Obviously, I've been following the whole extraordinary business surrounding the biography of Professor Robert Black QC since Daniel Brandt announced that the professor's blog picked up on the SlimVirgin story recently.

Nearly a week later, after huge ructions throughout the site over the link, apparently started by various sockpuppets of people we're still trying to figure out, we've got to the stage where Fred Bauder is arguing with the eminent Professor Black on his blog, and is writing on the mailing list:


Now I've found this whole business quite fascinating. The flailing JzG blew the whole thing up into a drama much to our amazement, and Jimbo has been making comments on the list.

Anyway. Fellow reviewers go forth and examine the data. Please give me your thoughts on this incredible saga. See admins noticeboard (Privatemusings heading), wiki-en list etc. (And lay off these crazy sockpuppet allegations, Bliss )

I think you meant amusement — nothing JzG does amazes anybody anymore.

Oh, wait, irony, I 4got about irony …

Jonny

well, those sockpuppet speculations will become more heated now that a movement is underfoot to not allow so-called benevolent sockpuppeting. and for good reason.

Indeed, they seem to have quite a thread going.

I believe this is significant. It will take away one of the very few safety-valves that exists on WP. It is safety-valve that works in a highly imperfect and inconsistent manner, but a safety-valve none the less. Pretty much all that is left is the sad and disillusioned essays that troubled editors make on their userpages. After that they will have no recourse but to take their dissent off-site. This is a major escalation in the repressive aspects of WP. It is a good thing for those who would hasten the day.

You mean, of course, Wikipediot Good Reason, a triple contradiction in terms.

And all that discussion, like all other discussions on the Wikminded List, is utterly moot, since all WP:POLICY, past, present, and future, is totally Dead On Arrival and totally Null And Void due to a Complete Lack Of Enforceability.

Jonny

Mark Ryan just threatened to place Fred on moderation:

Robert Black's comment on his blog, to the effect that he has no personal knowledge of SlimVirgin's identity, and his knowledge of Linda Mack is based on hearsay from people who knew her and whose opinion he respects, is exactly what I would have predicted. He's a professional and he's a rational person.

The way that the cabal has been trying to obscure the issue is by failing to separate these two questions:

1. Is SlimVirgin one and the same as Linda Mack of Lockerbie fame?

2. Was Linda Mack of Lockerbie fame operating as someone's agent of influence, while pretending to be a journalist/researcher?

By focusing on the "soft" (hearsay) evidence of the second point, they turn the whole issue into, "Ha, ha, WR says SlimVirgin is a spy! Isn't WR crazy!" And by doing this, they keep people from looking at our rather hard evidence regarding the first point.

But I still have hope that this will backfire. Eventually the first point will have to be conceded, and when that happens the second point will be considered worthy of another look. Then the question of Slim's conflict of interest on her Lockerbie/Salinger edits, and the oversighting (destruction of the evidence) that Jimbo endorsed, will cause people to ask about the entire foundation upon which Wikipedia rests, as it claims to bring all of the world's (dis)information to all of the world's people.

I am not sure that he is a conspiracy theorist.

If I join you in that theory (that Robert Black is not a conspiracy theorist), does that make the two of us conspiring theorists setting forth an original theory that Robert Black is not a conspiracy theorist (as hypothesized by other original researchers on WP)?

The term "conspiracy theorist" is a term that is used primarily by national governments to try to ridicule people who in many cases are threatening their reign. Technically, a "conspiracy" is when a group of people plan (conspire) to do something. Thus a "conspiracy theorist" is when someone has a theory that a group of people planned to do something.

Henceforth, under the technical term, every single theory as to what happened in the Lockerbie Bombing is a conspiracy theory. Absolutely everyone agrees that that was planned, and that a group of people got together and decided to do it. We have 100% agreement that it was a conspiracy.

So I suppose per the technical term he is a conspiracy theorist. Per the "not agreeing with the government" term, he is a conspiracy theorist.

But per the oft-used definition "He is just making stuff up to sell papers", no he is not a conspiracy theorist.

More damnably, is he an Original Researcher, or is he just collating and republishing material found elsewhere?

