On 03/04/2015 10:49 PM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
> The OP writes about widely known digital surveillance and political
> then seems to conclude that both are aimed at his own personal activity.
> The missing threads that would otherwise connect the two plus the heightened
> language lead me to believe a conspiracy theory is at play here.
It seems highly suspicious that those of you on this mailing list, who
continue to make this out to be something other than the original post,
are all mysteriously in the same boat with this scoundrel Rupert Murdoch.
> But what would it cost the NSA to screw with the devices of a guy
> running and
> distributing scripts for use with Tor?
It is a well known fact that the NSA specifically target individuals who
are dissidents working to expose the corruption within the NSA's vile
organization, along with exposing their drug dealing partners in crime
who already had the majority wrapped around their finger with kilos of
dope even before they won the majority of the vote. I am subjected to a
denial-of-service attack only when I send an email or talk over the
telephone regarding exposing the NSA's crime ring for what they are all
Police reports regarding NSA sabotage were filed recently with Europol
and Interpol personnel to have processed by the ICC and/or ICJ at The
Hague. Why would I go to the bother of filing police reports if this was
all make believe??? FYI, it is against the law to make things up to get
attention in police reports, especially regarding sabotage! It did not
take much detective work on my part to figure this out and prove this
fiasco is not a "conspiracy theory".
> Like the other respondent, I think it's unlikely the OP devices are
> being targetted
> or exploited, and I suggest the OP seek out therapy to cope with the
> anxiety created
> by believing that they are.
For future reference, it is highly inappropriate to insult someone on a
mailing list, especially when you read between the lines on my original
post and never bothered to test out the three URLs I gave you for
comparative Tor-blocking analysis. You stated in your above mentioned
rant that I write about "widely known digital surveillance and political
corruption". If this information is so widely known, then how can you
explain that the dots were not connected on this complex case until I
spoke with a detective just recently on 12/29/2014???
By the way, doesn't "Jonathan Wilkes" translate to British? Those of you
from the UK, who are in the same boat with this lying, conniving meth
dealer Rupert Murdoch, do not stop to think about something - your ship
Travis L. Bean
T.L.Bean - Your source for FREE open source
tor-talk mailing list - firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to