactions stored safely on videotape. I. have watched this tape several times and I am entirely confident. that my evaluation of his reactions is correct. For several minutes his upper lip quivered in. mirth as he attempted to keep a straight face. Then finally his. self-control evaporated through the excuse of a weak joke and his face. collapsed into a grin. The. strange thing is that I dont know why he was laughing at me, what I had done recently to "deserve" to be. laughed at. The MI5 persecutors usually. manage to invent some justification as to why people should laugh at. and/or abuse me ("hes an X", "it was so funny" etc), so Mr Witchell could have been laughing for any. number of reasons. Perhaps he found the views I have been expressing in these. articles amusing? I suppose if youre paid enough money and ordered to laugh then. even the most innocuous thing becomes. funny. Jon Snow of Channel Four News cant stop himself smirking,. either. On 12 February 1999 I was watching. Channel Four News presented by Jon Snow. As. usual, I was recording the programme, so that if anything out of the ordinary happened, Id be. able to go back and watch it again. Now, Jon Snow, by his own claim, is uncorruptible. He says he turned. down an offer of a substantial tax-free salary from MI5 - they wanted to. make him their mouthpiece, and he told them where. to get off. So you will. be most surprised to learn that Jon Snow "interactively watched". me that evening, and on many other evenings. Approximately fifteen minutes into the programme, he announced. that the US President would be making a live appearance at about. 7.30pm; I looked at the clock on. the mantelpiece; and Snow saw me looking at the clock, and visibly tried to. suppress a smirk. Uncorruptible, are you, Mister Snow? If not money, then why are. you watching me, Mister Snow? Are they forcing you to watch me?. Cant you turn the. monitor off, Mister Snow? Keith Hill MP (Labour. - Streatham), my elected representative, as ever refuses. to help. Comparing the. MI5 Persecution with German "Final Solution" It might seem offensive to compare the mass murder of. millions of civilians in wartime. with the peacetime persecution of merely one person. Yet. the comparison has been coursing through my mind for several years now, because the brutality of German intent to "sub-humans" is. very much comparable to the brutality. of British intent to someone they vituperate. and term "not up to British standards". The methods may differ, but. the persecutors mindset is the same. The Germans first. targeted the mentally disabled, too During. WW2 millions of ethnic Russians, Poles, Jews, mentally ill, gypsies and other minorities were rounded up and murdered. in purpose-built camps by the German regime, in the name. of "racial superiority". Fifty years on, the British Secret Police, MI5, instituted a campaign of. mass hysteria; but in their cowardice,. limited their activities to one single victim. It is instructive to note that the early German. "cleansing" effort was directed primarily not at Jews, but at the mentally ill.. The Nazis set up the T4 project in the thirties to "cleanse". away 70,000 mentally disabled people, including. schizophrenics and epileptics. After WW2 the Jews with their. media influence used the reaction from the holocaust to roll back anti-semitism in the Western. countries; however, the mentally ill are today still a persecuted group in the modern Western world as they. were under the Nazis (the current Jewish home secretary in. the UK intends to bring in laws for. incarceration without any criminal charge for some mentally ill people - he protects his. own minority, but does nothing for the other minorities in. todays society), and this continuing bias forms a central cause for. the current acts of persecution in the UK. Widespread knowledge of. what is happening to the "un-British" minority In both the German persecution of the. thirties and early forties, and the current British persecution, many, many people are well. aware of whats happening. There is widespread. complicity through inaction of populace; and in a substantial proportion of. the mainstread population, the persecution had/has widespread enthusiastic. support; yet in both the German. case in the 1940s and the British today, the existence of persecution is. a mass secret which must be never admitted out loud. In the recent Lawrence. case this "secret bigotry" has been termed "institutionalised racism",. and that is a very good word for what the British are doing today. The persecutory attitudes and omerta regarding them are so deeply ingrained. in the national psyche that they define the national. mood During WW2 many Germans knew minorities were disappearing,. and through inaction quietly condoned their government's mass. murder of "un-German". minorities and inferior "foreigners"; and in the 1990s, similarly, many English people know what the MI5. British Secret Police have been doing, and not only condone. it, but actively take part, because of xenophobia. against the "un-British" unit minority that is the target of "British" actions. This attitude by the British. persecutors has been made explicit through the words "he's not up to. British standards"; the British seem to have. found their very own "untermenschen" to victimise. Why. these obsessive "holy wars" happen This type of. aggression occurs when the majority is threatened or humiliated in some way, economically, militarily or culturally.. In pre-WW2 Germany the threat was primarily economic and. military, following Germany's. humiliating defeat in the first world war and the reparations it was. forced to pay. In modern Britain, one might guess that the majority English who are behind the persecution. feel pressured by the swiftly diminishing status of. Britain in the world, and the rapidly increasing coloured colonisation of their country, which in. time will see the ethnic English a minority in their own land, and. their more antisocial elements, unable to reply to the obvious. threat, instead project their aggression onto another, weaker,. unit minority In both cases there is a whiff of. "holy war" or irrational obsession with the. persecution. Certainly