QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Wed 1st August 2007, 3:59pm)
Floflo...well, she's just some hippie green-party nut from the 'burbs of Clermont....but Le Monde loves making fun of her anyway.....
To the American public, Le Monde is more fringe than Slashdot, and wouldn't touch their lives much.
And even if you are British, you have to admit that the attention of Americans matters very much in such a case.
I don't think that this is going to get traction in any paper except maybe Le Monde Diplomatique, which regularly prints rumors about international matters. Most big papers don't get into speculation - Slashdot did, but that guy has a page full of conspiracy theories, and likes them, so he gave this some weight - partly because he was trying to research the Entebbe article, and was mystified as to why it was locked down with poor information.
I'm skeptical of this getting attention, mostly because there is no smoking gun showing that Slim is a spy (if indeed she is). Just file deletions, which means a lot to you and me, but you have to remember this is John Q Nonwikipedian we are talking to. They deleted some files? So what?
Most people have a very short attention span and don't want a long winding story.
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 1st August 2007, 4:08pm)
I, for one, have always resisted the idea of setting up a separate SlimVirgin subforum, simply because it would give credence to those who insist that the site is "obsessed" with her and exists primarily to get her to leave Wikipedia.
And having 20 threads devoted to her proves them wrong.
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 1st August 2007, 4:08pm)
Those things may well be true, but why accentuate it? Also, would this new subforum be hidden, or visible to all? Presumably the latter, but IMO we should really be discussing this in a hidden subforum, and only make our findings public only once there's ample evidence to back them up.
People seem to want it.
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 1st August 2007, 4:08pm)
For example, I don't think any serious person outside of Wikipedia could look at our evidence that SV = LM, and that LM worked for ABC News under Pierre Salinger, and doubt it for a minute.
(Excuse me but) You sound as self-absorbed as a Wikipedian. No normal non-WP/WR person one is going to chase around the boards to dig up everything, and it is all over the place. If you want this story to get attention, you need to consolidate the threads about it.
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 1st August 2007, 4:08pm)
But I still haven't seen anything concrete to support the idea that she's a former intelligence operative, suspicious though her behavior might have been (and still is). So naturally, the WP'ers focus on that allegation exclusively, and use it to support their dismissal of the more credible, if not actually proven, claims.
My point exactly. There is no smoking gun of "she's a spy using Wikipedia for intelligence purposes" to display - and if one exists, it is very unlikely that it will ever be found by someone here.
She might have simply been hysterically obsessed as a reporter, willing to go off on the wrong track (blaming the DEA) and then again (blaming the Libyans), and maybe she got influnced by people in intelligence who fed her bad info - or disinfo - like Coleman did with the DEA. This would explain why Salinger fired her. The Salinger rumor could have spread. And maybe she was organizing with the families of the deceased, and felt that the movie by that guy whos name starts with an "F" was bad - maybe again because the CIA or MI6 told hers so. I wouldn't count out that she got used by them, rather than being one of them. This would explain why she's in Alberta typing all this crucial information into Wikipedia. A spy might have been more careful - she was very uncareful. Or maybe she was a sloppy spy. Who knows? We probably won't ever.