I know, I know. LaRouche likes Beethoven, Schiller.... I can guess that when he debrainwashes people it's with the end of the 9th symphony.

So he'd never approve of any modern German "degenerate art." Let the Nazis be your guide, here.

The only place this has been suggested is in LaRouche publications. Why do you rely on these so much, when surely you can see how much nonsense they publish? You seem to be confirming what the ex-members have said, namely that members are expected to rely on LaRouche for the entirety of their reading material and education.

The Duggans were appalled by the stories coming out of Wiesbaden from day one, for reasons that would be obvious to any reasonable human being. It is so typical LaRouche that they would need to be "approached" (without specifying what was said) by "LaRouche opponents" (no names as usual). What LaRouche has said is that it was the British government that suggested to the Duggans that they ought to focus on LaRouche. So the Duggans were coasting along, grief-stricken but basically satisfied with the explanation given by the Schiller Institute, and had to be prodded by mischief-making British ministers before they thought to start asking questions. Is that really what you believe?

And for those of us who couldn't care less about LaRouchoids — got that one, Will? — even if we tried real, real hard, it is nonetheless abundantly obvious that anyone but a Hyper-Elite Ediotrix like SlimVirgin would have been topic-banned, if not site-banned altogether, for the e-gregious brand of OR-SYN-POV pushing and propagandizing for her pet causes that we see her day-by-day getting away with for years on end.

Oh, we know, you just gotta violate all your own rules in order to save the Wiki-Village from the evil LaRouchistas, even if you have to napalm every damn wiki-peasant in the village.

So let this go out to all you Wikipediot Adminds, Burrocraps, and Sewarts —

Everybody knows what Phreaking Hypocrites you really are.

Ja Ja Ja

Well said, Jon.

Milton, if you'd like to hear the family's perspective, they addressed a meeting in Berlin last year held to discuss LaRouche. You can hear the father, Hugo Duggan, speak about it here -- part 1 (the audio is poor for the first few seconds; it picks up around 0:48 mins) and part 2. And here is Simon Hughes, leader of the British Liberal Democrats, discussing the need for a proper investigation.

Perhaps not, but somebody bolting out that way at the sound of the doorbell might well be reported to a house manager, out of simple concern. Look at it this way: if Duggan had fled into the night at a dead run at 5 AM in obvious paranoia at the sound of a buzzer, after not sleeping all night, and the person with him had shrugged and then NOT reported it when he didn't come back (we don't really know when it was reported) then you'd be criticizing the place for THAT. He did leave his luggage behind and evidently just disappear in panic. This is not cause for concern? Especially in somebody who had shown somewhat psychotic behavior? Suppose he couldn't string two thoughts together by that time, as his girlfriend reported. You just say: "none of my business"? Can't have this both ways.

The flatmate doesn't say why he goes with Duggan down the stairs. Perhaps to see he doesn't fall down them in the dark, or perhaps he'd noted that Duggan wasn't thinking straight, also. Who knows? If it was to make sure he didn't leave the building, it was hardly successful. This is no way to run a detenton camp, for sure.

Do I doubt that the LaRouchies have used the techniques of the usual cult to get member acceptance? Not really. A lot of these techniques are used in basic training in the military, particularly in special forces where people are subjected to verbal abuse, extreme physical stress, sleep deprivation, and so on. But so long as you can walk away, it's presumed you're there because you want to be. However, somehow I don't see all this done on Jeremiah Duggan in a couple of days in Wiesbaden. Three days do not a Navy SEAL make.

In any case, kidnapping chages for adults only stick if you can get somebody to press charges. Would you have it any other way?

They probably do. And the answer is: that depends. Some people take stress better than others. Many 22 year-olds would say: "You guys blame Jews for all the problems of the world. Boy are you a bunch of assholes." And leave. Total time: enough to grab luggage. Perhaps Duggan was still in the phase of his life where he had to get permission from somebody to do anything. Who knows? If so, the family should know it better than I. To me, the whole thing sounds very odd.