When I was a child — theorists of a feather sneeze together as to just how long ago that was — and we didn't want to hear something someone was saying to us, we would just stick our fingers in our ears or clasp our hands over them and chant very noisily over the unwelcome signal, (NYA NYA NYA NYA I CANT HEAR YOU !!!)*, where (*) is the Kleeneliness that is next to Indeafening Repetitiveness.

These days I'm guessing that all the hip children now chant WP:(NYA NYA NYA NYA I CANT HEAR YOU !!!)*, to which the entire contents of WP:CIVILITY and WP:POLICY have now collapsed as into one penultimate and pencatastrobic semiotic singularity.

WP:CONSPIRACYTHEORIST, like WP:TROLL and all the rest, is just one more articulation that Wikipediots have suckcesspooly managed to con-suck every last breath of meaning therefrom.

Jonny

Scholium. Beware many puns on the etymology of the word conspire.

Robert Black can hardly be made out to be some nit-wit David Icke figure by Wikipedians seeing as he is a pillar of the establishment, a former QC, a professor of Scottish law and was the architect of the Lockerbie trial in The Hague!

Bauder and co are simply out of their minds. We can say no fairer than that.

EDIT:Actually I probably could. The Russian link provided does ramble off on some tedious nonsense about Roswell towards the end. I have no idea why the writer wrote a piece about Ludwig De Braeckeleer that ended with such hopeless lunacy. Yet that doesn't have much to do with Ludwig De Braeckeleer and certainly not Professor Black.

But that's the whole problem with this business. Some things have a lot of evidence, some things don't. NEVER BLUR THE TWO AS YOU END UP LOSING THE TRUTH FOR EVERYONE.

And I say that with an eye on one or two regular posters here who are guilty of this on a daily basis. Not least a whole of host of wikipedians including Jimbo himself who have spouted the most awful crap in the past.

Again, the Lockerbie bombing is a case which has been resolved. Someone was convicted, there is a clearly established official story.

Therefore, anyone who suggests that the person or persons who were convicted were either innocent or not acting alone is going against the official story, and is a conspiracy theorist.

Indeed, anyone who suggests that the person or persons who were convicted was guilty, but for different reasons than what is officially listed is a conspiracy theorist.

The fact that this is a high profile case where the official story is rubbished in large sections of the media and the general public doesn't matter, at least not to Wikipedia.

They do this for every single thing. Wikipedia will only present the official story, regardless of how laughable and unbelievable it is. If they do agree to publish anything else, they will label it in comical terms and ridicule it at every possible opportunity.

Outside of Wikipedia, Robert Black may well be a highly respected person. Inside Wikipedia he is nothing but a conspiracy theorist.

Robert Black, who may or may not be related to Sirius Black, Narcissa Black Malfoy, or Bellatrix Black Lestrange, may or may not be a black or white case of addle-pated conspiracy theorist vs conscientious academic researcher.

Or not.

Or else.

That would be the pot calling the kettle black!

Professor Robert Black has had to endure a good couple of days of haranguing from Fred Bauder on his blog now and I think he's had enough. Not surprisingly I might add, I think I'd have lost my cool a lot earlier. Fred, the ex lawyer has been attempting to grapple with the retired QC, law professor and architect of the Hague Lockerbie trial over the facts surrounding the case. I kid you not.

This colossal lapse in judgment on Fred's part beggars belief. An irritated Black, who'd been accused of being a "conspiracy theorist" by the Wikipedian no mark, laid the moral truth out to Fred and, I'd like to believe, the Wikipedia cult itself. Remember these words reviewers. (Actually, probably no need as I'll be repeating them ad nauseum in any future discussion on the matter):


"ab" is of course our own AB, who somehow got tangled in the line when the hook was pulled to the surface.

EDIT: I urge fellow reviewers (ie. Bliss) not to badger the Professor yourselves over this in the future. I imagine he's had enough of this WP nonsense to last him a lifetime already, his view of Wikipedia is probably very little higher than our own by now, but he's got his own battles to fight.

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."

-- Groucho Marx

Thanks for quoting that part. I thought that that was the most quotable element of what I wrote.