Linda Mack wore a wire to a meeting, Not something a real journalist would do Options

I asked Dr Jim Swire if he knew anything about Linda Mack. He replied today:

"I can confirm that the lady then calling herself Linda Mack was a Cambridge graduate and attempted to infiltrate an early meeting between our group (UK Families-Flight 103) and the American families in London. We had her thrown out when we discovered that she was 'wired' with a microphone under her coat."

Dr Swire further stated that David Ben-Aryeah, who worked with Allan Francovich on the Maltese Double-Cross film, assisted in the ejection of Linda Mack from the joint relatives meeting.

I asked Dr Jim Swire if he knew anything about Linda Mack. He replied today:

"I can confirm that the lady then calling herself Linda Mack was a Cambridge graduate and attempted to infiltrate an early meeting between our group (UK Families-Flight 103) and the American families in London. We had her thrown out when we discovered that she was 'wired' with a microphone under her coat."

Interesting, but in fairness:

1. A true intelligence agent is not going to wear a clumsy coat microphone
2. Secretly recording something ostensibly newsworthy is very much something a good investigative journalist might do (getting caught, on the other hand, is typically reserved for poor ones).

I asked Dr Jim Swire if he knew anything about Linda Mack. He replied today:

Jim Swire is a really good guy. He's made a number of excellent appearances over the years, commentating on various global matters beyond Lockerbie. He's an impeccable source, and you did well to ask him for his thoughts, Daniel.

I asked Dr Jim Swire if he knew anything about Linda Mack. He replied today:

"I can confirm that the lady then calling herself Linda Mack was a Cambridge graduate and attempted to infiltrate an early meeting between our group (UK Families-Flight 103) and the American families in London. We had her thrown out when we discovered that she was 'wired' with a microphone under her coat."

Interesting, but in fairness:

1. A true intelligence agent is not going to wear a clumsy coat microphone
2. Secretly recording something ostensibly newsworthy is very much something a good investigative journalist might do (getting caught, on the other hand, is typically reserved for poor ones).

Exactly. More evidence that SlimLinda was likely not an agent, even though she may have been an "asset" (an informant, or a patsy). The piss-poor journalist theory also fits well with known facts.

Exactly. More evidence that SlimLinda was likely not an agent, even though she may have been an "asset" (an informant, or a patsy). The piss-poor journalist theory also fits well with known facts.

As I've tried to square the evidence in favor of SlimVirgin as "spy," and my intuition, which argues against it, I try to consider what I would have done in her spot. If she came to believe the official course of the PA103 investigation were erroneous, and at the same time felt a real investment in the outcome (as she would, having lost a friend) passing information to those she associated with "the government" would have seemed natural. That's why journalists should not cover stories they have a personal interest in...like a physician should not treat her own family members.

Glad it wasn't me.

I asked Dr Jim Swire if he knew anything about Linda Mack. He replied today:

"I can confirm that the lady then calling herself Linda Mack was a Cambridge graduate and attempted to infiltrate an early meeting between our group (UK Families-Flight 103) and the American families in London. We had her thrown out when we discovered that she was 'wired' with a microphone under her coat."

Interesting, but in fairness:

1. A true intelligence agent is not going to wear a clumsy coat microphone
2. Secretly recording something ostensibly newsworthy is very much something a good investigative journalist might do (getting caught, on the other hand, is typically reserved for poor ones).

Exactly. More evidence that SlimLinda was likely not an agent, even though she may have been an "asset" (an informant, or a patsy). The piss-poor journalist theory also fits well with known facts.

This is very interesting, and strongly supports the hypothesis that she is an agent wannabe. As I have mentioned on other occasions, I was struck by her work on the Wikipedia article Cambridge apostles, and I had the distinct impression that she was revealing a little hint of her fantasy life. A person who would pull a stunt like that wire-wearing business would go on Wikipedia and act like an agent without being one, because after all, isn't Wikipedia basically a big fantasy role-playing game? Unfortunately, what happens at Wikipedia, doesn't stay at Wikipedia.

