Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: The plot thickens....we need a SlimV/Linda Mack forum please!
> Wikimedia Discussion > Editors > Notable editors > SlimVirgin
the fieryangel
Well, kiddies, the son of the good colonel Kadhafi gave an interview in Lemonde today in which he basically says that the entire Bulgarian nurse business was just an excuse to get the so-called "Lockerbie bomber" retried and hopefully extradited to Libya and that this has been in the works for quite some time....It seems that Tony Blair made a trip about a month before he stepped down from his Prime minister post...

It would seem that the chef of the Bulgarian secret services is backing this story up in this article....

This is all in French, but I'm sure that you'll get the idea if you skim it all....It should be on the AP wires pretty soon too....

So, if SlimVirgin really is Linda Mack...this can only get bigger. We need a forum on this one....
GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Wed 1st August 2007, 2:31pm) *

Well, kiddies, the son of the good colonel Kadhafi gave an interview in Lemonde today in which he basically says that the entire Bulgarian nurse business was just an excuse to get the so-called "Lockerbie bomber" retried and hopefully extradited to Libya and that this has been in the works for quite some time....It seems that Tony Blair made a trip about a month before he stepped down from his Prime minister post...

It would seem that the chef of the Bulgarian secret services is backing this story up in this article....

This is all in French, but I'm sure that you'll get the idea if you skim it all....It should be on the AP wires pretty soon too....

So, if SlimVirgin really is Linda Mack...this can only get bigger. We need a forum on this one....


Not a good time for Linda to hide.
Disillusioned Lackey
Le Monde is the equivalent of the New York Times. It is very reputable. The French often have the other side of the story, as they tend to cut their own deals separate from the US and UK. Likely they brokered this one. Sarkozy is going to Tripoli (or just went).

French papers tend to say things that the US and UK papers will not.

See the story of the release of the prisoners in the FT (the of the biggest UK papers), which makes no mention, despite the odd fact that the article includes a quote from Condoleeza Rice saying that she can't wait to go to Libya, and for the US to do business with Libya.

Or the New York Times, which is similarly oblique. No link there to the Locherbie prisoner release.

Of course, it makes perfect sense that the Bulgarians, who were held on such a bizarre accusation, were released a month after the Libyan Locherbie was set free. Holding those prisoners for supposedly infecting kids with HIV was such a weird charge. It made the Libyans look like heathens that they really aren't - Libya is pretty sophisticated. What I don't understand is why the US and UK papers don't make the link - perhaps they are waiting for a confirmation of that link that won't come.

Le Monde has a sister publication which loves conspiracy theories called Le Monde Diplomatique. They might like the SV story.




the fieryangel
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 1st August 2007, 8:36pm) *

QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Wed 1st August 2007, 2:31pm) *

So, if SlimVirgin really is Linda Mack...this can only get bigger. We need a forum on this one....


Not a good time for Linda to hide.


Well, Le Monde has been given the proper links. We'll see what happens now....
Disillusioned Lackey
It would be wise to send an official press release from the Wikipedia Review. A letter from an individual is going to sound like a crank.

It was actually Khaddafi's son who gave the interview. You know, tact and diplomacy. The big guy can't say it, so he let his son spill the beans.

FORUM Image

Nicolas Sarkozy et le colonel Khadafi, le 25 juillet à Tripoli. Le fils de ce dernier a admis, mardi 31 juillet, qu'il n'avait jamais cru en la culpabilité des infirmières bulgares et qu'elles avaient "malheureusement servi de boucs émissaires".

Subcap to the above picture: Nicolas Sarkozy and Colonel Khaddafi, July 25th in Tripoli. Colonel Khaddafi's son admitted on July 31st that he never believed that the nurses were guilty and that "they had unfortunately played the role of scapegoats".

FORUM Image

M. Kirov explique que dès février, à l'issue d'un entretien nocturne dans une villa viennoise avec Saïf Al-Islam, fils du numéro un libyen dont la fondation caritative a joué un important rôle d'intermédiaire, il "savait qu'une solution serait trouvée vers la fin juillet-début août". Les deux hommes avaient évoqué à cette occasion le cas du Libyen, Abdel Basset Ali Al-Megrahi condamné à la prison à vie en Grande-Bretagne, en 2001, pour l'attentat contre un avion de la compagnie américaine PanAm en 1988, qui avait fait 270 morts au-dessus de Lockerbie (Ecosse).

Mr. Kirov (head of the Bulgarian secret service) explained in February, a night meeting in a Viennese villa was the beginning of that Saïf Al-Islam, eldest son of the Libyan leader ,came to play an important intermediary role in the matter, saying that he "knew that a solution could be found by the end of July and August". The two men brought up at that time the case of the Libyan, Abdel Basset Ali Al-Megrahi, sentenced to life in prison in the UK, in 2001, for the crash of the Pan Am jet in 1988, which caused the deaths of 270 persons above Locherbie, Scotland.