the German behaviour fifty years ago bordered on the. not-quite-sane, and the current British behaviour towards their chosen victim. is strongly tinged with a leave-taking of reason. And the choices open to the victims are the same, since MI5 will never. allow me to escape them, "if he tries to. run away we'll find him", just like the commandant of. Auschwitz telling the new arrivals, "the only escape is through. the chimney". The Victim. Will Destroy Us if We Dont Destroy Him First The persecutors propaganda is the same.. Fifty years ago the Germans said, "if we don't do it to the Jews then the Jews will. do it to us"; and MI5's propaganda in the early nineties concentrated on their victim. as a "monster". aesome "untermenschen" minority. "We are decent fellows" say the Brutal. Persecutors During the. course of researching this article I read part of the very interesting book, "Hitler - A Study in Tyranny",. by Alan Bullock. This volume. contains a quote from Himmler on the "Final Solution"; "Most of you know what it means when a hundred corpses. are lying side by side, or five hundred. or one thousand. To have stuck it out, and at the same time. .... to have remained decent fellows, that is what has made us hard. This is a page of glory in our history which has. never been written and. is never to be written." In the MI5 persecution, too, there. is a thread of deliberate brutality to the sick and. vulnerable, while the persecutors maintain that "we are decent fellows". There is almost a conscious schizophrenia in. the self-attitudes of the Security Service. operatives and those in the public who they employ against me, which. reflects the contradiction evident in the. German attitude above. On the one hand, they stoop to the lowest and most base behaviour;. yet at the same time, the MI5 operatives tell themselves that since they are. civilised British people, then surely they must by. definition be "decent fellows". Any indecency is made the fault of the victim; "hes making us persecute him,. so we need feel no guilt". Yet the conduct is atypical of the way these peoples see their. normal modes of. behaviour. Befslaughter was not typical of normal German behaviour up to that point. Similarly, the current MI5 abuse goes. against the. grain of British self-image as being "reserved" and "decent", since they are using terms of abuse which are common among blacks and. other supposedly less-developed races,. but not among the English. Conclusion The ultimate. aim of both persecutions is the humiliation and physical extinction of the persecuted group. The Germans did this in a. very direct way; the British. Secret Police MI5 are acting indirectly and relying on self-extinction of their. target, because in peacetime and in the current somewhat false climate of "political correctness" more. direct methods are impossible. If MI5 undertook more direct action the mass "omerta". would be broken. I have written this article with. sincerity to show how a historically recent persecution in another country parallels what is being done. in this country today. In both cases, the evil-doers are of their. countries establishments, and. rely on widespread tacit support to maintain the persecution and. omerta around it. While the holocaust was undoubtedly the greater evil, it is important. to be aware of the fact that had the Germans not been defeated fifty years ago,. their plans would have gone through to total completion. In Britain today no force. threatens the "permanent government" of which the. Security Service forms a part; and it looks very unlikely that the wrongs perpetrated. by the MI5 secret police will ever be revealed to public. view, and the British secret state brought to justice for. its evil actions. 476 ------------------------------ Date: 26 Dec 2007 08:45:23 GMT From: ieifmfie@bigfoot.com Subject: M,I`5,Per secution , M I5 W aste T axpayer Mi llions on Pointless Hate -Campaig Message-ID: MI5. Persecution Update: Friday 30 April, 1999 If You Intend. To Reply, Please Read This Please.... keep your response to. one page!. Faxes over a page or two will be deleted without being. read. Somewhere. between 0 and 100% The last few days there have been no. clear recordable instances of abuse. However,. while travelling on the Underground, while walking around near my home and. going to friends homes, I am constantly troubled by thoughts that those people over there might. be about to get at me; that the couple sitting in the opposite seats laughing are in. fact laughing at me; et cetera,. et cetera. A comment. by a scientist to the BSE inquiry sticks in my mind. He described. the possible scale of the epidemic as "between 0% and 100%". It might not be happening, it might. not happen at all, to any discernable degree.... or it might be total.. Without clear recording, which seems to have become impossible the. last couple of weeks, there is no way of knowing. whether the harassment really is continuing, whether we have entered a temporary hiatus, or whether perhaps. it has perhaps stopped for now. But for the time being I think. there arent any reasons to dicontinue these faxes. I only re-started them six weeks ago. in response to a resumption of MI5 harassment; and I think I will need to be more. convinced of absence of persecution before I discontinue. my complaints. The Newscasters are. still watching In the last few weeks there. have been at least a couple of fairly overt instances of "interactive. watching" by newscasters. I reported this in a previous. "MI5 Persecution Update". These instances are really very rare compared. to 1990-91, when there were many dozens of such occurrences.. Undoubtedly the reduction is due to my practice of videotaping everything I see. Recently I had. the opportunity of showing this. years "happenings" (Jon Snow/Nicholas Witchell) to my psychiatrist, and he agreed that in both. cases the newscasters were expressing merriment. without visible cause, and that objectively it might be possible for my claims to. be true - although of course other people reported similar thoughts to him, and this. thinking is usually a symptom of. illness. Read About the MI5 Persecution on the World. Wide Web The March 1998 issue (number 