Exactly. More evidence that SlimLinda was likely not an agent, even though she may have been an "asset" (an informant, or a patsy). The piss-poor journalist theory also fits well with known facts.

As I've tried to square the evidence in favor of SlimVirgin as "spy," and my intuition, which argues against it, I try to consider what I would have done in her spot. If she came to believe the official course of the PA103 investigation were erroneous, and at the same time felt a real investment in the outcome (as she would, having lost a friend) passing information to those she associated with "the government" would have seemed natural. That's why journalists should not cover stories they have a personal interest in...like a physician should not treat her own family members.

Glad it wasn't me.

I'm not drawn to the "government agent" theory. I don't think Daniel is either, or many other people here on this board if given the raw facts. The general impression is that of someone who is an over-intelligent meddler, inexperienced jouro, and dinner party gobshite. These types are ten-a-penny, reliving the mysterious intellectual intensity of their younger days. And they're perfectly suited to getting drawn into WP. We should know for heaven's sake! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I was struck by her work on the Wikipedia article Cambridge apostles, and I had the distinct impression that she was revealing a little hint of her fantasy life. A person who would pull a stunt like that would go on Wikipedia and act like an agent without being one, because after all, isn't Wikipedia basically a big fantasy role-playing game? Unfortunately, what happens at Wikipedia, doesn't stay at Wikipedia.

Bullseye

I spoke with a journalist on the telephone for over an hour today. He worked with Allan Francovich on the Lockerbie film, and knew Salinger and Cooley. He firmly believes that Mack was an informant for MI5. Some of the anecdotes he related about Mack strongly suggest that she was psychologically unstable. He said that as far as he knows, Mack went to Washington after London and hung out with the CIA crowd there. He heard from a friend that she married someone from MI5. That's all he knows about the post-London Linda Mack — basically, she fell off the radar completely. He said that her middle name is Beverley (or Beverly), which contradicts with the middle initial "E" that was listed at King's College. (I just deleted that initial on hivemind because now I don't know which is right.)

I spoke with a journalist on the telephone for over an hour today. He worked with Allan Francovich on the Lockerbie film, and knew Salinger and Cooley. He firmly believes that Mack was an informant for MI5. Some of the anecdotes he related about Mack strongly suggest she was psychologically unstable. He said that as far as he knows, Mack went to Washington after London and hung out with the CIA crowd there. He heard from a friend that she married someone from MI5. That's all he knows about the post-London Linda Mack — basically, she fell off the radar completely. He said that her middle name is Beverley (or Beverly), which contradicts with the middle initial "E" that was listed at King's College. (I just deleted that initial on hivemind because now I don't know which is right.)

We've all seen way too many movies where people get duped into doing all sorts of weird stuff — or "wired" stuff — by clever operatives. For my part, there are a couple decades worth of movies that I missed while living the buried life of under/grad school, so I've been immersed of late in caching up — the plot of The Recruit I saw last week was just like this.

So maybe this kinda stuff really happens, maybe not.

But I think that what most folks find implausible in the broad light of day is the notion that Lady Mac G4+WP in the present time frame — as opposed to Lady Mac I+MI5 in Auld Lang Syne — could still be doing what she does all day as a practicing agent/asset in good standing.

So what's the deil with her now ???

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

I spoke with a journalist on the telephone for over an hour today. He worked with Allan Francovich on the Lockerbie film, and knew Salinger and Cooley. He firmly believes that Mack was an informant for MI5. Some of the anecdotes he related about Mack strongly suggest that she was psychologically unstable. He said that as far as he knows, Mack went to Washington after London and hung out with the CIA crowd there. He heard from a friend that she married someone from MI5. That's all he knows about the post-London Linda Mack — basically, she fell off the radar completely. He said that her middle name is Beverley (or Beverly), which contradicts with the middle initial "E" that was listed at King's College. (I just deleted that initial on hivemind because now I don't know which is right.)

Hmmm. "Psychologically unstable" probably. "Hung out with the CIA crowd" seems rather vague. We would wonder how this journalist knew Linda's second name, and then remember it years later? It isn't the kind of thing that sticks.

