http://www.nnseek.com/e/novell.support.netware.4x/ Posts for novell.support.netware.4x Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:13:43 PST http://www.nnseek.com/ http://www.nnseek.com/img/64.png 64 64 NNSeek http://www.nnseek.com/e/novell.support.netware.4x/tying_a_win2003_box_into_nds_96456079t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/novell.support.netware.4x/tying_a_win2003_box_into_nds_96456079t.html
> Is it possible to tie a Win2003 box into NDS

Not with NetWare 4.x servers.

--
Marcel Cox
http://forums.novell.com

Posted In: novell.support.netware.4x

no comments

Reply

]]> Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:13:43 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/novell.support.netware.4x/ip_printing_from_netware_4_11_93365647t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/novell.support.netware.4x/ip_printing_from_netware_4_11_93365647t.html
>Can I set up the IP based printer as a print queue?

Yes. You need to install NetWare Pritn Services for Unix. If you have the
IntraNetWare 4.11 4 CD set, it should be on a separate CD on its own.

The documentation for that product can be found here:

http://www.novell.com/documentation/nw42/unixpenu/data/a7ppqip.html

--
Marcel Cox
Discover the new Novell forums at http://forums.novell.com

Posted In: novell.support.netware.4x

no comments

Reply

]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:27:16 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/novell.support.netware.4x/dying_replca_91780751t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/novell.support.netware.4x/dying_replca_91780751t.html
> Were we suppose to delete the server object and not the partition?
Yes. The document clearly indicates that the server needs to be deleted
and that the partitions will then be deleted automatically.

>What do we need to do to fix this?
Delete the server object.



--
Marcel Cox
Discover the new Novell forums at http://forums.novell.com

Posted In: novell.support.netware.4x

no comments

Reply

]]> Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:28:33 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/novell.support.netware.4x/m_i_5_persecutio_n_hara_ssment_at_wor_k_88028303t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/novell.support.netware.4x/m_i_5_persecutio_n_hara_ssment_at_wor_k_88028303t.html -= harassment at work. -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Once I stopped watching television and listening to the radio at. the end of
1990, "they" had to find other ways of committing abuses. So they took. what
must be for them a tried. and tested route; they get at you by subversion of
those around you. Since they wouldn't be able to do that with. my family or
friends, that meant. getting at people in the workplace to be their
mouthpieces. and do their dirty work for them.

They supplied my employers in Oxford with. details from what was going on in
my private life, and what I. and other people had said at my home and
accommodation. in Oxford. So people at work repeated verbatim words which
had been said in my home, and repeated what I'd been doing. recently. Often
the most trivial. things, the ones from your domestic life, are the ones
which hurt most. One. manager in particular at Oxford continuously abused me
for ten months with verbal sexual abuse, swearing,. and threats to terminate
my employment. After ten months I was forced to seek. psychiatric help and
start taking medication, and was away from. work for two months. I spoke
later with a solicitor about what had happened. at that company; he advised
it was only possible to take action if. you had left the company as a result
of harassment, and such an action would. have to be started very soon after
leaving.

Over a year later the same manager picked on another. new worker, with even
more serious results; that employee tried. to commit suicide with an
overdose as a result of the. ill-treatment, and was forced to leave his job.
But he didn't take action against. the company, either. Abuse at work is
comparable to that. elsewhere in that tangible evidence is difficult to
produce, and. the abusers will always have their denials ready when
challenged. And even if a. court accepts what you say happened, it still
remains to prove that abuse causes the type. of breakdown I had at the end
of 1992. In a recent case before a British court, a. former member of the
Army. brought a case against others who had maltreated him ten years
previously. Although the court accepted that abuse. had occurred, it did not
agree. that depressive illness necessarily followed, and denied justice to
the. plaintiff.

4756

Posted In: novell.support.netware.4x

no comments

Reply

]]> Wed, 02 Jan 2008 03:30:20 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/novell.support.netware.4x/m_i_5_persec_ution_why_t_he_securit_y_ser_vices_88020111t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/novell.support.netware.4x/m_i_5_persec_ution_why_t_he_securit_y_ser_vices_88020111t.html -= why the. security services? -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

You may ask, why do. I think the "they" referred to are the security
services? Is there any evidence that there is a single source,. as opposed
to a. loosely based "whispering campaign" amongst many people? Even if there
is. a single source, is there any evidence that "they" are professional
"buggers". as opposed to amateurs, or perhaps people working for a privately
funded. organization?