Again, though, all this is second hand from the mother. I wouldn't be suprised to find out that the manager woman didn't know exactly when Duggan had been under psych treatment-- just that he had. Do you really think the LaRouchies thought he'd been brainwashed at age 7? No, clearly this was a misunderstanding no matter which way you look at it. Some of it may have been language and some cultural: the guy who reportedly hung up on the mother, at another time handed the phone over to the manager. To me, that speaks of not being secure enough in a foreign language to handle a severe problem. Put yourself in their shoes-- you have a mother on the telephone speaking to you in Russian (pick your favorite language you don't know too well) and ask yourself if you're going to take on the job of telling her that her child is dead, as she obviously doesn't know it, yet. You ready to take that on? Now what is the Russian/German/English word for "tod..."?

Okay, suppose you DO speak fair English, but in your world, this sort of thing is the job of the police and is not for you to do. Have you never dealt with Germans? "It's not my responsibility; talk to the proper authorities" is very often a second-nature response. As is the paternalism you find when you finally GET the authorities. One either believes that the Wiesbaden police are all under the control of LaRouche, or else (a somewhat more tenable hypothesis) that they're just frigging typical Germans. You know?

I know where it's originally from. The problem is that it's King who strings all these stories together just so, and Witt has a copy of King, and she uses them in the same order. Why should I pay for the TIMES? I can read it in all in King, and so can Witt. Example: here's the story of the woman who threw the note out the window, from King.



Yes, I know it originally appeared in the Times. Much on LaRouche in Witt does NOT appear in the Times, but does appear in King.



Indeed, but you're not the family unless there's something you haven't told us. Not only are they not here on WR, but if they even read Wikipedia, there is still the problem that it was never meant to be an obituary or memorial site. Or an advocacy site. The family already has a web page for that.

Simon Hughes addresses this point in the link I posted above. The belief is that Jeremiah felt (rightly or wrongly) that he could not get away, or could not do so easily. It's one of the issues the family and the British MPs want to see investigated, including whether he had free access to his own passport, which the Schiller Institute handed to police the next day. He also had no money left for the fare back to Paris. That was his own fault, but it would have added to his sense of being trapped.



A psychiatrist told the inquest that the contradictions between his own belief system and what the LaRouche people were telling him set up a process of extreme cognitive dissonance, leading to a stress reaction. She wrote: "This has occurred in many other people who have described to me their state after they had been subjected to similar pressures by other political and religious groups seeking recruits. ... He had become confused, failed to sleep for a whole night and became acutely alarmed by the sound of a front door bell and covered 5 kilometres along a motorway in about 35 minutes. At the end of this experience he would have been physiologically and psychologically completely confused and disorientated. Had he not been fatally injured by the accident and instead gone to hospital it might have been possible to discover whether he had developed an acute psychosis. The three other cult members I have seen who survived similar situations, two on motorways and one on a railway line, were not found to be psychotic when subsequently admitted to hospital."



I accept that point, but when an issue has received this amount of international coverage in high-quality media, it would be odd not to have a Wikipedia article on it. LaRouche is not some borderline notable person. He's a politician who has tried eight times, no matter how fruitlessly, to become president of the United States, and who has received millions of dollars in federal matching funds, even though he's never received more than 80,000 votes (as I recall). When multiple mainstream news articles link him to an issue repeatedly over a number of years, there is no reason at all not to cover what they say in WP.

Any real encyclopedia would not have an entry on LaRouche unless it were a reference book on cults or extremist groups.

Hey... hands up who here is surprised that with nearly a dozen replies, SV hasn't a single word to say on any of my answers to her question "POV? What POV? Only NPOV here, Sir!"