I'd be curious how they discovered she was wearing a wire. Did she already have a reputation, and they were suspicious of her for that? It seems like a very dramatic situation, to accuse someone of wearing a wire and then actually find the wire hidden on them. I think it would take a very bad reputation to lead to something like that.

Very strange. I agree with Herchelkrustofsky and Daniel Brandt here, because she is an informant trying to be an agent. Maybe she is getting "schooled" to be an MI5 agent. Mr. Brandt and WordBomb are usually right, and I praise you for this. SV case is really suspicious. What if WP was originally a plan just to insert disinformation in the public.

Is "wearing wire" a euphemism for something? I am only 11, and I would like clarification, because it seems very unlikely that this expression is literal.

This post has been edited by jdrand:

I dunno... It's times like these when I think we're just being too hard on Slimmy. I mean, if she was doing such a lousy job as an investigative journalist, is it really any wonder that she'd end up working on an anonymous internet encyclopedia for free? More's the pity I say, as she probably would have done quite well working for, say, an insurance company or maybe one of those large resort hotels in the Bahamas.

Besides, we haven't completely exhausted other possible explanations for this "wire" thing, have we? Maybe she had tickets for a Rush concert later that night, and she wanted to use the hidden mics to make a totally kick-ass bootleg tape of the show?

Is "wearing wire" a euphemism for something? I am only 11

It's quite a common expression, and scarcely an old one unfamiliar to the present generation.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1146700,00.html

Is "wearing wire" a euphemism for something? I am only 11

It's quite a common expression, and scarcely an old one unfamiliar to the present generation.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1146700,00.html

So what does it mean? And are you JzG from Wikipedia (Sorry if this offends you, just asking because of the name)?

So what does it mean? And are you JzG from Wikipedia (Sorry if this offends you, just asking because of the name)?

OK - it means wearing a concealed microphone connected by a wire to a concealed recorder. OK?

No. Nor am I Guy of Gisborne or Guy Fawkes.

Very strange. I agree with Herchelkrustofsky and Daniel Brandt here, because she is an informant trying to be an agent. Maybe she is getting "schooled" to be an MI5 agent. Mr. Brandt and WordBomb are usually right, and I praise you for this. SV case is really suspicious. What if WP was originally a plan just to insert disinformation in the public.

Is "wearing wire" a euphemism for something? I am only 11, and I would like clarification, because it seems very unlikely that this expression is literal.

Look, I really liked Alias when it first came out, before they Usual Hack Jobbers turned it into Yet Another Nightime Soap Opera — but that was All So A Couple O' Seasons Ago — and my Theory Of The Week is that SlimVirgin might be just like that earnest-but-clueless Colin Farrell in The Recruit. Maybe some eminently mystiquifying Al Pacinoid character recruited her to Spy Skool and then duped her eminently unwitting self into being a double agent when she phlunked out of Said Spy Skool for being so Eminently Emo — and all the while she thought she was still a loyal patriodick single agent. Hey, it could happen.

And maybe she's like Matt Damon in the Bourne Ediot — maybe she's got amnesia and doesn't even know that her bourne name used to be Linda Mack. It could happen.

Jonny Cache, Honorary Knight of the Tin Hat and Tilter of Wikimills Everywhere, would never deny the possibility of any of that.

I'm just saying — in all the movies, they always at least try to bring the rouge agent in from the cold waaaaay b4 things get as comic as they currently are on Wikipedia.

Unless it's like a Mackswell Smart movie …

Disinformation Agent? Without a doubt. But if you're gonna be a Disinformation Agent, you might as haul in the Big Bucks in Big Buckets working for some High Class Low Profile PR firm on Madison Ave.

So personally I think that Wikipedia is something like a Sociological Experiment. I'd look more in the direction of Harvard or someplace like that than MK-Ultra, as universities have in the past very often exhibited a far more "flexible" ethics than most other institutions. No doubt the Informed Consent Slip is tucked away in some bit of fine print hyperlinked off the Main Page — Ten Things You Didn't Know You Were Agreeing To When You First Clicked That <Save> Button, or some bit like that.

If you ask me, Wikipedia is an experiment that asks the question:

Just How Dumb Can People Be ?