a) As to the question of a single. source versus something more fragmented;
it is quite obvious that. there is a single source from the way the campaign
has been carried out.. Since things have been repeated verbatim which were
said in my. home, there must be one group which does the watching and
listening. Since on several occasions (mainly during travel) people. have
been planted in close. proximity and rehearsed in what they were to say, it
follows that someone must have done the planning for that,. and again a
single source. is indicated.

b) So why couldn't it be amateurs? Why couldn't it be a. private
organisation,. for example a private detective agency paid to manage the
campaign and undertake the technical aspects? Some detective agencies. are
unscrupulous as has been proved on the. occasions in the past when they've
been exposed or caught; they too can have access to the bugging. technology
deployed;. and there are reported cases of MI5 paying private eyes to do
their dirty work (against peace campaigners. and similar enemies of the
state) on the. understanding that if they were caught then they could deny
all knowledge. Why couldn't that be the. case?

The main factor pointing to direct security. service involvement (as opposed
to amateurs or MI5 proxies) is the breadth of their access to. the media in
particular, and the fact that the television companies are. so involved in
the campaign. The BBC would not directly invade. someone's home themselves,
since. it would not be within their remit to allocate personnel or financial
resources to do so. An organisation of their stature would not take. part in
a campaign set up by private sources.. The only people they would take
material from. would be the security services, presumably on the assumption
that if the cat ever. flew out of the bag yowling it would be MI5 who would
take the. consequences.

State sponsorship for these acts of. psychological terrorism is also
indicated by duration; support for over six years for a team. of three or
four people would be beyond. the means and will of most private sources.
The viciousness of the. slanders and personal denigration also points to
MI5; they traditionally. "protect" the British state from politicians of the
wrong hue by. character assassination, and in this case are using their
tried and tested methods to. murder with words an enemy they have invented
for. themselves.

And there are. precedents. Diana and Hewitt were alleged to have been filmed
"at it" by an Army intelligence. team which had operated in Northern
Ireland, these. allegations were made by someone called Jones who had been
on the team.. His statements were denied by the defence establishment who
tried to character-assassinate by describing him. as the "Jones twins".
Funny how if you tell the truth, then you must be ill,. isn't it? Thought
only. communists behaved like that?

Hewitt later said that he'd been spoken to by. someone in the army who
revealed the existence. of videotapes of him and Diana, and that the tapes
would be published if any attempt was made. by them to resume their
association.

2335

Posted In: novell.support.netware.4x

no comments

Reply

]]> Wed, 02 Jan 2008 02:28:43 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/novell.support.netware.4x/m_i_5_perse_cution_thei_r_method_s_and_t_actics_88007823t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/novell.support.netware.4x/m_i_5_perse_cution_thei_r_method_s_and_t_actics_88007823t.html -= MI5: methods and. tactics -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

They deliberately. set out to harass in a way that would resemble the
symptoms of schizophrenia, so that any report of the. harassment would be
taken as indicating mental illness. and "treated" accordingly. They never
show their own faces; they. only work through proxies, in the media, among
the public, and by manipulating people in the workplace. Since. they do not
declare their identity there is no evidence. to initiate legal action
against the security services or anyone else. The. only people you can
prosecute are the proxies and they will deny. knowledge of any conspiracy.

By repeatedly. humiliating and abusing the victim, they induced mental
illness. This is the worst form of. human rights violation: making any
statement of the. harassment appear to be symptomatic of the illness which
they. cause through the harassment. That this can happen, and people collude
by silence,. is absolutely horrifying.

From the beginning in June 1990 they set a pattern of harassment. which they
have followed without change. for the last six years. They paint me as a
"threat" to which people must. "react" (shades of Nazi persecution methods),
while simultaneously portraying. their hate campaign on which they have
spent over a. million pounds of taxpayers

Posted In: novell.support.netware.4x

no comments

Reply

]]> Wed, 02 Jan 2008 00:33:55 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/novell.support.netware.4x/m_i_5_perse_cution_my_response_to_t_he_harassme_nt_87920015t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/novell.support.netware.4x/m_i_5_perse_cution_my_response_to_t_he_harassme_nt_87920015t.html -= my response. to the harassment -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

My first. reaction in 1990/91 was to assume that if I broke contact then
they. would not be able to follow and would lose interest. So I did the
things that have been suggested by other people; I sold my. television,
stopped listening to. the radio and tried to withdraw away from the sources
of abuse as much as. possible. I reasoned that they must have more important
things to deal with. and that normal people would simply leave me alone if
it were made difficult for them to. continue their harassment.

I reckoned without. the sheer vindictiveness of the abusers. They did not
let up but instead "got to" people around me, mainly people at. work, to do
their dirty work for. them. I went to see my GP, who refused to believe what
he was being told, and refused to direct me on to anyone. who could be of
practical assistance. It was not until three years had passed that. the GP
admitted the matter. was outside his competence and suggested going to the
police.

