Could it really be her?, Captain! There's a ship up ahead! Options

[Daniel Brandt]

SlimVirgin has inadvertently confirmed that she is (name redacted):

Doc, Brandt is banned for very good reason, and any edit he makes should indeed be reverted. He has stalked me for many months, stalking that has included contacting what he thinks are old boyfriends of mine from 20 years ago. He has posted seriously libellous material then refused to publish a correction that was sent to him, which shows he is not the honest researcher he claims to be. He tried to hound another woman either out of her job or out of Wikipedia, and succeeded in doing the latter. He has posted photographs of people without their consent, some of which were very intrusive and clearly intended to be hurtful and possibly damaging to their lives. The only person I know of who has more seriously invaded Wikipedians' lives was Amorrow, whose edits are reverted on sight so that he gets the message that he isn't welcome here, no matter how useful his contributions might otherwise be. If we don't afford that minimum courtesy to editors � that we're not going to be asked to edit alon gside people who are stalking us � then we'll lose everyone that Brandt and others like him decide to target. It's common sense to allow corrections to his BLP to be made if he draws attention to them, but if that's his only interest, as opposed to grandstanding, he can do it by e-mail. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The old boyfriend, Neil Croally, told me to my face on June 5, 1989 in Arlington, Virginia, that (name redacted) was his girlfriend. Maybe he lied, but that doesn't justify Slim's spin on it. That "seriously libellous material" was from John K. Cooley, who was reporting what his boss Pierre Salinger believed to be the case about (name redacted), when Salinger locked her out of her office in London in the early 1990s. Cooley told me that Salinger believed that (name redacted) had been working on behalf of (an intelligence agency) while employed by ABC News. Cooley has not retracted this statement, and I have no doubt that Pierre Salinger believed this.

The woman I "hounded" was Katefan0, who is still a reporter at Congressional Quarterly. Last June she had a press pass to the House/Senate press gallery, but I don't see her on the gallery list anymore. All I did was ask Katefan0 to identify herself on her user page. She had already claimed on her user page that she was a reporter, and an alum of the University of Texas at Austin journalism school. I told her to identify herself because otherwise it was a conflict of interest for a journalist to be an anonymous admin on Wikipedia, where she was occasionally fiddling with biographies of members of Congress. I never contacted her employer. Ironically, Jimmy Wales now supports the notion that those claiming real-world credentials should use their real names and be verifiable. SlimVirgin apparently disagrees with Jimmy.

Now that I've corrected Slim's Spin, the important point here is that Slim has, for the first time as "SlimVirgin from Wikipedia," confirmed that she is indeed (name redacted). If I was guilty of a mistaken identity, I'd be "stalking" the wrong person, not her. And the exchange I had with John Cooley would have been about a (name redacted) who was not the same as SlimVirgin. But no, it's very clear that SlimVirgin is (name redacted), for anyone who needed more evidence.

[Heat]

Daniel, she said "contacting what he thinks are old boyfriends of mine" not "contacting old boyfriends of mine". True, it's a rather slim bit of equivocation (pardon the pun) but I don't think it's an outright admission unless this is something you hadn't said publicly before and which she could only know if her ex told her about it. Is that the case?


"Neil Croally, told me to my face on June 5, 1989 in Arlington, Virginia"
Is that year right?

[Daniel Brandt]

Daniel, she said "contacting what he thinks are old boyfriends of mine" not "contacting old boyfriends of mine". True, it's a rather slim bit of equivocation (pardon the pun) but I don't think it's an outright admission unless this is something you hadn't said publicly before and which she could only know if her ex told her about it. Is that the case?

"Neil Croally, told me to my face on June 5, 1989 in Arlington, Virginia"
Is that year right?

The date is correct. You are splitting a hair on the boyfriend. Here's another hair you can split: When I announced on this board that I finally found contact information for John K. Cooley in Athens, Greece, Cooley got a call within about 48 hours from (name redacted) asking him to not talk to me. Unfortunately for Slim, she was too late � I had already received a long email from Cooley with the information about Salinger.

[Heat]

Daniel, she said "contacting what he thinks are old boyfriends of mine" not "contacting old boyfriends of mine". True, it's a rather slim bit of equivocation (pardon the pun) but I don't think it's an outright admission unless this is something you hadn't said publicly before and which she could only know if her ex told her about it. Is that the case?

"Neil Croally, told me to my face on June 5, 1989 in Arlington, Virginia"
Is that year right?

The date is correct.

Really, you had a connection with SlimVirgin back in 1989? I'm genuinely amazed, I just assumed it was a typo and you meant 2005 or something.

You are splitting a hair on the boyfriend. Here's another hair you can split: When I announced on this board that I finally found contact information for John K. Cooley in Athens, Greece, Cooley got a call within about 48 hours from (name redacted) asking him to not talk to me. Unfortunately for Slim, she was too late � I had already receivd a long email from Cooley with the information about Salinger.

Now that is confirmation in my book. Daniel, I didn't mean to be snotty, it just looked like you had missed the "he thinks" in her statement.

[Daniel Brandt]

Really, you had a connection with SlimVirgin back in 1989? I'm genuinely amazed, I just assumed it was a typo and you meant 2005 or something.

She sent Croally to buy NameBase (it was called SpyBase back then, and was available on floppies) to help her with PanAm 103 research. One or two covert U.S. intelligence officers who were passengers on that plane were in my database before it went down, and the CIA/DEA connection was important for researchers before disinformationists like (name redacted) focused on Libya as a convenient scapegoat.

Now all of sudden, with the same original material in NameBase but the total number of names and citations about four times what it was in 1989, SlimVirgin decides that I'm a crackpot: "Weed, I removed Daniel Brandt. He's not a credible source, not a journalist, and seems to write only for his own website i.e. he's a blogger. It's not appropriate to use someone's personal website as a source. There's no evidence that Roy Godson is an intelligence operative and the weasel catch-all phrase 'representatives from intelligence-linked funding sources' is typical Brandt and typical LaRouche." SlimVirgin, 05:51, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, Roy Godson is up to his eyebrows in intelligence connections, and has never tried to hide it. One has to wonder why SlimVirgin uses the name Sarah (presumably-fake last name redacted). Does she now, or has she ever, worked for an intelligence agency? Is Jimmy Wales a "useful idiot"?

[Somey]

By the way, Roy Godson is up to his eyebrows in intelligence connections, and has never tried to hide it.

The same Roy Godson who's president of the National Strategy Information Center and the Consortium for the Study of Intelligence...? Hard to imagine he could hide it, with credentials like those!

Is Jimmy Wales a "useful idiot"?

Well, I'd hardly call him "useful"...