I assure you, someplace someone is learning a lot from this experiment.

Maybe it's Ail-yuns …

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

So personally I think that Wikipedia is something like a Sociological Experiment. I'd look more in the direction of Harvard or someplace like that than MK-Ultra, as universities have in the past very often exhibited a far more "flexible" ethics than most other institutions.

Have you considered the possibility that the internet generally is the new MK-Ultra? The late Tim Leary seemed to think so, and he was, as they say... experienced.

Plus, I understand that Rupert Murdoch now owns MySpace.

So personally I think that Wikipedia is something like a Sociological Experiment. I'd look more in the direction of Harvard or someplace like that than MK-Ultra, as universities have in the past very often exhibited a far more "flexible" ethics than most other institutions.

Have you considered the possibility that the internet generally is the new MK-Ultra? The late Tim Leary seemed to think so, and he was, as they say— experienced.

Plus, I understand that Rupert Murdoch now owns MySpace.

Well of course I've considered it. Wouldn't be a Boney Fried Conspiracy Theorist if I hadn't thought o' that.

King Leary was a scarey awesome dude. Came to our campus to lecture one time, and I swear there was this funny fuzzy fuchsia aura that descended over the town. I was too sacred to go near the auditorium — it got so intense the nearer you went. And I was only drinking Strohs. But Strohs has abandoned us for sunny Minnesota or Wisconsin now. Don't really drink the Fire Brew anymore.

¤ sigh ¤

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

Besides, we haven't completely exhausted other possible explanations for this "wire" thing, have we? Maybe she had tickets for a Rush concert later that night, and she wanted to use the hidden mics to make a totally kick-ass bootleg tape of the show?

FLY BY NIGHT AWAY FROM HERE ! ! !

(IMG:http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/3/31/200px-Rush_Fly_by_Night.jpg)

There's a standard joke about underwire bras here somewhere, but we have somebody pretending to be an 11-year old who isn't a Guy, so I'd better watch my mouth.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

I spoke with a journalist on the telephone for over an hour today. He worked with Allan Francovich on the Lockerbie film, and knew Salinger and Cooley. He firmly believes that Mack was an informant for MI5. Some of the anecdotes he related about Mack strongly suggest that she was psychologically unstable. He said that as far as he knows, Mack went to Washington after London and hung out with the CIA crowd there. He heard from a friend that she married someone from MI5. That's all he knows about the post-London Linda Mack — basically, she fell off the radar completely. He said that her middle name is Beverley (or Beverly), which contradicts with the middle initial "E" that was listed at King's College. (I just deleted that initial on hivemind because now I don't know which is right.)

It's funny, all the evidence Brandt is digging up suggests SV was/is indeed an agent, yet we have many nay sayers on here for whatever reason think they're better informed than Brandt's sources. I think it is natural for people to try and find "boring" explanations for things that they think seem outlandish, perhaps because either:

(i) we don't like to think that intelligence agents are editing Wikipedia

or (ii) that an intelligence agent (or former intelligence agent) would be someone like SV.

I think the evidence does indeed point to her having been involved in intelligence agencies, probably having been recruited at Cambridge. One anomoly which I have never yet heard anyone discuss is why she is not listed as having graduated from Cambridge, yet she said herself that she had graduated and had begun to study for a doctorate but had abandoned it?

What happens to intelligence agents that get discovered with a wire? This woman has acted more conspicuously than... someone that acts really conspicuous all the time! I realize that if I were to present this evidence to someone with no background, it probably wouldn't seem outrageous that Linda Mack was an intelligence agent. Maybe she is an intelligence agent for some third world country that have agents as low key as Larry, Moe, and Curly, but I find it unlikely. Perhaps the boring background information I consider in this (such as full days editing an article) has tainted my observations, but the wannabe spy seems the most likely to me.

Consider the taste of intrigue she tried to produce in the past, along with the idea that she is a has-been, or more probably a never-been, and it's no mystery why she is editing Wikipedia. Total fucking boredom! Just like the majority of editors on Wikipedia... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Look, there's a huge difference between an agent and an informant, the key one being that the requirements for the former far exceed those for the latter. Informants don't need to be stable and reliable, and don't even need to know that the're informants. In fact, instability would make someone particularly easy to manipulate and willing to share things they really shouldn't.

