A SlimVirgin Close Encounter, ...of the first kind Options

[TabulaRasa]

If you followed a link on O-Smear to get here, please be sure to read this topic for some more recent commentary on this whole situation. Thanks!

UPDATE: We'd also like to apologize for the fact that the topic referenced earlier was the wrong one, and was, indeed, a dead link until just recently. The topics are referenced by number, and the admin adding this note (who has since been severely punished) originally typed "8623" instead of "8263." (The link was dead until the new number came up and was taken by an RSS-fed media topic.) OOPS! Normally we're more careful than that... sorry! Anyway, the purpose of linking to the other topic was simply to help keep people up-to-date on what we're discussing, and the gist of that was that Wordbomb is not "Joey," at least not according to our IP data, analysis of posting patterns, writing style, attitude, known history on Wikipedia, and just-plain common sense. Sorry about that too, but it's our story and we're sticking to it.

Also, putting notes like this in threads that are linked to by other sites is hardly "unprecedented." Half the time we delete such threads completely, just to piss people off... we're just like that! In this case, we simply want to make it clear that while Wordbomb is generally well-tolerated here, and Gary Weiss is generally disliked, that doesn't mean we have any real desire to get in the middle of their little feud, or whatever it is. Most of us are only concerned with how it plays out on Wikipedia, not elsewhere. That's our "purview," you see. (The site is actually called "Wikipedia Review," not "The Gary and Judd Review"...)

Anyway, thanks! We hope you enjoy the site!

The Management, Apr. 17, 2007

Antisocialmedia.net has found the actual person who might be partly responsible for Linda Mack's slow descent into SlimVirginity. If the story weren't so unbelieveable I'd discount it, but trust me: you can't make this stuff up.

The first half of the post is mostly a rehash of things we've read here, but the second half is where Slim comes in and that's what you really need to read. If it's all true, then SlimVirgin mythology has just taken a huge step forward. It's at http://www.antisocialmedia.net

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I'd like to offer some observations concerning the Patrick Byrne disclosures about SlimVirgin. They tend to reinforce some hypotheses and hunches I 've harbored for some time.

She tended to come to the pub in beautiful gowns that would not be out of place in a Dickens novel.

Halfway through the term she started speaking with an English accent that seemed pretentious, but she explained that she had had one English parent...

I have suspected that she was something of a fantasy-ridden Anglophile, not the sort that reads the tabloids and thinks of QEII as roughly equivalent to a Hollywood celebrity, but rather the sort that admires an oligarchical system, finding it so much more exciting and refined than a republican one. This is the sort of personality that aspires to be a courtier. A bright girl from a provincial Canadian background would certainly be susceptible to this sort of thing. I have already called attention before to her Wikipedia article on the Cambridge Apostles. Jimbo would probably seek out persons with these inclinations to be part of his retinue.

But now she was the center of attention, and over time, became invested with a new kind of bustling self-importance. We did have opportunity for a few civil words over a pint, and she spoke of “the families” and “our negotiations” as though she were emerging in a leadership role, and of meeting with news bureaus and intelligence agencies.

Her use of the expression "the families" is of particular interest here. It is possible, but unlikely, that this refers to the Lockerbie families; if Mr. Byrne is reading this forum, perhaps he might clarify this. In the context presented, I am assuming that she uses "the families" in the oligarchical sense, as I have seen it used by other admirers of the oligarchical approach. There are Families, who either by virtue of their aristocratic bloodlines, or by having ascended to a certain exalted rank in the financial world, consider themselves to be those who are qualified to administer the political and commercial affairs of the world, choosing and cultivating assorted politicians as surrogates for their discreet purposes. I kid you not. Think of the mafia approach, but with more education, better manners and classier wardrobes. It is very déclassé to discuss this if you are not one of the insiders -- you will generally be dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. On the other hand, if you are an insider or a wannabe, the use of the term "the families" is considered way cool. Persons who yearn to orbit around the celestial brilliance of "the families" often seek employment as journalists or intelligence operatives, or both, so that they might make themselves useful

Now that we have the benefit of Mr. Byrne's insights, I suggest we return to the SlimVirgin: Agent of Influence? topic and reexamine it with fresh eyes.

[Somey]

In the context presented, I am assuming that she uses "the families" in the oligarchical sense, as I have seen it used by other admirers of the oligarchical approach. There are Families, who either by virtue of their aristocratic bloodlines, or by having ascended to a certain exalted rank in the financial world, consider themselves to be those who are qualified to administer the political and commercial affairs of the world, choosing and cultivating assorted politicians as surrogates for their discreet purposes. I kid you not.