In the summer of 1994 we called in counter-surveillance experts from. a
private detective agency to sweep our house and. telephone for bugging
devices. They conducted a thorough. search and found nothing; but as noted
above, since the existence. of surveillance was being forced in my face by
the. harassers, you would expect them to have taken the possibility of a
counter-surveillance sweep into account when planning the type of. devices
to. be employed.

In Easter 1995 I made a complaint to. my local Police station in London, but
the police have. not expressed any intention to do anything about the
continuing harassment ("we're not. saying it's happening and we're not
saying it isn't. happening" were the words used). I think the officer I
spoke to at Easter. wasn't aware of it happening, although other members of
the police. force obviously do know.

From April 1995 until the present time the matter. has been discussed in a
lot of detail. on the Usenet (Internet) "uk.misc" newsgroup. That discussion
has given birth to the. article which you are now reading. My hopes in
posting to Usenet were that wider publicizing. would discourage the security
services. from continuing their harassment, and "draw people out" into
concurring with the. truth of what was being said. Neither of those have
followed, but the discussion has served a purpose. in allowing this
structured. report to be created.

9633

Posted In: novell.support.netware.4x

no comments

Reply

]]> Tue, 01 Jan 2008 08:00:21 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/novell.support.netware.4x/m_i_5_persecut_ion_purpose_in_publi_cizing_it_censorship_87914383t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/novell.support.netware.4x/m_i_5_persecut_ion_purpose_in_publi_cizing_it_censorship_87914383t.html -= purpose in publicizing it;. censorship in uk.* newsgroups -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The postings to uk.misc newsgroup generated a very. defensive reaction from
Usenet readers in the UK.. So much so, that they tried strenuously to
suppress what was being said, both by breaking the rules. of netiquette in
their responses on the forum, and directly by action to revoke. the account
from. which the postings were issued.

Yet. the postings were within the normal boundaries of behaviour for
uk.misc, and other less partisan spectators did not. see justice in the
censorship which was. effected, as the following excerpt shows;

:Karen. Lofstrom (lofstrom@lava.net) wrote
:>It does seem that the frequency and the size. of his posts are
:>approaching net abuse. However, IMHO, they aren't quite. there yet. If
:>his postmaster were to act in this instance, it would raise. troubling
:>censorship. issues.

The inescapable conclusion of the. censorship effected on the uk.*
newsgroups is that the British are intent on. their wrongdoing remaining
concealed, and therefore. seek to subvert and suppress freedom of speech,
not only in their. own country where the media shows xenophobic bias and
bile against all perceived enemies within and without,. but also in other
countries which have their own statutes to guarantee. the basic human right
of. free speech.

It is absolutely necessary to bring their hate. campaign out into the open
where it can be placed under scrutiny and the. harassers seen for what they
are. That is the only way of making it impossible for the. security services
to carry it out. There. is a wider dimension, though. Xenophobia as
demonstrated by British people and institutions over the. last few years
belongs to the same stable as racial hatred. In. one case, two youths on a
Tube train. made that racism explicit by referring to their victim as a
"soft. toy, not up to British Standards". Doubtless others victimize partly
on the basis of race (isn

Posted In: novell.support.netware.4x

no comments

Reply

]]> Tue, 01 Jan 2008 07:33:06 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/novell.support.netware.4x/m_i_5_persecutio_n_abus_e_in_se_t_up_sit_uations_an_87906703t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/novell.support.netware.4x/m_i_5_persecutio_n_abus_e_in_se_t_up_sit_uations_an_87906703t.html -= abuse. in set-up situations and in public -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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 humorously 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 emphasizing 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". Remember, the constant
theme of. any persecution is, "we must destroy you because you're X",
whether X. is a racial or other attribute. In this case the X was "we
persecute you because you have brain disease". The similarity. of this logic
to Nazi attitudes to the mentally. ill is striking.

The same manager who'd said. "it wasn't fair" asked me in winter 1992 why I
didn't seek help from. a psychiatrist; was it, he asked, because "they would
think they had won" if I sought treatment? That. was something I'd never
said at work... again, taken separately it proves nothing, but many. such
things over a period of months proves conclusively that. people in the
company knew what was going on, and in quite a lot of. detail.

Usually harassment in public lacks the level of. finesse of "paying your
fare". Most people's imagination does not. go beyond moronic parroting of
the current. term of denigration. That is not surprising given the average
level of the abusers; if they do not. have the intelligence to distinguish
wrong from right then neither will they have the capacity for. anything
other than. mindless repetition of a monosyllabic term calculated to fit
into. their minds.