I can totally imagine a flake like SV trying to sneak a loud, clunky old tape recorder into a meeting by sticking it into the large outer pocket of a winter coat, only to be caught. However, I can't imagine anyone with actual training doing something quite that stupid and amateurish.

In short, I think she was a semi-competent reporter who might or might not have knowingly or unknowingly supplied information to some intelligence agency, but was in no way an agent herself. That's my conclusion, for what little it's worth.

Slinking back into the shadows...

Al

Look, there's a huge difference between an agent and an informant, the key one being that the requirements for the former far exceed those for the latter. Informants don't need to be stable and reliable, and don't even need to know that the're informants. In fact, instability would make someone particularly easy to manipulate and willing to share things they really shouldn't.

I can totally imagine a flake like SV trying to sneak a loud, clunky old tape recorder into a meeting by sticking it into the large outer pocket of a winter coat, only to be caught. However, I can't imagine anyone with actual training doing something quite that stupid and amateurish.

In short, I think she was a semi-competent reporter who might or might not have knowingly or unknowingly supplied information to some intelligence agency, but was in no way an agent herself. That's my conclusion, for what little it's worth.

Slinking back into the shadows...

Al

That is what us "nay sayers" have been trying to get across. In fact, I would go as far as to say that most informants are probably not aware that they are informants.

In short, I think she was a semi-competent reporter who might or might not have knowingly or unknowingly supplied information to some intelligence agency, but was in no way an agent herself. That's my conclusion, for what little it's worth.

Slinking back into the shadows...

Al

Actually I don't think we have evidence that she was ever a "reporter". As far as I know we only have one article that has her name on it. Also, on the SweetBlueWater account she first stated she was a researcher and writer, then changed that to journalist- I think the former probably gives a more accurate description of what she had done.

In short, I think she was a semi-competent reporter who might or might not have knowingly or unknowingly supplied information to some intelligence agency, but was in no way an agent herself. That's my conclusion, for what little it's worth.

Slinking back into the shadows...

Al

Actually I don't think we have evidence that she was ever a "reporter". As far as I know we only have one article that has her name on it. Also, on the SweetBlueWater account she first stated she was a researcher and writer, then changed that to journalist- I think the former probably gives a more accurate description of what she had done.

Agreed.

In fact, I would go as far as to say that most informants are probably not aware that they are informants.

Come on now, don't pull your punches. Maybe Essjay really did have two doctorates, one in theology and one in canon law, and he was telling the truth to The New Yorker. But then nearly a year later, he forgot that he had them, and was incorrectly outed as a 24-year-old community-college dropout. I guess we'll never know.

When I used the term "informant," I was referring to what the journalist told me about Linda Mack. He clearly believes that Mack was a paid informant. Sorry, but he didn't have any MI5 pay stubs with Linda Mack's name on them to fax to me.

I think Wikipedians are missing the point of all this. No, it's even worse than that. They're standing on their heads and covering their ears with their hands, to make sure they're missing the point.

To me, the point is that despite the bullshit pushed by Wikipedians about the wonderful world of Web 2.0 social networking, and how it is so transparent and comprehensive that truth inevitably rises to the top from the very depths of society's long tail, what you really have at Wikipedia is a structure that is far less transparent, and far, far less accountable, than any other entity that has ever called itself an encyclopedia.

Whether Slim is the slickest thing since James Bond, or a bungling, wannabe role-player, doesn't matter all that much. What matters is that she could be a paid disinformation agent on a mission to build a secret foundation underneath Wikipedia, and so could Jayjg, and so could Jimbo and the ArbCom, and you would never know it unless someday they all decided to tell you.

In fact, I would go as far as to say that most informants are probably not aware that they are informants.

Come on now, don't pull your punches. Maybe Essjay really did have two doctorates, one in theology and one in canon law, and he was telling the truth to The New Yorker. But then nearly a year later, he forgot that he had them, and was incorrectly outed as a 24-year-old community-college dropout. I guess we'll never know.

