From: Gary S. Gevisser
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 8:52 AM PT
To: Simon
Subject: RE: M…

 

Si..,

 

I notice that you have sent me a follow up email which I will get to after taking the dogs for their early morning walk.

 

While I will continue to give you the “benefit of the doubt” that you are everything you say you are I will from here on out focus exclusively on the things of interest to me bearing in mind I know nothing about you, not quite sure how you got to me which should be as strong an indicator as any that you must in your next email “lift up your kimono” and tell me everything that would explain why for example you would choose to focus on a “video camera” when a tape recorder would be suffice to nail your crooked psychiatrist to the cross without bothering to find out anything about his family knowing perfectly well the vast majority of the educated world is very screwed up, i.e.  unless you are one of those most average who rise to the top of the Bell Shaped Curve you would NOT know that his poor conditioning is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT, not to mention you don’t even respond to my suggestion that you should have long since reported this malpractice not only to the medical association but without my suggestion, using the Internet to bring Public International Attention to your plight.

 

The article you reference The cartel isn't for ever published back on July 15^th 2004 tells me that you are much more “on top of your game” than you protest, enough to maintain my interest at least for now but may I strongly suggest that you don’t “push your luk” [sic].

 

Only someone devoid of a conscience or schooled under the Bell Shaped Curve educational system would view such a very important article as anything more than one most extraordinary Public Relations piece for the DAAC who interfere with the light.

 

After filling me in by telling me exactly what you do for a living, where you were educated, everything about your family then explain to me in simple English not only why you think it is one most extraordinary PR piece but why the Economist would be a party to such nonsense, not to mention you should have by now come across in my more recent writings this Lev Leviev who is only alive today because of his $13 billion odd money laundering connection to Putin who for good reason is increasingly unconcerned with the DAAC whose dominance has been predominantly in the west, our Japanese stooges not quite able to penetrate the Chinese market, not though through lack of trying.

 

Again, I am giving you but a very short leash that shouldn’t prevent you from making a very healthy financial contribution to my “social cause”, I assume your psychiatrist who fiddled you didn’t come cheap!

 

Take care,

 

Gary

 

[Word count 474]

 

From: Simon
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 1:28 AM
To: Gary S. Gevisser
Subject: RE: M…

 

Hello Gary.  Thank you for your reply.

What do you mean it won’t surprise you in the least if you don't hear from me again?  Heh!

I have to confess I had not picked up the DeDeers undertone to you website and I must go back and read it more carefully.

I do recall coming across the occassional article about De Beers in The Economist magazine and that very few were complimentary.  This is one I saw a while back.  http://www.economist.com/printedition/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=2921462

I am afraid I'm not wealthy enough to buy diamonds or to have worries about corruption.  Although if it affects the price of my weekly shopping then I could get interested!  Actually, I know well enough that corruption adds to the cost of goods in all sorts of ways and that it is not a victimless crime with no effect on others.  It often has a lot of effect on others and sometimes more effect on the poor than on the wealthy.

You certainly seem to have a lot of enthusiasm for this.  May I ask where your interest stems from?

As for my woes ... no I don't have a video tape.  Wow.  It would have been way too clever for me to manage to covertly video a meeting without anyone knowing.  I guess there actually are ways of doing this as the TV documentaries do it but I haven't been shown how I can do it.  Seems as if I might get some benefit if I learn this trick.  Any tips?

In the meantime I am limited to the official complaints channels although I have become aware that father …. was able to hold open commissions which still avoided the truth despite the showy semblance of transparency which their openness gave.  (Helderberg plane crash, Samora Machel's plane crash,  Dag Hammarskjld's plane crash).  This may mean my complaint gets somewhat thwarted by some creative semi-legalistic tricks, stunts or ploys of the sort which would be well-known to the M…..

Maybe you have encountered this yourself from one or another of them?

Still might be useful to talk on the phone.  Makes it easier.

best wishes

Simon





At 12-09-2006  03:38, Gary S. Gevisser wrote:

Hi SImon…---…