|
|
|
Hey Linda, you forgot about Archive.org!, Busted for the umpteenth time |
|
|
Disillusioned Lackey |
|
Unregistered
|
If she was an agent, or collaborated with the CIA in the Locherbie investigation, and in the disinformation campaign of that film on Pan Am (as that book suggests) has anyone considered that she might have gone under some kind of identity protection program?
Sarah McEwan could have been in Alberta, bored and missing her exciting life where she could blame the DEA for a bombing and ruin lives, and help put a Libyan in prison, and charge Libya for a bombing that other countries were behind, editing Wikipedia - making note of everything she used to know and do, never realizing that someone would link it to her old life.
That's also possible. As possible as her being a spy now. Whether or not she was a spy then.
I have a theory that she married a Jewish guy, or otherwise took the name Sarah as a sort of reference to her affinity for Jewish things.
She would have outed herself, of course. Maybe she's in the process of re-changing her name right now, as a result of this.
**extra note: I think we need to stop saying MI5/MI6. If she was really doing what you say she was doing, it was CIA. I don't see the Brits getting so into manipulating such information around as this - especially the campaign against the Fracovich film, in the book by Susan and David Cohen on the Pan Am Case. She didn't have to be American to be CIA, they hire non-Americans all the time.
The Susan and David Cohen book is actually the most indicative of a spy. They liked Linda, and trusted her, and they are reporting that Francovich was calling her a spy (page 233, Pan Am 103, Susan and David Cohen), when Linda was tryin to keep his movie from being played. They describe their later surprise at how innocuous the movie was, and they describe how Linda "took the lead" in stopping it. They also describe the link with Larouche and this film.
With Slimvirgin's constant tapping down of Larouche, it actually all does make her look like she's still a spy, honestly, and I'm quite a skeptic.
This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:
|
|
|
|
Daniel Brandt |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined:
Member No.: 77
|
I think it's time to write a formal letter to the Board of Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation and request an investigation into the oversightings. Then if they respond, or fail to respond, there's enough to take it to the press, along with some of Jimbo's comments on the issue to date. I think the letter should come from Wikipedia Review.
We need some clarification on the issue of anonymity for high officials of Wikipedia, as well as powerful admins (and all admins in general, for that matter). How do they justify this? If they claim it's a protection against cyberstalking, then can they give concrete examples of why such protection is needed, and why the tradeoff for more protection, leading to more secret conflict-of-interest articles, is justified?
I also think Somey should get rid of all those "name redacted" that are currently replacing Linda's name. He should also lift the bot prohibition on the Editors forum as soon as the redactions are gone. Or, if he's squeamish about that, then he should transfer everything to a special Slim page with no redactions, and make it available to the engines.
I also think we need some admins to start using their real names, or they will look foolish doing all of this.
I've been repeating myself over the last week like crazy. Virtually everything I've posted over the last week is old news. But it seems to be new to a lot of readers on this board, because they cannot find the old stuff.
Oh, to hell with it. I'm talking in circles. I think I'll do all this from Wikipedia-Watch in September. Journalists are asleep in August, and besides, I want to give Jimbo a chance to make some more zany comments.
|
|
|
|
Disillusioned Lackey |
|
Unregistered
|
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 1st August 2007, 1:42pm) I think it's time to write a formal letter to the Board of Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation and request an investigation into the oversightings.
Complete waste of time. But if you want to, go for it. QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 1st August 2007, 1:42pm) Then if they respond, or fail to respond, there's enough to take it to the press, along with some of Jimbo's comments on the issue to date. I think the letter should come from Wikipedia Review.
I think that bringing up the Cohen book, and the DEA agent book, is very important. It is too easy to bash Pierre Salinger. You'd have to get someone from the mainstream press to pick it up - what about the Huffington Post? Why not blog there Daniel? That's a huge cross section of media and politics and it is very open. And has developed a great reputation based on internet-alone publication. QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 1st August 2007, 1:42pm) I've been repeating myself over the last week like crazy. Virtually everything I've posted over the last week is old news. But it seems to be new to a lot of readers on this board, because they cannot find the old stuff.
Weren't you also saying things about Google, and then that was recognized later? QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 1st August 2007, 1:42pm) I want to give Jimbo a chance to make some more zany comments.
Because that's something new? Jimbo says a lot of dumb things. Unfortunately, he's been interviewed in Newsweek this week, and that does him more weight. People still think that Wikia is going to produce a credible product - mostly because he's claiming he's going to unseat Google, which is pretty much the wackiest thing he's ever claimed. This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:
|
|
|
|
Disillusioned Lackey |
|
Unregistered
|
QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Wed 1st August 2007, 2:03pm) Certainly if interviewed by the press, anyone who is interviewed should give their real name. I don't think there's anything to be afraid of.
You know, if she really is still with the CIA, it isn't without risk. Wikipedia can't harm you - they can only ban you or badmouth you - but the CIA can do a lot to mess up your life. If they want to bother. Not sure that they would. If she is in the CIA, she's got to be getting a lot of flack for having outted herself so carelessly. And if she is in the CIA, its like the 5th time that someone prominent has figured her out. It would be hard to imagine that her team, or boss, or handlers, would be thrilled at her having outed herself, and would be keen to attack her outers. Killing someone or discrediting them before the internet could silence them. But with the web, words are permanent record, so it is less easy to close things off. Back in the skeptics corner - If she's not in the CIA, she behaves suspiciously and aggressively enough that many people have accused her of it. She still might not be an agent, you know. Another clue to her 'not' being an agent is that her website slimvirgin.com was bought by herself. If she was an agent, I think the agency would pay for such a thing. Or she'd use a different login for her undercover work than her personal page, and personal yahoo email.
|
|
|
|
Herschelkrustofsky |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
|
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Wed 1st August 2007, 12:19pm) The Susan and David Cohen book is actually the most indicative of a spy. They liked Linda, and trusted her, and they are reporting that Francovich was calling her a spy (page 233, Pan Am 103, Susan and David Cohen), when Linda was tryin to keep his movie from being played. They describe their later surprise at how innocuous the movie was, and they describe how Linda "took the lead" in stopping it. They also describe the link with Larouche and this film.
With Slimvirgin's constant tapping down of Larouche, it actually all does make her look like she's still a spy, honestly, and I'm quite a skeptic.
What is the link to LaRouche? I've never heard of it.
|
|
|
|
LamontStormstar |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,360
Joined:
Member No.: 342
|
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 1st August 2007, 12:42pm) I think it's time to write a formal letter to the Board of Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation and request an investigation into the oversightings. Then if they respond, or fail to respond, there's enough to take it to the press, along with some of Jimbo's comments on the issue to date. I think the letter should come from Wikipedia Review.
If you take it to press, be sure to make an account to ask on-wiki too so once your account gets. banned you can add that as something mentionable. QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Wed 1st August 2007, 3:03pm) Yes, but WP needs to be taken down and this is as good a way to do it as anything else...You still seem to think that this project is still viable: what more proof do you need that it's not only not viable, it's become a menace.
When I want to find information on a wiki, I find wikipedia has too much bias spread in it. For instance if I want to look up something on star trek, I visit the memory alpha site and not wikipedia as memory alpha would have less people trying to control it with lies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |