SlimVirgin's "livelihood", :gasp: it's being destroyed!! Options

As part pf the hilarity concerning Tony Sidaway's anti-WR diatribe and subsequent block, our friend SlimVirgin has emerged from seclusion to go on her own anti-WR jihad. Nothing surprising about this, but she did have this to say (emphasis added):

Describing the situation with Wikipedia Review's stalking as a "grudge" between them and certain users will not do. They have done their best to destroy some people's livelihoods, mine included. I will not step back, and I am not making wild accusations. What I notice is that it is always — ''always'' — the same small group of people who turn up to these discussions in defence of WR. I could have written out a list of the editors in advance who would post here in that regard, and I don't think I'd have gotten a single one wrong.

Now, what is interesting to me is not the hollow bluster, but the statement that we are "destroying her livelihood". This is fascinating. Unless you count the rabid speculation that she is a spy for MI-5, the CIA, or -- goodness knows -- K.A.O.S. -- I was not aware that we had any idea what her profession was! Indeed, anyone who spends as much time as she does editing Wikipedia must have either a very flexible job or a low need for sleep, food, and -- dare I say it -- companionship.

So, is this another of Slim's "actionable libel" pronouncements (still waiting for the action on that one)? Or are we actually impacting her ability to earn a living? The latter would be a shame, and for once, I am not speaking sarcastically. I doubt there is any way to really know. Indeed, is there anyone out there whose ability to earn a living has been impacted by WR? Enquiring minds wish to know!

This is indeed perplexing. Was she planning to somehow market the "SlimVirgin" concept? She did have dibs on the domain name.

I guess she can't sell her howto on "manipulating a top 10 website and getting away with it" if we give all her tricks away.

As part pf the hilarity concerning Tony Sidaway's anti-WR diatribe and subsequent block, our friend SlimVirgin has emerged from seclusion to go on her own anti-WR jihad. Nothing surprising about this, but she did have this to say (emphasis added):

Describing the situation with Wikipedia Review's stalking as a "grudge" between them and certain users will not do. They have done their best to destroy some people's livelihoods, mine included. I will not step back, and I am not making wild accusations. What I notice is that it is always — ''always'' — the same small group of people who turn up to these discussions in defence of WR. I could have written out a list of the editors in advance who would post here in that regard, and I don't think I'd have gotten a single one wrong.

Now, what is interesting to me is not the hollow bluster, but the statement that we are "destroying her livelihood". This is fascinating. Unless you count the rabid speculation that she is a spy for MI-5, the CIA, or -- goodness knows -- K.A.O.S. -- I was not aware that we had any idea what her profession was! Indeed, anyone who spends as much time as she does editing Wikipedia must have either a very flexible job or a low need for sleep, food, and -- dare I say it -- companionship.

So, is this another of Slim's "actionable libel" pronouncements (still waiting for the action on that one)? Or are we actually impacting her ability to earn a living? The latter would be a shame, and for once, I am not speaking sarcastically. I doubt there is any way to really know. Indeed, is there anyone out there whose ability to earn a living has been impacted by WR? Enquiring minds wish to know!

Well, if SV was planning on working in Canada as mild-mannered investigative journalist Sarah M., and she's been outed as actually being highpowered Linda M., Agent 99 for MI-whatever, that would (in her mind) put a damper on her future spy activities. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ph34r.gif) She might have to actually do investigative journalism for a living, and that would be so uncool without a proper background that would stand on its own for the employer. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif) You have to have something better on your resume than "Once worked for Pierre Salinger, who is dead, and now on lithium for mania, which helps."

Either that, or she was planning ot sell a series of Philosophical Action Figures © of her own, and this site pointed out that somebody had done it. That takes the wind out of sails. But look, there's still Schopenhauer and Ayn Rand and lots of people who haven't been done. (Schop. weakness: won't help old ladies across the street. Powers: Can help them rapidly down stairs. And stuff that hasn't been added: Bertrand Russell power: Breath of Death. Weakness: Breath of Death. Neitschze weakness: not good with horses, etc.)

N.B. Mantanmoreland officially ran K.A.O.S. The Man from Uncle was, I believe, User:Tomstoner.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

This is interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=226194575

It's not a thread; it's practically the entire website. I can just picture my next job interview:

Interviewer: So you're the duplicitous bitch who's paid by MI5 to edit Wikipedia, and as a sideline colludes with Stormfront to compile lists of Jews to be murdered, while singlehandedly putting innocent men in jail?

SlimVirgin: Erm, yes, that would be me.

Interviewer (loosening his tie and locking the door): And umm ... are you also the one who fantasizes about being raped, and who has sex with prospective employers to get jobs?

But no, they haven't threatened my livelihood at all.

I don't think she thought this post through. Either she's saying that she's going to use the name "SlimVirgin" on a resume/job application, or...

So, is this another of Slim's "actionable libel" pronouncements (still waiting for the action on that one)? Or are we actually impacting her ability to earn a living? The latter would be a shame, and for once, I am not speaking sarcastically. I doubt there is any way to really know. Indeed, is there anyone out there whose ability to earn a living has been impacted by WR? Enquiring minds wish to know!

I think it would depend on whether the allegations are seen or not by the prospective contractor or employer.

Mind you, I am not supporting this wild flailing, which does neither her nor the project any good. But the pain and anger is palpable. It is not a trick.

I don't think she thought this post through. Either she's saying that she's going to use the name "SlimVirgin" on a resume/job application, or...

Prospective employers often Google job applicants. Have you googled Slim's real name? This practice on the part of prospective employers is illegal in Finland, but very common in the U.S./Canada. But trying to turn this into a "stalking" issue by immediately suggesting that the next step is getting sexually assaulted by the interviewer, indicates that she's merely trying to score a debating point.

The image I get from Slim on that page is one of water circling around the drain. She's really mad.


This post has been edited by bambi:

I don't think she thought this post through. Either she's saying that she's going to use the name "SlimVirgin" on a resume/job application, or...

Prospective employers often Google job applicants. Have you googled Slim's real name? This practice on the part of prospective employers is illegal in Finland, but very common in the U.S./Canada.

Yes, but that would assume that the name Brandt (and others) have attributed to her is her actual name. Maybe it is, I don't know (or care). But I would hope she isn't silly enough to apply for a job as "SlimVirgin".

Yes, but that would assume that the name Brandt (and others) have attributed to her is her actual name. Maybe it is, I don't know (or care). But I would hope she isn't silly enough to apply for a job as "SlimVirgin".

Indeed; the only way that the WR threads on her could be "ruining her livelihood" is if the statements in them are true. In which case, I don't have a lot of sympathy for her.

and as a sideline colludes with Stormfront to compile lists of Jews to be murdered

When have we ever suggested that SV compiles lists of Jews?

I think we once noted that she said that names of non-Jews needed to be removed from such lists in case it endangered them and wondered why it was OK to allow the names of undoubted Jews to remain on them. If I thought for a minute that any Jew was being endangered by these lists, I'd be lobbying for their deletion. (There's also the question of why she was worried about Jews no longer alive, and people whom everyone knows to be Jewish but she could pick some sort of hole in the source we'd given.)

As a song from back in the '70s said, "You don't mess around with Slim!"

Yes, but that would assume that the name Brandt (and others) have attributed to her is her actual name. Maybe it is, I don't know (or care). But I would hope she isn't silly enough to apply for a job as "SlimVirgin".

Indeed; the only way that the WR threads on her could be "ruining her livelihood" is if the statements in them are true. In which case, I don't have a lot of sympathy for her.

Another option for her, that's been available all along, is to quit the Wikipedia scene. I'm sure that things on Google would die down over time, fairly quickly after that.

As part pf the hilarity concerning Tony Sidaway's anti-WR diatribe and subsequent block, our friend SlimVirgin has emerged from seclusion to go on her own anti-WR jihad. Nothing surprising about this, but she did have this to say (emphasis added):

Describing the situation with Wikipedia Review's stalking as a "grudge" between them and certain users will not do. They have done their best to destroy some people's livelihoods, mine included. I will not step back, and I am not making wild accusations. What I notice is that it is always — ''always'' — the same small group of people who turn up to these discussions in defence of WR. I could have written out a list of the editors in advance who would post here in that regard, and I don't think I'd have gotten a single one wrong.

For Slim: (IMG:http://www.made-in-china.com/image/2f0j00jvyEFVhcMTbdM/Violin.jpg)

Now, what is interesting to me is not the hollow bluster, but the statement that we are "destroying her livelihood". This is fascinating. Unless you count the rabid speculation that she is a spy for MI-5, the CIA, or -- goodness knows -- K.A.O.S. -- I was not aware that we had any idea what her profession was! Indeed, anyone who spends as much time as she does editing Wikipedia must have either a very flexible job or a low need for sleep, food, and -- dare I say it -- companionship.

You know. The only possible explanation I could have for Slim saying those words is that she might work for the CIA, or the NRO, and someone just invoked an Inspector General investigation, with her name highlighted in bold letters, checking to see if she's been abusing her role not only on Wikipedia, but elsewhere.

But that would be a conspiracy theory, right?

Another option for her, that's been available all along, is to quit the Wikipedia scene. I'm sure that things on Google would die down over time, fairly quickly after that.

Or if part of her job is work as "chat room influencer", and someone realized that she's extraordinarily bad at it, and gave her a nice office, with a fancy title, and a complex project that kept her occupied for weeks (or months, or years). Or just a nice push out the door and a wave good riddance.

I prefer the latter.

It's not a thread; it's practically the entire website. I can just picture my next job interview:

Interviewer: So you're the duplicitous bitch who's paid by MI5 to edit Wikipedia, and as a sideline colludes with Stormfront to compile lists of Jews to be murdered, while singlehandedly putting innocent men in jail?

SlimVirgin: Erm, yes, that would be me.

Interviewer (loosening his tie and locking the door): And umm ... are you also the one who fantasizes about being raped, and who has sex with prospective employers to get jobs?

But no, they haven't threatened my livelihood at all.

Whereas I hesitate to use Wikipediot logic - her repeating this once-made-statement-by-someone-loonie (have no idea who it was) only institutionalizes the attribution.

One persons said it once (maybe). And she's repeated it how many times? Dozens.

Methinks that whenever D or SV feel threatened (usually on exogenous grounds) they call up graphically vivid images of verbal violence foisted upon them, purportedly by others.

There's gotta be a neuroleptic for that, ya know?

Why bother with science if you can't cure such a syndrome?

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Interviewer: So you're the duplicitous bitch who's paid by MI5 to edit Wikipedia, and as a sideline colludes with Stormfront to compile lists of Jews to be murdered, while singlehandedly putting innocent men in jail? SlimVirgin: Erm, yes, that would be me.

Oh, and you forgot these Slim:


(IMG:http://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/satellite.jpg) (IMG:http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/smo/docs/ifor/bosfig9-10.gif) (IMG:http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/smo/docs/ifor/fig9-2.gif) (IMG:http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/smo/docs/ifor/bosfig9-3.gif)
(IMG:http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/smo/docs/ifor/bosfig9-9.gif) (IMG:http://www.lefigaro.fr/medias/2007/12/06/f3cede1c-a370-11dc-bedc-01e4fb45b34a.jpg)


And then a special Slimvirgin-Linda Mack theme song.

Don't omit any of the rumors. It leaves an empty feeling. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

It's even a trendy rumor. Very hip, very "now".

TERROR WATCH
Michael Isikoff and
Mark Hosenball
You're On Candid Camera
[url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/143257]
The Bush administration now wants to watch you from the sky.[/url]
Jun 25, 2008 | Updated: 5:20 p.m. ET Jun 25, 2008

A Bush administration program to expand domestic use of Pentagon spy satellites has aroused new concerns in Congress about possible civil-liberties abuses.

On Tuesday, the House Appropriations Committee approved an amendment denying money for the new domestic intelligence operation—cryptically named the "National Applications Office"—until the Homeland Security secretary certifies that any programs undertaken by the center will "comply with all existing laws, including all applicable privacy and civil liberties standards."

Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat who chairs the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on intelligence, told Newsweek that majorities in both the House and Senate intend to block all funding for the domestic intelligence center at least until August, when the Government Accountability Office, an investigative agency that works for Congress, completes a report examining civil-liberties and privacy issues related to the domestic use of picture-taking spy satellites.

Harman, who was the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee when Republicans controlled Congress earlier in Bush's tenure, said she still felt burned by the president's secret expansion of domestic electronic spying after 9/11. At the time, she and other intel committee leaders were assured that the increased intelligence activity was legal, only to learn later that the basis for the new surveillance was a set of opinions by administration lawyers that are now widely considered to be legally questionable.

Because of the administration's poor handling of the electronic spying program (mainly conducted by the super-secret National Security Agency, which operates a worldwide web of electronic eavesdropping systems), Harman says she and other members of Congress will be more cautious about accepting civil-liberties assurances from administration officials. "We have to make sure this is not a back door for spying on Americans," Harman told Newsweek.

Harman said that she had discussed the administration's plans for expanding domestic use of picture-taking spy satellites—which are supposedly capable of taking very high-resolution photographs of buildings, vehicles and people—with Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. According to Harman, he promised strict procedures to protect the rights of Americans, including obtaining court authorization for law enforcement-related surveillance operations where appropriate. Despite Chertoff's assurances, however, Harman said that Congress probably would not fully approve the program until the administration is more explicit about how it would operate.

GAO report? (scratches chin) Hmmmmmm......

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Another option for her, that's been available all along, is to quit the Wikipedia scene. I'm sure that things on Google would die down over time, fairly quickly after that.

If SlimVirgin were to permanently and convincingly leave Wikipedia, I for one would argue very, very strongly for the removal of all references to Linda Mack in and among these pages. Not that this is likely to happen.

Does everyone also get that her complaint above tacitly (again) admits that SlimVirgin == Linda Mack?

Does everyone also get that her complaint above tacitly (again) admits that SlimVirgin == Linda Mack?

I thought that was plainly obvious. There'd be no way that anything here would harm her ability to find a job otherwise.

Her problem is that she wants someone to unring the bell. That just ain't going to happen. As I've said a while back in my blog:

make it clear to editors who wish to remain anonymous that it is their responsibility—and theirs alone—to protect their anonymity. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to remain fully anonymous on the Internet in general. This is doubly true with respect to a project like Wikipedia, where reputation is so important. It is possible to establish and maintain an anonymous reputation, but doing so is very difficult because the sort of activities that help to build one's reputation are exactly the same activities that tend to reveal information about oneself that might lead to being deanonymized. Furthermore, anonymity is like virginity: once lost, you cannot get it back; the only option after a disclosure is to disappear and start over.

I wrote that with Slimmy in mind, but of course she refuses to take the hint.

I can understand that any person would want to remain anonymous. I can understand that any person might make mistakes to render that anonymity in jeopardy. I think that attempts to protect persons who've slipped are admirable.

• Having said that, SV, LM, or whatever you want to call her (Swampthing, for example), has consciously endeavored to harm the reputations, er "livelihoods" of others.
• This dates back to the pre-Wikipedia days of her slander of Pierre Salinger. I wonder if she thought two seconds about his livelihood. Bet not. Au contraire.
• Then, leading on to her now-Legendary malicious, often-by-proxy attacks on others, on Wikipedia. There's simply too many to mention.
• Most of of her cruel actions were gratuitous.
• Some of her cruel actions hurt people barely out of their teens. In their real names. Think that hurt their ability to work? How is it to be 22 and looking for your first job with libel on Wikipedia? Fun?
• If it was her job to slander people*, the fact that she does it with such relish, such vitriol, such acuity, such a lack of human compunction...... indicates a serious problem in her character, if not her soul**.
• So for her to talk about, not to mention whine incessantly™, about how she's been flayed in the public eye, smacks of..... (thinking of about twenty words, but I'll settle for one) Hypocrisy.

Still, bearing all the above in mind, this website endeavored to mask her name last year, out of respect for privacy - for her - a person that purposefully sought to harm others.

That detente failed after a time, when someone (was it J Z----sky?) started a new war on privacy on Wikipedia, by republishing someone's name again. That "someone" was one of SV's victims - read: his name was up there, because she put it there. She did NOT rush to pull it down. So someone who manages this board decided that her name went back up here.

But to be more simple, and concise: As one single person, over a period of more than thirty years, she has managed to complie a population of persons, spanning the globe, who revile, if not are abhorred by her maltreatment of others.

Gratuitous cruelty

The words Gratuitous cruelty are synonymous with Linda Mack. That's why people here talk about her. That's a fact she consistently refuses to accept. She tries to claim, lamely, that people here have some kind of psychological problem. Or that they are ill. Or that they are a menace to society.

She needs to buy a mirror. A big, giant mirror.





*Which it may well be.

** Has Slimvirgin a soul? Ah, there's the rub.

*** New link: Slimvirgin-Linda Mack theme song.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

(...Neitschze weakness: not good with horses, etc...)

Hiya Milton,

OT I know - but what happened with Neitschze and the horse? I heard something about this many years ago and have never been able to find out what actually happened. I'm just intrigued (for various reasons) and picking your brains. Hope it's ok.. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

It's some of the other comments there that make me sit up and notice

Alison for example - "ongoing police matter"?

I'm not going to have the coppers kick in my backdoor am I ? (for posting here)