QUOTE(gomi @ Thu 17th July 2008, 1:34am)
As part pf the
hilarity concerning Tony Sidaway's anti-WR diatribe and subsequent block, our friend SlimVirgin has emerged from seclusion to go on her own anti-WR jihad. Nothing surprising about this, but she did have
this to say (emphasis added):
QUOTE( @ 06:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC))
Describing the situation with Wikipedia Review's stalking as a "grudge" between them and certain users will not do. They have done their best to destroy some people's livelihoods, mine included. I will not step back, and I am not making wild accusations. What I notice is that it is always — ''always'' — the same small group of people who turn up to these discussions in defence of WR. I could have written out a list of the editors in advance who would post here in that regard, and I don't think I'd have gotten a single one wrong.
For Slim:
QUOTE
Now, what is interesting to me is not the hollow bluster, but the statement that we are "destroying her livelihood". This is fascinating. Unless you count the rabid speculation that she is a spy for MI-5, the CIA, or -- goodness knows -- K.A.O.S. -- I was not aware that we had any idea what her profession was! Indeed, anyone who spends as much time as she does editing Wikipedia must have either a very flexible job or a low need for sleep, food, and -- dare I say it -- companionship.
You know. The only possible explanation I could have for Slim saying those words is that she might work for the CIA, or the NRO, and someone just invoked an Inspector General investigation, with her name highlighted in bold letters, checking to see if she's been abusing her role not only on Wikipedia, but elsewhere.
But that would be a conspiracy theory, right?
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 17th July 2008, 11:37am)
Another option for her, that's been available all along, is to quit the Wikipedia scene. I'm sure that things on Google would die down over time, fairly quickly after that.
Or if part of her job is work as "chat room influencer", and someone realized that she's extraordinarily bad at it, and gave her a nice office, with a fancy title, and a complex project that kept her occupied for weeks (or months, or years). Or just a nice push out the door and a wave good riddance.
I prefer the latter.
QUOTE(SlimVirgin)
It's not a thread; it's practically the entire website. I can just picture my next job interview:
Interviewer: So you're the duplicitous bitch who's paid by MI5 to edit Wikipedia, and as a sideline colludes with Stormfront to compile lists of Jews to be murdered, while singlehandedly putting innocent men in jail?
SlimVirgin: Erm, yes, that would be me.
Interviewer (loosening his tie and locking the door): And umm ... are you also the one who fantasizes about being raped, and who has sex with prospective employers to get jobs?
But no, they haven't threatened my livelihood at all.
Whereas I hesitate to use Wikipediot logic - her repeating this once-made-statement-by-someone-loonie (have no idea who it was) only institutionalizes the attribution.
One persons said it once (maybe). And she's repeated it how many times? Dozens.
Methinks that whenever D or SV feel threatened (usually on exogenous grounds) they call up graphically vivid images of verbal violence foisted upon them, purportedly by others.
There's gotta be a neuroleptic for that, ya know?
Why bother with science if you can't cure such a syndrome?