42) of .net. Magazine reviews the website describing. it as an "excellent site". Since August 11, 1996 over 50,000 people have browsed. this website. You are encouraged to read. the web pages which include a FAQ (frequently asked questions) section outlining the nature. of the persecutors, their methods of harassment through the media,. people at work and among the. general public an evidence section,. which carries audio and video clips of media and workplace harassment, rated according to how directly I think. they refer to me objective descriptions. of the state security agencies involved scanned texts of. the complaints I have made to media and state security agencies. involved posts which have been made to netnews over the. last four years on this topic Keith Hill MP (Labour. - Streatham), my elected representative, as ever refuses. to help. MI5 Waste Taxpayer Millions. on Pointless Hate-Campaign Recently. I was talking to an independent observer about the nature and purpose of the perceived campaign of persecution against. me. The person I spoke to, a highly intelligent man, said. he was struck by the utter pointlessness of the perceived campaign against me. He also. said that, if my theories were in. fact true, many people would have to be involved, in the surveillance itself, and in the technical side. of the delivery of information from my home to TV studios for. example, if the "interactive watching" were happening as described. He voiced. these thoughts without any prompting from me; but both I and other. observers had arrived at pretty much. the same conclusions, some years ago. I saw. a team of four men at Toronto Airport in 1993 To carry. out the surveillance alone, full-time, would employ four or five men, or their equivalent in. terms of man-hours. Each man would "work" an eight-hour shift,. so you would need at least three men doing the surveillance, plus a connecting link / manager. An indicator. that this estimate is correct arrived in 1993, when I was accosted. by one of a group of four men at Toronto Airport; he said, laughing, "if. he tries to run away well find him". Plainly. these were the men who had been involved in the intrusive surveillance of me for. the preceding three years. On other occasions, I have seen the same man on two or. three occasions. On one such occasion, at Ottawas Civic Hospital in November. 1996; he gave his name to the doctor as "Alan Holdsworth" or some. such; my hearing is not very good sometimes and I. am not sure of the surname, although I am sure "Alan" was his first name. I saw exactly the same man again in Ottawa,. at the airport, in July 1998.. Obviously, other people must be "working" with this person; he would not be. the sole agent employed in this case. Usenet readers views on. the Cost to MI5 of Running the Campaign Here's what a couple. of other people on internet newsgroups / Usenet (uk.misc) had to say regarding the cost of. running such an operation... PO: >Have some sense, grow up and smell reality. What you are. talking about PO: >would take loads of. planning, tens of thousands of pounds and lots of PO: >people involved. in the planning, execution and maintenance of it. You PO: >must have a very high opinion of yourself to think. you are worth it. and...... PM: >But why? And why you? Do you realize how much it would. cost to keep PM: >one person. under continuous surveillance for five years? Think about PM: >all the man/hours. Say they _just_ allocated. a two man team and a PM: >supervisor. OK., Supervisor's salary,. say, #30,000 a year. Two men, PM: >#20,000 a year each. But they'd. need to work in shifts -- so it would PM: >be six men at #20,000 (which with on-costs would work. out at more like PM: >#30,000 to the. employer.) PM:. > PM: >So, we're talking #30,000 x. 6. #180,000. plus say, #40,000 for the PM: >supervisor. #220,000. Then you've got the hardware involved.. And PM: >any transcription that needs doing. You don't think the 'Big. Boss' PM: >would listen to hours and hours. of tapes, do you. PM:. > PM: >So, all. in all, you couldn't actually do the job for much less than PM: >a quarter million a year.. Over five years. What are you doing that makes PM: >it worth the while of. the state to spend over one and a quarter million PM: >on. you? Those are pretty much the sort of. calculations that went through my head once I stopped to consider. what it must be costing them to run this operation. At the very least, a quarter million. a year - and probably much more, given the intrusive. and human-resource-intensive methods employed. Times nine years. Equals well over two million. pounds - and probably much,. much more. Its wasteful for someone with my skills. to be unemployed The wastefulness of the MI5 campaign against. me is not just that of futile expenditure on their side. It is also extremely wasteful for someone. with my talents to be unemployed and on a. disability pension. I am highly qualified in numerate disciplines, yet am unable to. work, specifically because of. the MI5 hate-campaign against me. It is a terrible waste of resources for a supposedly efficient economy like. that of the UK to be squandering the talents of. a skilled and capable worker. I made every effort to remain in. employment for as long as I could, but ultimately I was defeated by MI5s. employment of massive resources specifically targeted on my. workplaces with the sole aim of seeing me evicted from those workplaces. You might. expect this sort of behaviour from the Stasi or some other secret police force. in a communist country where labour is cheap, and. the governments aim on seeing its citizens confined; but for. a supposedly free and efficient economy like Britains, the wastefulness resulting both. directly and indirectly from the Security Services activities. is simply criminal, and should never be allowed. The international dimension means. the costs are multiplied many times overoer had any sense, then they have surely taken leave of them. over the last nine. years. Four. years of persecution in Canada The persecution re-started within less than five minutes of. my arrival in Canada, as documented. above, and in the "frequently asked questions" article on the. website. The words, "if