∂Virgince ain't here to participate in the Review process …

∂Virgince is only here to suck you all into the Wikipediot whorlpool …

The only thing wut's surprising is how many quasi-Wikipediots still get sucked into that …

Ja Ja

It's six of one, half a dozen of the other. A member of LaRouche's security staff approached Howard Blum of the Times, posing as a would-be defector from the organization (which, I hear, can be a very lucrative proposition. Will Beback should ask Molly Kronberg what the going rate is.) The LaRouche people knew that Blum had been assigned to write a slander. So, Blum thought he was picking the LaRouche guy's brains, when it was Blum's brain that was being picked, and the conversation was preserved for posterity on a concealed tape recorder. The LaRouche organization went public with the tape, forcing the Times to put their story on ice, and instead it was farmed out to King, who published it in a Manhattan freebie paper called Our Town. This was King's big break. After the story appeared in Our Town, it was recycled in the Times. Of course, Dennis King recounts this tale with a slightly different spin.




Don't rush her. She still has backlog of questions to answer from this thread, including about her relationship to the Sweet Blue Water (T-C-L-K-R-D) and Sunsplash (T-C-L-K-R-D) accounts.

And here's an added bonus for irony aficionados.

Simon Hughes is not, never has been, and I bet never will be, leader of the British Liberal Democrats.



Somebody nominate the article for AfD please!

I don't know. Even a homosexual who used homophobia to get elected could lead a minor fringe party in the UK!

The Liberal Democrats aren't exactly a minor fringe party in the UK. You must be confusing them with where the Labour party wil be if they don't dump Brown pronto.

I've heard that they sit in front of computers and edit articles for days on end, sometimes going without sleep entirely, for no pay at all.

Yes, but they let SlimVirgin out when she wants. I think she scratches at the door.

It has nothing to do with King or Howard Blum, who didn't publish his New York Times piece about the movement until 1979. I'm thinking of a New York Times story five years earlier by Paul Montgomery, How a Radical-Left Group Moved Toward Savagery; Progression to Violence, January 20, 1974. He writes about how LaRouche member Alice Weitzman was held hostage in her own apartment by LaRouchies who believed she'd been "programmed" to kill LaRouche, because she'd expressed skepticism about some of his ideas. She threw a piece of paper out of her window to alert a passer-by who called the police. They arrested six of the people who had held her, but she wouldn't press charges.

The same story describes the "deprogramming" by LaRouche of a member, Konstantin George, during which LaRouche discovered that an assassination plot against him had been "implanted" into George's mind. It also describes the "ego-stripping" of Chris White, a 26-year-old Brit who had married LaRouche's ex-girlfriend. It was LaRouche himself who recorded the session, and confirmed its authenticity. The Times writes that there are sounds of weeping and vomiting on the tapes, and White says he is being deprived of sleep, food and cigarettes. Someone can be heard saying "raise the voltage," which LaRouche later said referred to bright lights, not electricity. LaRouche said a physican, a LaRouche member called Gene Inch, was in attendance. LaRouche described White as "being reduced to an eight-cycle infinite loop with look-up table, with homosexual bestiality."

Two questions spring to mind. First, why would anyone doubt that an organization that has done this might have done something odd to Jeremiah Duggan, especially when one recruiter said afterwards that Duggan had been a danger to the movement. And secondly, HK, you joined the movement round about the time this was going on in the mid-70s. What would prompt you to want to get involved in this?

In 1974, I had never heard of LaRouche. I have no knowledge of the events described in the account you mention, but I would assume that anything penned by either component of the Blum/Montgomery duo would be malicious in intent. It was issued during the same period as the COINTELPRO activities alluded to in the FOIA document (the one that you recently deleted from [[Lyndon LaRouche]], discreetly and without explanation, see below) and was almost certainly coordinated with those activities. I have never observed or heard of any such "deprogramming" in the LaRouche movement, and I live in Southern California, where the LaRouche Youth Movement was born. I have met literally hundreds of young people who drifted in and out of the movement. They like to stay up all night talking about astronomy and singing Bach motets. That's certainly not in the mainstream, I'll grant you that.

Now, how about you, SV? What got you so intensely and personally interested in LaRouche?

Why would you assume articles published by The New York Times would be malicious in intent?