The first incidents of verbal assault. in public were in again in the summer
of 1990, although they increased in frequency and venom. with time. In July
1990 the. first public incident occurred on a tube train on the Northern
line. Two men. and their girlfriends recognised me; the women sprang to my
defence, saying "He looks. perfectly normal, he doesn't look ill". Their
boyfriends of course knew better, and followed the party. line; one of them
made reference to. an "operation", apparently to work at the tube station
but implicitly to a visit. that I had made to hospital a couple of weeks
previously.

In. August 1990 going home from college, soon after getting on a tube train
at Gloucester Road. I was followed by a group of four youths, who started a
chant of. abuse. That they were targeting me was confirmed by other people
in the carriage, one of. whom asked the other "who are they going on at, is
it the bloke who just got on?" to which the. second replied "yes, I think
so". I was tempted to reply, but as in every other. instance the abusers are
enabled. in their cowardice by physically outnumbering the abused; any
confrontation would result in my being. beaten up, followed by a complaint
to the police that "he attacked us", and of course he's ill,. so he must
have. been imagining that we were getting at him. Shitty, aren't they?

But the shittiness. of the four youths on the tube train is as nothing
compared to the episode on the National Express coach to Dover. in the
summer of 1992. While going on holiday to the. Continent I was verbally set
upon by a couple travelling. sitting a few rows behind. The boy did the
talking, his female companion contributing only a continuous empty. giggling
noise. He spoke loudly to ensure other people on the coach. heard, always
about "they" and "this bloke" but never naming. either the abusers or the
person. he was talking about. He said "they" had "found somebody from his
school, and he was always really. stressed at school". They must have dug
deep to find enemies there; perhaps someone who dropped. out of school,
someone who didn't do too well later, who was jealous and keen. to get their
own back? The boy also said "he was in a bed and breakfast for. only one
night and they got him". By a not unexpected coincidence I had been in. a
B&B in Oxford a week previously, which had been booked from. work; other
things lead me to the conclusion that the company's offices were bugged. for
most of the 2 1/2 years that I was there, so "they" would. have known a room
in the B&B had. been booked. (But I'll bet "they" didn't tell the company's
managers. their offices were bugged, did they?).

After a few minutes of this I went back to. where they were sitting and
asked where they were travelling.. The boy named a village in France, and
the girl's giggling suddenly ceased; presumably. it permeated to her brain
cell what the purpose of the boy's. abuse was.

This and. other set-up situations are obviously calculated to provoke a
direct confrontation which would bring in the. police, with the abusers
claiming that they were. the ones attacked. Again in 1992, outside the
house where I was living in Oxford I 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, "I. heard he was attacked". The UK police have a responsibility
for preventing assault occurring, but they do not seem to take any. interest
in meeting that responsibility. I. suppose their attitude is that harassment
does not come within their remit unless. it involves physical assault, and
they will only become involved once that. happens. That is of course quite
the wrong attitude for them to take, but as I now. understand, the police
investigate. only the crime they wish to investigate; if they do not take
your complaints. seriously then there is nothing you can do to make them
take. action.

4773

Posted In: novell.support.netware.4x

no comments

Reply

]]> Tue, 01 Jan 2008 07:04:29 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/novell.support.netware.4x/m_i_5_pers_ecution_why_wo_n_t_t_he_britis_h_p_olice_87903119t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/novell.support.netware.4x/m_i_5_pers_ecution_why_wo_n_t_t_he_britis_h_p_olice_87903119t.html -= why won't. the British police do their job and put a stop to it? -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The British. police obviously do know what is taking place. Besides my
interpretations. of what individual officers have said which forces that
conclusion, it would be inconceivable for them. to be unaware of something
on this. scale.

If. they know, then they will know that the abusers have broken laws in the
UK and abroad. Recently. the UK introduced laws against electronic spying
which carry a. penalty of several years jail if caught. If the police know
illegal harassment is taking. place, and do nothing about it, then they are
failing in. their responsibilities.

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.

The current situation with regard to the police is not one. which allows a
breakthrough in dealing. with the problem. On the one hand, most individual
officers at a local police station may not know. about the ongoing assaults,
so a complaint at that level will not yield results. Yet the. police as an
organisation do know of the harassment, and. they must be aware that a
complaint has been made. at a police station. So it is clearly their duty to
take preventative action against the. continuing molestation, but because
the criminals are operating on behalf of a. state agency, the police are not
carrying out. their duty.

2343

Posted In: novell.support.netware.4x

no comments

Reply

]]> Tue, 01 Jan 2008 06:31:57 PST