When I used the term "informant," I was referring to what the journalist told me about Linda Mack. He clearly believes that Mack was a paid informant. Sorry, but he didn't have any MI5 pay stubs with Linda Mack's name on them to fax to me.

I think Wikipedians are missing the point of all this. No, it's even worse than that. They're standing on their heads and covering their ears with their hands, to make sure they're missing the point.

To me, the point is that despite the bullshit pushed by Wikipedians about the wonderful world of Web 2.0 social networking, and how it is so transparent and comprehensive that truth inevitably rises to the top from the very depths of society's long tail, what you really have at Wikipedia is a structure that is far less transparent, and far, far less accountable, than any other entity that has ever called itself an encyclopedia.

Whether Slim is the slickest thing since James Bond, or a bungling, wannabe role-player, doesn't matter all that much. What matters is that she could be a paid disinformation agent on a mission to build a secret foundation underneath Wikipedia, and so could Jayjg, and so could Jimbo and the ArbCom, and you would never know it unless someday they all decided to tell you.

O/T, but were you contacted by The Economist about their leader?

In fact, I would go as far as to say that most informants are probably not aware that they are informants.

Come on now, don't pull your punches. Maybe Essjay really did have two doctorates, one in theology and one in canon law, and he was telling the truth to The New Yorker. But then nearly a year later, he forgot that he had them, and was incorrectly outed as a 24-year-old community-college dropout. I guess we'll never know.

When I used the term "informant," I was referring to what the journalist told me about Linda Mack. He clearly believes that Mack was a paid informant. Sorry, but he didn't have any MI5 pay stubs with Linda Mack's name on them to fax to me.

I think Wikipedians are missing the point of all this. No, it's even worse than that. They're standing on their heads and covering their ears with their hands, to make sure they're missing the point.

To me, the point is that despite the bullshit pushed by Wikipedians about the wonderful world of Web 2.0 social networking, and how it is so transparent and comprehensive that truth inevitably rises to the top from the very depths of society's long tail, what you really have at Wikipedia is a structure that is far less transparent, and far, far less accountable, than any other entity that has ever called itself an encyclopedia.

Whether Slim is the slickest thing since James Bond, or a bungling, wannabe role-player, doesn't matter all that much. What matters is that she could be a paid disinformation agent on a mission to build a secret foundation underneath Wikipedia, and so could Jayjg, and so could Jimbo and the ArbCom, and you would never know it unless someday they all decided to tell you.

Pull Our Punches ? (POP ?) — PULL OUR PUNCHES !? (POP !?)

Dem's Fightin' Words Whar I Come From !!!

Which is why I left …

I think we're pretty much agreed that SlimVirgin is a paid, or at least well-endowed in the CAN$ sense, Disinformation Operative On Some Kind Of Mission (DOOSKOM).

But the question is one of achieving Undeniable Plausibility. Saying a lot of stuff that doesn't add up does nothing more than give them exactly what they want, their favorite changeling for Truth and Verifiability, to wit, or not, WP:Plausible Deniability.

The question is : What kind of DOOSKOM is she, exactly?

There are many different kinds of DOOSKOM in this world of ours, most of 'em not nearly as thrilling to speckelate about as even the most humdrum tindrum spy gamer, folks like Karl Rove, just to rip a random ranger from recent headlines.

If I had to pick the Big Pixel that everyone is oversighting, er, overlooking, it would be this:

The Current Content of Wikipedia is all a Big Distraction —

It's all just a Big Batch of fill-in-the-blank playtester-supplied test data that is needed to prime the pumps of an ongoing programming project, one that is aimed at constructing a particular kind of global software medium.

This is hardly my OR — Marshall McLuhan (Canadian !!!) said it all long ago :

The Medium Is The Massage …

This is why people, if they're smart not Smart, need to quit wasting so much time fighting over the Red Herrings, and start looking at the Shape of the Barrel.

Things like WP:P&G, aka, SV:TOR.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

Whether Slim is the slickest thing since James Bond, or a bungling, wannabe role-player, doesn't matter all that much.

She could be both, actually. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Oh, oops. I thought you said the sickest thing since James Bond.

Never mind.
(IMG:http://img.snlarc.jt.org/arc/char/GiRa-Emily%20Litella.jpg)

Interesting, but in fairness:

1. A true intelligence agent is not going to wear a clumsy coat microphone

Sure they would/could. Who ever said that intelligence agents were subtle?

Especially if they were such an obvious personality™ that they wound up in everyone's book about Pan Am 103 (Three Google Books mention Linda Mack in relation to the Pan Am affair). Ahem

I mean, do you read John Cooley's name everywhere? No. Why is that? Hm. Good question.

1. Secretly recording something ostensibly newsworthy is very much something a good investigative journalist might do (getting caught, on the other hand, is typically reserved for poor ones).

Nonsense. Agents from the US and UK aren't especially subtle about what they do. People who feel vastly empowered and who aren't held accountable to the rule of law sort of tend in that direction.

Also: secretly recording things is what you do when you want to document opinions that you need very badly to control. Why do you think surveillance is such a big deal in the US right now?

Recording opinions of victims families after Pan Am 1003 is something someone would do who was garnering information on a world-class spin job that the UK and US had strong and important interests in promoting, for about 20 years. Until they dropped the ruse one day, last summer, and no one noticed.

Incidentally, I heard about the 'it wasn't them' story, over dinner in the early 1990s, as an 'everyone knows this' story. It's not like I was curious. Someone brought it up. The crowd I hung with that year was idiosyncratic for dinner-party espionage stories - and were well-placed to garner credible ones.


This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

When is this suppose to have occurred?

Because if it's in the last ten years, the only way you'd find a "wire" is with a home-made kit or something from a shop or a strip search.

The fact that she wasn't strip-searched means that they had to see or notice the wire - so it's an amateur job.

I'd give it 50/50 she's either straight deluded or a wannabe.

When is this suppose to have occurred?

Because if it's in the last ten years, the only way you'd find a "wire" is with a home-made kit or something from a shop or a strip search.

The fact that she wasn't strip-searched means that they had to see or notice the wire - so it's an amateur job.

I'd give it 50/50 she's either straight deluded or a wannabe.

It was in a families of victims meeting in the Northeast of the United States, in the early 1990s. Source: Dr. Jim Swire, one of the grieving family members. Who cares that her technology was crap. It was there. As for being strip-searched. That's a weird comment. I don't imagine that strip searching is normal, as a response, in victim support group meetings. Are you a cop?

People on this site have been Slimvirgin-watching for about four years now. Mostly because she's caused so much human damage, and much of it winds up here, complaining. Look above. The informed consensus of educated persons (who have, unlike you, been watching her for years - not to mention having been directly 'targeted' by her - sometimes for serious levels of online abuse) is that the woman is paid to edit, and that she's got an agenda. Opinions vary as to the nature of that agenda, but that it exists is accepted across the board.

The fact that she was at a family meeting in the US in striking as well. She was a student at Cambridge when her romantic friend perished on the flight. Then she joined work at ABC with Salinger, participated in the investigation, and his office got raided by MI5. He fired her, sure that she was from MI5. Subsequently, she worked assiduously, for years, to badmouth him. Even on Wikipedia, she wrote most of the entry on the Pierre Salinger Syndrome, as well as writing much negative material about him, which was subsequently oversighted, helpfully, by Jimbo and others. She even wrote an entry on her (sadly) late friend, which was removed, for lack of notability.

Back to the point: why did she move to the US, and hang around the grieving families? Maybe that was a coincidence. But that she was wearing a wire was curious. And she wasn't a reporter at the time. She'd been fired by Salinger.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Who cares that her technology was crap. It was there. As for being strip-searched. That's a weird comment. I don't imagine that strip searching is normal, as a response, in victim support group meetings. Are you a cop?

No but I have worked in R&D for certain types of products - which is why I'm saying if people noticed that she was wearing a wire, she certainly wasn't working as an agent (at least not at that time). The reason I mentioned the strip-search is that you'd need to use one to find the sort of kit that I'm familiar with or slash open a few items of clothing and bagging.