he tries to run away well find. him" spoken by one of the harassers at Toronto Airport are now imprinted on. my mind. A year later I emigrated to Canada, intending. to find a job and settle there, hoping that MI5s interest in me might dim with. time. I did manage to find work. there, but my hopes of avoiding Security Service interest were ground into dust. As detailed. above, I saw the same man in November 1996 and July 1998, both times in Ottawa. Apart. from these encounters, there. were numerous incidents between 1994 and 1998 of harassment, of an identical nature and in most cases using identical. words to what had occurred in the UK. It became quite clear to me. that the permanent surveillance. and harassment operation which MI5 had subjected me to in England. was being continued. For a team of four or five men to be employed overseas must cost a. lot more than if they operate. in their home country. And for MI5 to continue the operation for a period of over four years,. continuously, must cost many hundreds of thousands of. pounds. This confirms my belief that the state is funding the campaign against mehat. the Security Service receives current annual funding. of #160M. Divided by 1850 staff, works out at #86,000. But the unit annual cost of. each "watcher" must be much higher than this,. especially given the frequently mobile and overseas nature of their actions of the last few years. A very conservative figure. might be a little over #100,000 pa for each. of a team of five people, or half a million pounds per year. For nine years, so far. So the. most conservative estimate of the surveillance element alone is perhaps four or. five million pounds. since 1990. This guesstimate. is of course theoretical - I am not privy to inside details of how MI5 split their funding.. But to take some other examples, the cost. of a US counter-surveillance specialist per day is USD 5,000.. Even if the agents permanently assigned to me are not of this calibre -. even if they employ specialists when difficult work planting bugs etc is encountered - their salary and support costs must. still be very high. The individual agents are doing well. for themselves as they are well-paid. to exercise psychopathic instincts which in any sane society would see. them in prison; but the taxpayers who must fund this terribly wasteful exercise are being "done". out of hundreds of thousands of pounds each. year. It must be emphasised that the above estimates. are highly conservative. Besides the surveillance operation, it must carry. a high cost in man-hours. to propagate covert slanders through the population; to setup and. maintain the "interactive watching" links to TV and radio stations,. which these organisations continue desparately to "lie and deny"; and to induce antipathy in co-workers which would not. otherwise exist. Why they are wasting Millions of Pounds. on a "Nobody from South London" As remarked in the. prologue to this article, it is really most extraordinary that the Security Service. spends a chunk of its budget, every year. for nine years so far, on a meaningless campaign against a "nobody from South London". That they are spending such a large. amount of money has been confirmed to me on several occasions, usually by. oblique references. to "its costing this country millions". The supposed "logic" behind the persecution. is that MI5 wish to avoid their harassment of me, and the involvement of the UK media, to be made. public; yet as the reader will. appreciate that is a circular argument, "theyre doing it because they want to keep it secret and. avoid humiliation for themselves and their country" begs the question, "why did they. start doing it in the first place?", to which in truth I. myself do not know the answer. Plainly MI5 with its rich budget can afford half. a million pounds a year to waste on a "nobody from South London". Some. time ago I was talking to a British surveillance professional on. Compuserve who told me "this work costs a lot of money and is usally because the person. I am following has done something (usually criminal) to. warrant all this money and time being spent." Yet in this particular case it is plainly. not the "victims fault" that the harassment is taking. place. The hate-campaign against me is completely the creation of the obsessive psychologies of. the MI5 agents who have. made themselves my persecutors; it is obviously a "personal" campaign for them, and. for years they misuse taxpayer funding to feed their insane, unnatural. and fixated fantasies. 1946 ------------------------------ Date: 26 Dec 2007 09:16:45 GMT From: vimvfiemi@bigfoot.com Subject: M-I,5-Persecution - BBC N ewscasters Li e & D eny Th eyre Wat ching Me Message-ID: MI5 Persecution: BBC. Newscasters Lie & Deny They're Watching Me Central to the persecution campaign waged against. me for some nine years now by the Security Service is their use of the media, and in. particular the broadcast media, to make clear to me that I. am under surveillance and being watched within my own home, even by. BBC newscasters while they read the news. This is really an act of arrogance; MI5 and. their tools in the television and radio are. so sure that they can never be caught, that they have. many times made explicity clear on broadcast programmes that they are as capable of seeing me as I am. of seeing the broadcast pictures. Even when they have. known I am taping the programmes they still carry on this practice; for examples of TVand radio presenters caught "in action",. see the Evidence area of my. website. If you wish to reply to this. article...... then please include your name. and fax number! I provide the means for recipients to. send me their thoughts on the topics discussed, but ask that you provide me with your. fax number or email address if you require a response. Also would you please send not more than one or two pages, if. by fax.. Thank-you! It started. with a Newscaster, and it continues with Newscasters today The very first incident in the story started with a reaction. by an ITN newscaster, Sue Carpenter, in June of 1990, almost nine years ago now.. She reacted to what she saw in my living room at home as she. read the news. My mother had brought an apple for. me into the room, whereupon the newsreader smirked and giggled, apparently finding this funny.. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I carried on watching news. and other television programmes. to see if presenters would show signs of "interactive watching"; to my surprise, this happened again and. again. Unfortunately, I did not have my wits sufficiently about. me to videotape these programmes, and it is now almost impossible to obtain. recordings dating back to 1990. However, I have. been busy recording everything Ive watched the last couple of years, and the taping has yielded. some nuggets, which you will find if you point your Web browser. at the "evidence" area of my website, whose URL address is given above.. Strangely it is not particularly the BBC who are "after me" at the moment (with the exception of occasional fire. from Nicholas Witchell), but that supposed paragon of virtue. and decency Jon Snow. of Channel Four TV News (he actually works for ITN), who once claimed hed turned down MI5s offer of a tax-free salary.. I will cover Snows recent actions. in a future article. BBCs Hidden. Shame The first ever Usenet. post (internet newsgroup article) on the subject of the MI5 bugging / BBC watching occurred, as stated in a previous. article, in early May 1995. It is reproduced. here; Date: Thu May 4 18:27:24. 1995 Newsgroups:. alt.conspiracy Subject:. BBC's Hidden Shame Remember the two-way televisions in. George Orwell's 1984? The ones which watched you back? Which. you could never get rid of, only the sound could be. turned down? Well the country which brought Orwell. into the world has made his nightmare follow into the. world after him. Since 1990 the British have been waging war. against one of their own citizens using surveillance to invade privacy and. a campaign of abuse in the transmitted media in their efforts to humiliate their. "victim". I suppose "BBCs Hidden Shame" is more of a. wish than a fact. It may be hidden, but. the BBC and other media and security organisations seem to have. no shame whatever in their anti-social, not to say criminal, actions. Nor do the general public, who seem. quite happy to parrot the vilest obscenities. without much hesitation or apparently thought. Martyn Lewis,. Nicholas Witchell and the rest Most of the harassment. occurred in 1990-92, when I wasnt making any recordings, and the BBC wont release. copies of current affairs programmes from that period.... so although I can remember there were many. incidents in that time, even. many specifics, I cant dig up the actual programmes to flesh out the. bones. This year, there has. been at least one incident with Nicholas Witchell as newsreader, which I have. successfully recorded and digitized, i.e. converted into a computer Quicktime movie file. This has. not yet found its way onto my website (Im a busy man, dontcha. know) but you can be sure I will let the readership of these. articles know when that clip makes it onto the web.. The Witchell clip was recorded on Saturday 10 April 1999 at 7pm,. and shows Witchell trying to restrain his features from collapsing into a smirk.. First his upper lip quivers for several minutes, then with the non-excuse of a. non-joke his entire face twists into a grin. It looks as if he finds me so funny, that he allows himself to. submerge any pretence at professionalism in a sea of MI5-inspired sarcasm. and harassment. The two BBC newscasters whose reactions to me I can remember. most vividly over the years are Martyn Lewis. and Nicholas Witchell. I can remember thinking years ago that Michael Buerk was also seeing me at. home; and if the other two are. watching then there would be no reason why he wouldnt be doing the same;. but in all honesty I cannot remember a single clear instance of his reacting through facial or verbal. expression to me. I. can remember several instances of Martyn Lewis reacting to what he saw of me, however. In. early 1992 I was watching the BBC news with Lewis on a small black-and-white portable TV at my then home in Oxford. I. threw a term of abuse at Lewis; he flinched, then. gave a grin and made a comment from which I understood that. he had been on my side, but might have changed his. mind as a result of what Id just said to him. And. in spring 1991 I remember Martyn Lewis clearly reacting to what he saw of me at my then accommodation in Woking, Surrey, by continuing to. stare at some fixed point near. the camera after the news had finished - presumably this. is where the monitor interactively showing pictures of my room. was located. Why would BBC and other Newscasters Watch and Harass. Me, Watching Them? This. is a very difficult question, and I dont actually know the answer. It is a matter of record that the Secret Services are very much part of. the Establishment. The recent. exposure of the "MI6 Agent List" on the internet, and its coverage. in the newspapers, reveals how much MI5 and MI6 are recruited from the ranks of the Establishment.. Obviously the relationship is bi-directional;. the Establishment influences MI5/MI6, but the secret services (well, perhaps not. so secret now we know who works for MI6!!!) also influence the machinery of power and. information dissemination. i.e. media in this country. So they must have a lot of covert leverage with the. BBC and ITN. Some of this leverage is obviously through bribery. It is a. matter of record that MI5 tried. some years ago to "buy" Jon Snow of Channel Four TV.. He turned them down - obviously they must have approached other media people as well, and from the lack. of other reports of people turning them down, it may be presumed that some other journalists will. have accepted the sugared carrots put before them. Ironically, Jon Snow. has been taking part in the recent "watching" actions against me - but. why he has allowed himself to be. used by the secret services is something which I do not know. Perhaps the Security Service uses blackmail to twist arms. of journalists into co-operating with them? I have always thought there was. something slightly. odd about Martyn Lewiss demeanour. At the time of the Ron Davies "rough trade" scandal it was reported. that MI5 had known all about Davies