Okay, you kid us not, but I've gotta say it anyway: That still sounds (to me) much less realistic than the idea that she idealized and projected her short affair with this guy at Cambridge to such an extent, that she began to consider herself a member of the "Lockerbie families" despite not having married him. As I recall, way back in the mists of time, that's pretty much the only thing the media called them - it was a catch-all term, probably meant to include girlfriends, fiances, and star-crossed lovers of the victims in general.

And to be honest, I think it explains her subsequent behavior a lot better, too... We may just have to agree to disagree on this one!

[Herschelkrustofsky]

That still sounds (to me) much less realistic than the idea that she idealized and projected her short affair with this guy at Cambridge to such an extent, that she began to consider herself a member of the "Lockerbie families" despite not having married him. As I recall, way back in the mists of time, that's pretty much the only thing the media called them - it was a catch-all term, probably meant to include girlfriends, fiances, and star-crossed lovers of the victims in general.

And to be honest, I think it explains her subsequent behavior a lot better, too... We may just have to agree to disagree on this one!

You may be right, of course, but could you elaborate on how it explains her subsequent behavior? How much of her activity at Wikipedia, for example, is Lockerbie-related? Or are you arguing that the whole affair simply traumatized her to the point of just being an unusually disagreeable person (it sounds, from Byrne's account, that she was already well on her way to that destination.)

What I am looking for is a degree of coherence among all her various POV-pushing and article-ownership pursuits.

[Somey]

...Or are you arguing that the whole affair simply traumatized her to the point of just being an unusually disagreeable person [?]

Well, yes and no. My guess would be that she was an unusually disagreeable person to begin with. That particular trait starts early; you don't pick it up because of any one particular trauma.

What seems more likely to me is that she'd suffered a recurring pattern in her relationships with people, especially romantic ones - a few weeks, months at the most, of emotional high, passion, and even sheer giddiness, followed by suspicion, anger, bitterness, and ultimately betrayal and breakup.

My theory would be that in this case, that pattern would have been cut short by the Lockerbie tragedy - at a point before anything bad had occurred in the relationship to sour it. As a result, the memory of this one guy would have remained idealized indefinitely, and the frustration of any further relationships would have simply reinforced the idea that she'd lost The One, or more to the point, the person who never hurt her, who never betrayed her, and who never brought out the negativity she'd experienced with all the others.

Ultimately, the people who took that idealized guy away, the terrorists, the Arabs, the haters of Jews, the murderers, became the target of her vendetta, the enemy, those who had to be punished at all costs for what they had done. In the early years, she had the energy to pursue them, to actively and aggressively fight them, both in the media and in academic circles, where she had friends and supporters to help her.

But as the years went on, she grew tired, lost her youthful energy, began to worry about other problems and other priorities. For some people, the pain would eventually fade too, but not hers. She probably never did find another guy who measured up... But actively pursuing the enemy eventually became too hard, and too costly. If she could only find a way to just sit down in her basement study and pursue them, punish them, from the comfort of her own home, surrounded by her beloved pets (who, it should be added, rarely if ever disagreed with her about anything), well... that would be perfect. And if there were a way that allowed her to see the results of her punishments immediately, with instant gratification, knowing that everything she did to punish them would be readily and clearly seen on one of the most popular informational mediums in the world, well, that would just be even more perfect. And she could just keep doing it, forever if necessary, until all of them were destroyed, wiped off the face of the planet, crushed!

Mind you, this is all a theory. Total conjecture. I could always be wrong... And frankly, if any of this is even close to the mark, then it's more personal and hurtful than I'm normally comfortable with. But this person has hurt too many people in the pursuit of her vendetta, and the people responsible have long since either been punished or disappeared beyond her reach (or anyone else's). It's time for her to stop.

She won't, though... It's what she lives to do.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Ultimately, the people who took that idealized guy away, the terrorists, the Arabs, the haters of Jews, the murderers, became the target of her vendetta, the enemy, those who had to be punished at all costs for what they had done.

OK, I see your point on this. I'm trying to see how this fits the vendetta against LaRouche; I was working from the hypothesis that she was full of romantic admiration for oligarchical social systems (hence her affinity to Wikipedia), and she took umbrage at LaRouche's militant republicanism. However, it could just as easily be that she regards him as "soft on Arabs." Her initial foray against LaRouche was the Jeremiah Duggan article, and Duggan evidently committed suicide after attending a LaRouche-sponsored conference against the invasion of Iraq. But then again, there are lots of people who opposed the Iraq war. I think she'd need a better reason to focus her rage on LaRouche.