So it sounds like she was using something she'd made herself or purchased from a shop - which is why she's either a wanabee or an informer rather than an agent (which again is different from her later activities of being paid to edit wiki).

This post has been edited by Robert Roberts:

Who cares that her technology was crap. It was there. As for being strip-searched. That's a weird comment. I don't imagine that strip searching is normal, as a response, in victim support group meetings. Are you a cop?

No but I have worked in R&D for certain types of products - which is why I'm saying if people noticed that she was wearing a wire, she certainly wasn't working as an agent (at least not at that time). The reason I mentioned the strip-search is that you'd need to use one to find the sort of kit that I'm familiar with or slash open a few items of clothing and bagging.

So it sounds like she was using something she'd made herself or purchased from a shop - which is why she's either a wanabee or an informer rather than an agent (which again is different from her later activities of being paid to edit wiki).

There's a reason anyone even asked Dr. Swire about it. This is about the 40th point on a list, which indicates that she's an agent.

Who cares why they noticed. Maybe she's a technical doofus, and dropped it on the floor out of her coat.

They threw her out. Physically. A bunch of grieving people. That's not normal.

Someone here contacted them to ask. Twenty years later. That's not normal either.

There's a reason anyone even asked Dr. Swire about it. This is about the 40th point on a list, which indicates that she's an agent.

Who cares why they noticed. Maybe she's a technical doofus, and dropped it on the floor out of her coat.

But it does not, that the point - the type of equipment that is used is not really a wire, it's generally built inside another object - which is why the only people you notice with wires are amateurs and wannabes (and cops but that's because they are cheap bastards).

I'm not saying she's *not* an Field Officer but it's unlikely that she was *at that time* because she wouldn't have a wire to drop.

This post has been edited by Robert Roberts:

Have you considered the possibility that the internet generally is the new MK-Ultra? The late Tim Leary seemed to think so, and he was, as they say... experienced.

He was, but toward the end of his life, he'd say anything to get him noticed. He was basically another drama queen, but a socially adept and charming one, since he was basically living off his old reputation by that time. Yeah, he said the internet was like acid, but he also said light shows and senility were like acid. Okay....

However, if WP is a cult, ala Leary's following, then becoming an admin on WP is definitely the Kool Aid Acid Test. And electric, too.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

I'm not saying she's *not* an Field Officer but it's unlikely that she was *at that time* because she wouldn't have a wire to drop.

Well, there was the Slashdot entry about her being a spy last year. Inspired by the article, Wikipedia and the Intelligence Services

I personally didn't think it mattered one way or the other, when I read the above.

I mean, if our intelligence edits Wikipedia, "so what?"

Then some very strange things happened.

At the present day, I think she's an intelligence officer, and she's done some pretty weird things above and beyond online activity. That's all I will say about it.

Other than that I didn't care about the topic in general, or the person in particular, until I had a very good reason. Now, why would that be?

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Look, some stuff is already 'public domain' - we don't need to wonder about here. Intelligence agents do work widely with the media. The CIA places journalists on all the main newspapers, magazines, TV and agencies. That's all been well acknowledged in several Congressional reports...

Wikipedia is the dominant 'research' source on the internet - its not got there by accdient, and its certianly not going to be free of spooky people. Jimbo, presumably, is 'helping' in some form, and he's nobody's idea of a secret agent, the other 'helpers' may be no more impressive either.

My reading of SlimVirgin is that she is being employed by someone to control Wikipedia, as (a) she controls wikipedia and ((IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) it takes up too much of her time even for a mad person to be expalined otherwise. Add to that, looking at the 'textual evidence' there are a lot of comments on WIkipedia, both signed her own but also ( I hazard) using 'cover' names, which are evidence of a persecution complex.

Such nutty behaviour would be self-destructive if she were not in turn being guided and controlled... hence she must be carrying out some 'mission' provided by the various agencies...

If we want to track her down, I have an idea the weak link is through her 'youngester philosophy' connections - that is Baggini and Stangroom... but I have to keep the strategy secret Write to me!