predilections and the sham of his pretence to be a happily. married man. Perhaps MI5 have been able to dig. something up from Martyn Lewiss private. life to blackmail him into acting on their behalf? And if there wasnt anything before the "newscaster watching" started then. there most certainly is something. now.... once theyve started watching, the newscasters will surely wish their activities to remain. covered-up, and co-operate. with the security service. "Newscaster Watching". Deliberately Constructed to Mimic Schizophrenia Presumably this is the first. case in history of television journalists actually taking part in acts of real-time, live spying and. reacting against one of their viewers.. What you have to understand, though, is that I was quite mentally healthy in June 1990, certainly relative. to November 1992, when after two and a half years of harassment. I was finally admitted to hospital as an out-patient. MI5 decided from the outset that they. would make me mad;. they constructed the media harassment to resemble what would be reported by a person with mental illness; and then. they carried on years of abuse to inflict on me the condition which they wished to. use as an excuse to cover. up their abuses. I sold my portable TV in autumn 1990 and. stopped watching television regularly. I realise now. that this may have been a mistake. What I should have done was. to watch TV and listen to the radio, but tape-record everything and make a note of what each excerpt meant. to me. I would then be in a much stronger. position as regards to evidence that I am now. That is what I am trying to. do now, but unsurprisingly the TV/radio presenters have stopped getting at me, now they know they. are being recorded. When I started publicising my case on internet. newsgroups in 1995, I was met with the disbelief one might expect to. be accorded to a mentally ill person who talks about "newscaster watching" and media persecution.. Some newsgroup participants thought I had started a. "troll", an invention made to obtain a. reaction; one bright spark even suggested a group of psychology students were behind the articles. But. most people thought the articles. were symptomatic of derangement - and that is exactly what MI5 want people. to think. MI5 chose me as a target because I was mildly mentally ill at the outset in. 1990, although I stress my illness then was very mild in. comparison with November 1992, and because they knew that enough abuse would (a) make me much more seriously ill,. and (b) once I was more. ill, they would "get away" with a harassment deliberately constructed to look like. the symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia. Martyn. Lewis Denies & Lies, But Wont in Writing In February 1997 I wrote to BBC Viewer & Listener. Correspondence and asked them to investigate the claim. that their newscasters had engaged in "real-time spying" on me. They replied. that they had asked Martyn Lewis and Michael Buerk whether they had. engaged in such practices, and that they had both made verbal denials to VLC, but were. refusing to put their denials. in writing. To me it looks. as if Lewis and Buerk are happy to lie verbally but not in writing,. because written falsehoods would place them unambiguously in the wrong, whereas they can try to talk their. way out of verbal lies if they are ever caught, or perhaps even deny the verbal lies completely?. If they lie without shame, then why would they have. any shame about future lies about. lying? BBC-VLC also said that the BBC "would never engage in. any form of surveillance activity". such as that described. Clearly Martyn Lewis and the rest have lied to their. own organisations personnel about their criminal actions. So much. for the "objective", "truthful" BBC, a nest of shabby. liars. Summons against the BBC, for. Nuisance caused by Newscaster Spying In March 1997 I issued a civil summons. against the BBC, seeking injunction against further "newscaster. spying", and token damages for what the BBC had done to me until that date. The purpose of the summons was to. try to "smoke out" the. BBC, since obviously I did not have good evidence which would be necessary for either. a civil or criminal case to be made against them.. My summons was worded as follows; 1. The. plaintiff is and was at all material times residing at [home address]. At some. time prior to or during June 1990, persons of unknown identity entered Plaintiff's. premises and installed concealed television equipment in said. premises. 2. A campaign of harassment was. launched against the Plaintiff by the persons of unknown identity, which in. part took the form of instigating harassment by BBC. TV newscasters (including specifically Michael Buerk and Martyn Lewis) as they read news bulletins, by making direct. and personal comments to. Plaintiff. 3. The campaigns purpose was to. subject Plaintiff to great mental stress and induce mental breakdown. As a result of it Plaintiff did indeed. suffer from severe. mental strain in 1990-97. 4. In order to avoid the mental strain being caused to. him the Plaintiff has been compelled to stop watching BBC. TV news. Defendant therefore committed the tort. of private nuisance, since normal use of home was interfered. with. 5. Plaintiff. claims a permanent injunction prohibiting further nuisance, and damages for. nuisance suffered limited to 5,000. Naturally, my attempt to. smoke-out the BBC and its lying newscasters failed. The BBCs. litigation department sought to have my summons struck out; and they succeeded in doing so, on the grounds. of my action "disclosing no reasonable cause of action". I. was also prevented from issuing further civil claims against the BBC without. leave of the Court. Apparently litigants-in-person frequently / usually have. their claims struck out with. this wording, regardless of the merit of their claims. BBC. Suppresses my Claims of "Watching by Newscasters" BBCs staff magazine Ariel. ran my advert "BBC Newsreaders Spying on my home" for one issue in the Personal category on. 8/July/1997 before it was spotted and axed by editor Robin. Reynolds; please see webpage;. http://www.pair.com/spook/evidence/plaint/ariel.htm Clearly the BBC will not allow claims