[Somey]

I'm trying to see how this fits the vendetta against LaRouche; I was working from the hypothesis that she was full of romantic admiration for oligarchical social systems (hence her affinity to Wikipedia), and she took umbrage at LaRouche's militant republicanism.... (snip)... I think she'd need a better reason to focus her rage on LaRouche.

Well... that's a tricky one. You're Australian, so in spite of your being a supporter and all, maybe you didn't have the same exposure to LaRouche that people in the States had back in the day...? She's Canadian, but we're workiing off the hypothesis that she spent several years in the US in the early 90's, working for the media (ABC News?) when LaRouche was both active in politics and in lots of trouble with the IRS.

The fact is, as Karmafist pointed out a while ago, LaRouche was never taken all that seriously here. There was no way he was ever going to win an election, or even come close, and most of us just saw him as (in varying degrees) a crackpot. The fact that some of his predictions came true, and that a few of his ideas were later picked up by the mainstream, is easily forgotten by a society with what appears to be no long-term memory whatsoever - especially when easily-retold and remembered bits are available, like "hey. he said Queen Elizabeth was a drug kingpin! Sheeeeit!"

So it's hard to say... I'd suggest that she simply saw the anti-LaRouche POV as a means of winning allies among other agents of the Wikimedia Foundation, especially these two guys Chip Berlet and Adam Carr, both of whom are tenacious arguers if nothing else. It may also be that you're too close to the situation - she's made a lot of people angry in a lot of subject areas, and while it may seem like she was focusing her rage on LaRouche, I suspect a lot of people thought she was focusing her rage on their ideology or political interest group too, at whatever time it was, when maybe the reality is that she has plenty of rage to go around.

Again, though, I'm hypothesizing based on a limited set of facts, some of which aren't fully substantiated. You could easily be right, and me wrong... It's troubling to me that I've gotten into it to this extent, but I guess you have to break few eggs to make peach melba.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

You're Australian, so in spite of your being a supporter and all, maybe you didn't have the same exposure to LaRouche that people in the States had back in the day...?

I'll need to correct a few misconceptions here, without, I hope, straying to far off topic. First of all, I'm an all-American boy. I've never been to Australia.

She's Canadian, but we're workiing off the hypothesis that she spent several years in the US in the early 90's, working for the media (ABC News?) when LaRouche was both active in politics and in lots of trouble with the IRS.

LaRouche was in jail in the early '90s (although still active in politics.) The IRS had relatively little to do with it, although one of the charges was that he had conspired to mislead the IRS about his income. He was paroled in '94, which he attributes to the good offices of Bill Clinton.

The fact is, as Karmafist pointed out a while ago, LaRouche was never taken all that seriously here. There was no way he was ever going to win an election, or even come close, and most of us just saw him as (in varying degrees) a crackpot. The fact that some of his predictions came true, and that a few of his ideas were later picked up by the mainstream, is easily forgotten by a society with what appears to be no long-term memory whatsoever - especially when easily-retold and remembered bits are available, like "hey. he said Queen Elizabeth was a drug kingpin! Sheeeeit!"

He was always depicted as a crank in the media. The "Queen of England" quote, attributed countless times to LaRouche, came in fact from the fertile imagination of one Mark Nykanen, who in those days was working for NBC.

However, during the Reagan administration LaRouche was meeting with members of the National Security Council, and served as a "back channel" in discussions with Soviet Union during the period '81-'82. LaRouche was taken very seriously in the spook world, as I think Daniel can attest from his NameBase files, and if SV fancies herself a spook, this would draw her attention.

So it's hard to say... I'd suggest that she simply saw the anti-LaRouche POV as a means of winning allies among other agents of the Wikimedia Foundation, especially these two guys Chip Berlet and Adam Carr, both of whom are tenacious arguers if nothing else. It may also be that you're too close to the situation - she's made a lot of people angry in a lot of subject areas, and while it may seem like she was focusing her rage on LaRouche, I suspect a lot of people thought she was focusing her rage on their ideology or political interest group too, at whatever time it was, when maybe the reality is that she has plenty of rage to go around.

SV has no shortage of fans. However, it is clear that when she came to Wikipedia, going after LaRouche was one of her first agenda items. She sought out Adam Carr after beginning her campaign. She knew or knew of Berlet before coming to WP, because he authored most of the "Justice for Jeremiah" site that she mirrored in her article.