"Oui", répond-il lorsqu'on l'interroge sur les rapports existant entre l'affaire Al-Megrahi et celle des infirmières, "nous avons établi un lien.).

Yes, he responded when asked if there existed a link between the Al-Megrahi case and that of the nurses, "we established a link".

These quotes weren't in sequence, by the way. I cut out the juciest parts.
the fieryangel
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Wed 1st August 2007, 9:22pm) *

It would be wise to send an official press release from the Wikipedia Review. A letter from an individual is going to sound like a crank.

It was actually Khaddafi's son who gave the interview. You know, tact and diplomacy. The big guy can't say it, so he let his son spill the beans.

FORUM Image

Nicolas Sarkozy et le colonel Khadafi, le 25 juillet à Tripoli. Le fils de ce dernier a admis, mardi 31 juillet, qu'il n'avait jamais cru en la culpabilité des infirmières bulgares et qu'elles avaient "malheureusement servi de boucs émissaires".

Subcap to the above picture: Nicolas Sarkozy and Colonel Khaddafi, July 25th in Tripoli. Colonel Khaddafi's son admitted on July 31st that he never believed that the nurses were guilty and that "they had unfortunately played the role of scapegoats".

FORUM Image


the name of the woman who wrote the article is Natalie Nougayrède. If you guys can come up with a press release, we can get it translated into French....don't forget that Floflo is French, so this could have more importance than we might think...
Disillusioned Lackey
Yes, and no. Le Monde already mocked Floflo mercilessly last year.

I don't really see why it would matter more if France noticed this. Floflo is more Florida-centric than Paris-centric.

It would be good, of course, but I don't know if it would affect her more if Le Monde noticed it than if the New York Times noticed it. US attention to this would be more affecting, and the US papers aren't even printing this interview.

Stuff like this happens all the time in such matters. Lots of things get attention in one country's papers but not another. Even many things show up in UK papers that never make it to the US - very much the case with anything unpleasant that the US has done.

It's weird. I don't think it is intelligence controls so much as papers not paying mind. Or something. More interest in Anna Nicole's babydaddy than this kind of thing.

It is important, sure. But it can also be seen as a fringe thing - Wikipedia-spy-Libya stuff. It would take some art to attract attention to the story.
the fieryangel
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Wed 1st August 2007, 9:56pm) *

Yes, and no. Le Monde already mocked Floflo mercilessly last year.

I don't really see why it would matter more if France noticed this. Floflo is more Florida-centric than Paris-centric.

It would be good, of course, but I don't know if it would affect her more if Le Monde noticed it than if the New York Times noticed it. US attention to this would be more affecting, and the US papers aren't even printing this interview.

Stuff like this happens all the time in such matters. Lots of things get attention in one country's papers but not another. Even many things show up in UK papers that never make it to the US - very much the case with anything unpleasant that the US has done.

It's weird. I don't think it is intelligence controls so much as papers not paying mind. Or something. More interest in Anna Nicole's babydaddy than this kind of thing.


Well, if Le Monde picks up the story, it suddenly gets above the level of "Slashdot" and is in a reliable source....That's something....

I think that they could be persuaded to pick this up, given the circumstances.....but the window is very small. We have a day or maybe two at the most before they pick something else up. If you guys can come up with a press release, I can make sure that the person who wrote this article sees it...

Floflo...well, she's just some hippie green-party nut from the 'burbs of Clermont....but Le Monde loves making fun of her anyway.....
Somey
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.

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.

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. 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.
Disillusioned Lackey
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.
blissyu2
Obviously we shouldn't set up a separate sub forum for one person. If this issue continues to its natural conclusion then SlimVirgin will disappear from Wikipedia, and then we'll have other things to talk about. All we need to do is to have some kind of a summary on all of these issues so that people can look through them all and piece it all together well.

And if this all blows over, then we will be talking about something else later.

Remember that Jayjg is just as abusive, yet we have virtually nothing on him. He is the next obvious person to expose.

One thing though is has Wikipedia (or Wikinews) covered this at all? It is quite a significant issue.

It may well be the thing that ultimately exposes Linda Mack for good. And if Linda Mack is in prison and SlimVirgin still editing, then we'll know that they weren't the same person. Or that they let you edit from prison. Or that she gave her account to someone else.
LamontStormstar
We could hire a private detective to track down Linda Mack in person and find out if she has any dogs. That'll clear it up.
BobbyBombastic
how many threads do you think there are that would be useful to a researcher interested in this? I know i've seen a lot and there are probably some buried treasures from the past.

if I were to go around and find these threads, I would categorize them in two categories: Major details and, well, details. I guess. it's important to include things that may seem outlandish or impossible because while they may be wrong, they could lead to other information.

so what I am saying is, if i were to try to find all this information and collect it, i would do so very broadly, with a serious researcher in mind.

edit: i just saw blissy's blog post, http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20070802/c...virgin-scandal/ so in light of this i may approach it differently.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.