Durova denies everything, She's not a federal agent, she just plays one on Wikipedia Options

I believe that she's telling the truth. The employee names of almost all federal agencies are public information by law. Even if she wasn't, what's the big deal with working for the FBI?

Maybe we can ask Durova to conduct an FBI-style investigation to discover how Disillusioned Lackey came into such doubtful evidence that Durova is retained by the FBI to conduct FBI-style investigations.

Maybe we can ask Durova to conduct an FBI-style investigation to discover how Disillusioned Lackey came into such doubtful evidence that Durova is retained by the FBI to conduct FBI-style investigations.

You know, you are really a drip sometimes, Moulton.

It's not a debate.

Of course not.

It's a comic opera.

It did intrigue me when I first saw her userpage, that it goes on at length about her being in the navy, but I don't think it went into what she'd been doing since leaving. I'd just assumed she must've had a breakdown or something to be honest and not been working, or that it's just not as interesting, but maybe DL's theory provides an explanation for this silence.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: Wed 23rd April 2008, 11:32am

It did intrigue me when I first saw her userpage, that it goes on at length about her being in the navy, but I don't think it went into what she'd been doing since leaving. I'd just assumed she must've had a breakdown or something to be honest and not been working, or that it's just not as interesting, but maybe DL's theory provides an explanation for this silence.

All I know is, besides getting an "infotip" which may or may not be true, or accurate (ie she might work for another agency of similar investigative capacity)....

..... Jimbo defends her hard and fast, and in contexts unusual to the average loudmouth administrator.

.... Jimbo only defends two things: Those who have power/money, or those affiliated with power/money.

No other reason for his intervention. None. (oops, sorry, I forgot sexual favors - but that was de facto ruled out) Jimbo never does the right thing, for the right thing's sake. Ergo Wikipedia Review.

She's recent ex--mil. Govt family. Allegations of FBI. Not likely a corporate gal. You do the math.
He defended her far too much and too well, far too early in her admin career and in the face of large and loud protest, for there not to be some institution behind her.

That's why I take the allegation seriously.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 23rd April 2008, 10:26pm

I was more skeptical than most of DL's claims that Durova was FBI. But I will say one thing: Durova is full of shit about most everything she's ever claimed about the Navy.

She can't be Mata Hari though: IIRC, MH got by using feminine wiles and sex appeal. Durova has neither.

If there's any truth to it at all, DL, I would expect there to be two or three layers of subcontracting to distance someone like her from any governmental agency, like Homeboy Insecurity or the FBI. Government agencies have generic contracts with low-profile private investigative or research firms which then have sub-contractors who hire otherwise flaky and unreliable informants or stringers.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Wed 23rd April 2008, 11:53pm

I was more skeptical than most of DL's claims that Durova was FBI. But I will say one thing: Durova is full of shit about most everything she's ever claimed about the Navy.

She can't be Mata Hari though: IIRC, MH got by using feminine wiles and sex appeal. Durova has neither.

Lol true

If there's any truth to it at all, DL, I would expect there to be two or three layers of subcontracting to distance someone like her from any governmental agency, like Homeboy Insecurity or the FBI. Government agencies have generic contracts with low-profile private investigative or research firms which then have sub-contractors who hire otherwise flaky and unreliable informants or stringers.

OH. You ARE out of the loop, aren't you Moulton.

The FBI now devotes nearly two-thirds of its resources —some $4 billion —to waging war on terrorism. The approach today is not the traditional police work of investigating actual crimes but the far more slippery goal of preventing terrorist attacks before they occur. (Feb 25, 2008)

(note: that's 4 billion to investigate "domestic terrorism", as in people in Poohkeepsie, who might go beserk, or whatever, and that's why they need to surveil your Google history, "just in case you might flip out and 'take out the town'", ahem)

Read this scary, recent Rolling Stone article on FBI and JTTF bad sleuthing skills. Durova would fit right in - that's not evidence, but what you said about 2-3 levels of distension isn't really cogent.

Only recently have they begun outsourcing, and it will be the firm known for Iraq work, CACI.

Alternatively, the FBI *has* been massively hiring in-house, since 9/11, re:

• (2004) - FBI Launches Hiring Blitz Since the Sept 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the FBI is launching an unprecedented national advertising campaign to hire about 900 additional analysts.
• (2004) Federal Bureau of Investigation - Press Release - The FBI is hiring more Intelligence Analysts than ever..! The FBI is kicking off an aggressive Intelligence Analyst hiring campaign and is tailoring its ...

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Sat 26th April 2008, 10:51am

I think it bears noting, that a few months (even weeks) ago, I would have spoken highly of the FBI, because like you, Moulton, I had a good impression of the FBI as being professional, talented crime fighters.

YES. And the past month has been like finding out there is no Santa Claus.






Or that Santa Claus is a very, very bad man.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Thu 24th April 2008, 4:01am

It occurs to me that there are more than a few here who would assert that Durova is a terrorist attack, full stop.

It occurs to me that there are more than a few here who would assert that Durova is a terrorist attack, full stop.

I don't think that such hyperbolic language (the "T" word) helps anyone, or the situation in general.

That word is emotionally charged and loaded with implications that shut down communication.

Durova does a lot of needless damage. This is without question.

Sorry, still haven't seen any evidence. This is ridiculous.

Sorry, still haven't seen any evidence. This is ridiculous.

No. It's not ridiculous.

Frankly, it is not appropriate to give out the full information in this forum. You can think what you want.

With all due respect.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Thu 24th April 2008, 9:55pm

So, when will we know?

Where I come from (the academic and scientific community), we build our theories on evidence and reasoning.

What I mean by "when will we know?" is, DL, will you hear about this report thing soon and let us know one way or the other? Don't keep us in suspense now lol I expect to see it in, if not the Guardian, at least the Register

Sorry, still haven't seen any evidence. This is ridiculous.

No. It's not ridiculous.

Frankly, it is not appropriate to give out the full information in this forum. You can think what you want.

With all due respect.

So... you're basically posting unsourced allegations against a private person in a public forum which is visible to Google and refusing to provide evidence... hey, isn't that what we criticise Wikipedia for doing?

This post has been edited by KamrynMatika: Fri 25th April 2008, 2:13am

Kamryn is right. It's an unethical practice, whether WP does it to someone here, or whether we do it here to someone at WP.