of. its wrongdoing to be made public in the media channels. it controls. On several occasions people said to. my face that harassment from the TV was happening. On the first day I worked in. Oxford, I spent the evening in the local pub. the Rose and Crown with the company's technical director Ian, and Phil, another employee. Ian. made a few references to me and said to Phil, as if in an. aside, "Is he the bloke who's been on TV?" to which Phil replied, "Yes,. I think so". The reader might think that mere "watching" by. newscasters etc might be a relatively benign happening. But it is not; it is. part of MI5s framework of harassment and lies. On many occasions the reactions of the. BBCs newscasters to me has been in the. nature of sarcasm, implicit contempt and abuse. This is visible in Witchells news programme mentioned above,. where he engages in abuse by laughing at me during. his newsreading. It was particularly visible in the early period of 1990-92, and as. late as Autumn 1993,. when during a Newsnight broadcast Jeremy Paxman interviewed a football person about soccer. hooliganism, and the interviewee gave vent to an unsubtle rant. about "theyre idiots, theyre just idiots, keep up the surveillance". Paxman. started grinning, showing he understood and was taking part in the. abuse being perpetrated on that programme. Conclusion The MI5 Persecution. started with harassment by television newscasters, and today harassment by TV and radio presenters still. forms a key part of MI5s activities against me. When this business. started in June 1990 I was in relatively good health of mind. Years of persecution by the. secret police and their. mouthpieces in the state-run BBC and other media eroded my health. until MI5 achieved their aim of seeing me rendered mentally ill in November 1992. The diagnosis which was forced on. me unfortunately and ironically meant. that my reports of the harassment are disregarded, because the mentally ill are. second-class citizens in todays Britain. Yet TV and. radio harassment continues, albeit in a reduced form, despite my taping all the programmes I watch, resulting. in my being able to obtain and demonstrate. objectively on the website instances of media presenters attacking me.. Unfortunately these recorded instances are quite tenuous; I might understand them,. the presenters understand what it is theyre doing, but despite many thousands of people knowing the truth of the. "newscaster watching",. the omerta continues and they continue to refuse to admit the truth of the matter. It is a terrible. indictment of British society that there is not even one decent person willing to speak out.. I look forward to the day when the truth does finally emerge, and. the mass corruption which has allowed the MI5 persecution to. take place is finally purged and the Establishment criminals caught. and appropriately punished. 4886 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 07:19:22 -0800 (PST) From: AEF Subject: Question about INSTALLing shared images Message-ID: Season's Greetings (I actually saw this in big letters hanging from the ceiling of a Wegmans supermarket!) My apologies if this is a dumb question, but I want to be 100% certain. (Hey, at least it's on topic!!!) When you INSTALL an executable as a shared image, can it be any executable? I once discussed this with my developer for a program run by multiple traders and he said we'd have to check for traders stepping on each other, so to speak. So my question is: Doesn't VMS automatically provide each process running shared executable its own private data area in memory or does the program have to be explicitly written with the assumption that it will be installed shared? Thanks AEF ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 10:33:02 -0500 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: Question about INSTALLing shared images Message-ID: <4772742E.9090908@comcast.net> AEF wrote: > Season's Greetings (I actually saw this in big letters hanging from > the ceiling of a Wegmans supermarket!) > > My apologies if this is a dumb question, but I want to be 100% > certain. (Hey, at least it's on topic!!!) > > When you INSTALL an executable as a shared image, can it be any > executable? I once discussed this with my developer for a program run > by multiple traders and he said we'd have to check for traders > stepping on each other, so to speak. So my question is: Doesn't VMS > automatically provide each process running shared executable its own > private data area in memory or does the program have to be explicitly > written with the assumption that it will be installed shared? > > Thanks > > AEF My recollection is that the writeable areas are unique while the read only stuff (code, constants, etc.) is shared. ISTR that the subject is covered in some detail in the FM. Go thou, and RTFM. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:36:27 GMT From: "Jeffrey H. Coffield" Subject: Re: Question about INSTALLing shared images Message-ID: <%xucj.32364$lD6.7398@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> AEF wrote: > Season's Greetings (I actually saw this in big letters hanging from > the ceiling of a Wegmans supermarket!) > > My apologies if this is a dumb question, but I want to be 100% > certain. (Hey, at least it's on topic!!!) > > When you INSTALL an executable as a shared image, can it be any > executable? I once discussed this with my developer for a program run > by multiple traders and he said we'd have to check for traders > stepping on each other, so to speak. So my question is: Doesn't VMS > automatically provide each process running shared executable its own > private data area in memory or does the program have to be explicitly > written with the assumption that it will be installed shared? > > Thanks > > AEF The data area of a program is by default noshare and the executable is share so installing a program shared allows the code to be shared but each user has their own data area unless the program is written to have a shared data area. Sharing data between processes in a program is a rare special circumstance in the business apps I have seen. This is a bit of a simplification as there are many linker and install options. I'm sure others in this group can supply more detailed info. Jeff Coffield ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 12:50:59 -0500 From: Bob Willard Subject: Re: Question about INSTALLing shared images Message-ID: <9cWdnVXBQ-zjCe_anZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@comcast.com> AEF wrote: > Season's Greetings (I actually saw this in big letters hanging from > the ceiling of a Wegmans supermarket!) > > My apologies if this is a dumb question, but I want to be 100% > certain. (Hey, at least it's on topic!!!) > > When you INSTALL an executable as a shared image, can it be any > executable? I once discussed this with my developer for a program run > by multiple traders and he said we'd have to check for traders > stepping on each other, so to speak. So my question is: Doesn't VMS > automatically provide each process running shared executable its own > private data area in memory or does the program have to be explicitly > written with the assumption that it will be installed shared? > > Thanks > > AEF If the multiple instances of an app write to a single shared file, then the app needs to lock the shared file before and unlock it after writing to that file; else, the copies may corrupt the file. -- Cheers, Bob ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 13:29:06 -0500 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Question about INSTALLing shared images Message-ID: <47729ddb$0$4320$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> AEF wrote: > When you INSTALL an executable as a shared image, can it be any > executable? No. You can't install a OS-X executable on VMS. :-) If your application is written in C, there are certain constructs with public variables which may prevent it from being installed/shared if I remember correctly. If I recall, the "extern" type of declaration is not compatible with installing image/shared. (Or this could be a linker issue not allowing /SHARED to be used in such circumstances). Similarly, your executable must be linked/NOTRACEBACK when it is installed/shared. This is all from fairly distant memory with no parity bit. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 10:37:53 -0800 (PST) From: AEF Subject: Re: Question about INSTALLing shared images Message-ID: <3c546b8a-c64d-43f2-9684-7a85ae99e84a@f53g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> On Dec 26, 11:33 am, "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote: > AEF wrote: > > Season's Greetings (I actually saw this in big letters hanging from > > the ceiling of a Wegmans supermarket!) > > > My apologies if this is a dumb question, but I want to be 100% > > certain. (Hey, at least it's on topic!!!) > > > When you INSTALL an executable as a shared image, can it be any > > executable? I once discussed this with my developer for a program run > > by multiple traders and he said we'd have to check for traders > > stepping on each other, so to speak. So my question is: Doesn't VMS > > automatically provide each process running shared executable its own > > private data area in memory or does the program have to be explicitly > > written with the assumption that it will be installed shared? > > > Thanks > > > AEF > > My recollection is that the writeable areas are unique while the read > only stuff (code, constants, etc.) is shared. Thanks! > > ISTR that the subject is covered in some detail in the FM. Go thou, and > RTFM. Well, perhaps I should have stated my motivation. I'm running a mature app (very mature!). I need to consolidate to running on fewer MicroVAXes. My app starts a process for each trader. Each of these processes runs the same executable and it is not INTSTALed. I was concnerned that memory might get a little tight so I thought: Why not install it shared to save a little memory? I mentioned this to my developer (this occurred years ago) and he said we'd have to test every possible combination of posting prices and executing trades among multiple simultaneous users. I thought he was wrong but let it go. Now it's a little more urgent (but not immediate) so I thought I'd ask here to be certain. (Perhaps he was thinking of installing the way we install our shared memory files with INSTALL/SHARE/WRITABLE! Then I could understand his concern.) Now, if the answer is that it's okay to INSTALL any old image with / SHARE and private data won't get mixed among concurrent processes running the same image, then I can INSTALL/SHARE this image and I'm done. If the answer is: You have to write your app such and such a way to prevent private data corruption then I will not INSTALL/SHARE anything and I'm done. No one is going to rewrite this app for this. So I don't see any need to RTFM. I just wanted to know if anything special needs to be done when writing the program or any old program can safely be INSTALL/SHAREd without having to become an expert on programming when I'm not going to write or rewrite any code and haven't touched 3GL's since 1993 and then only writing FORTRAN programs to do physics calculations (no fancy stuff like global sections, shared this, shared that, privs, macro, etc.) AEF ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 10:42:47 -0800 (PST) From: AEF Subject: Re: Question about INSTALLing shared images Message-ID: <9c733ede-b04e-40b2-9a84-0b3b57ec7d4c@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com> On Dec 26, 2:29 pm, JF Mezei wrote: > AEF wrote: > > When you INSTALL an executable as a shared image, can it be any > > executable? > > No. You can't install a OS-X executable on VMS. :-) > > If your application is written in C, there are certain constructs with > public variables which may prevent it from being installed/shared if I > remember correctly. If I recall, the "extern" type of declaration is not > compatible with installing image/shared. Written in Pascal. > > (Or this could be a linker issue not allowing /SHARED to be used in such > circumstances). > > Similarly, your executable must be linked/NOTRACEBACK when it is > installed/shared. Really? What if it isn't? How does it fail or err? > > This is all from fairly distant memory with no parity bit. OK. AEF ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2007.708 ************************