As for the document you reproduce, I have no recollection of removing that from the article. If you have a diff showing I did, it was almost certainly a temporary thing as part of a copy edit, and it was restored. You seem to be making a lot of it, but it doesn't say much. It's declassified, and says simply that the American Communist Party was trying to get rid of LaRouche as head of the NCLC, and the FBI was interested in helping them. But you forget that the tape recording of the "ego-stripping" session of Chris White was made by LaRouche, and he confirmed its authenticity to The New York Times, so you can't pin this at the door of anyone but LaRouche himself. He not only did it, he saw nothing wrong with it. Let both of those facts tell you something.

You didn't say why you got involved.



I have no personal interest, nor an intense one. I'd heard of LaRouche before I joined WP, and was looking around for an article to write when I read about Duggan in a British newspaper, so I created it. I was shocked to be swooped on by you and two of your socks (Weed Harper and C Colden), and by your use of LaRouche publications to make claims about the Tavistock etc. That got me looking at the LaRouche articles, where I saw the same thing: Homey and Adam Carr struggling to contain your edits. And so I got involved. My interest lies in WP using good sources, not in LaRouche per se.

I said that I assumed articles written by Paul Montgomery and Howard Blum were malicious in intent. And, I assume that because of what was revealed in the undercover tape-recording incident, described above. Incidentally, LaRouche does claim that this was related to COINTELPRO.

My, that's certainly easy to believe.

Actually, I did say earlier that an important factor was that my curiosity was piqued by the transparently heavy-handed propaganda campaign against him. I was involved in the anti-war movement, but found it intellectually shallow. LaRouche, on the other hand, I found almost excessively intellectual and a turgid writer to boot, and I would most likely have dismissed him were it not for the fact that the propaganda firepower being aimed at him seemed way out of proportion to what I assumed to be his relative importance. As I investigated further, I found that I liked his campaign for the develoment of the Third World, when the rest of the New Left seemed self-involved and indifferent to the fate of larger humanity. Eventually, over a period of years, I became acquainted with his other ideas, and I liked them, too.

Please say why.




It ought to be. I've made over 83,000 edits to WP. Of these, 480 to the Duggan article and talk; 468 to Lyndon LaRouche and talk; 254 to Views of Lyndon LaRouche and talk; 139 to Schiller Institute and talk; and very small numbers of edits to some of the others. That's around 81,600 edits that aren't about LaRouche.

Well that's a bit more than most people can honestly say.

It is actually interesting to see where Slim's edits cluster. Of course, the 81k edit count is vastly inflated by her editing style - dozens of edits a few seconds apart. But here are selections from her top 20:

• Marshalsea - 1058 (1.7%) -- OK, what's that about? But a creditable article, not obviously controversial, though vastly beyond "encyclopedic" detail and length, but that's Wikipedia;
• New antisemitism - 1001 (1.6%) and Talk:New antisemitism - 888 (1.5%) -- Highly controversial, and representing a clear POV. A lightening-rod article;
• People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - 816 (1.3%); Animal rights - 814 (1.3%); Animal testing - 597 (1.0%); Talk:Animal testing - 521 (0.9%); Animal Liberation Front - 475 (0.8%) -- Slim's clearest and most evident POV, resulting in a highly slanted set of articles, largely representing the views of PETA and similar. Would be controversial except Slim has run off all opposition in these articles, her clearest examples of WP:OWNership;
• Rudolf Vrba - 747 (1.2%); Night (book) - 475 (0.8%) -- Another well-written and largely uncontroversial pair of articles, though completely WP:OWNed by Slim;
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - 871 (1.4%); Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit_warring - 478 (0.8%) -- Slim's relentless politicking against other editors;
• Wikipedia talk:No original research - 731 (1.2%) Wikipedia talk:Verifiability - 680 (1.1%); Wikipedia talk:Attribution - 512 (0.8%) - More relentless politicking, in this case to twist the citation rules to Slim's desires;
• 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramla - 730 (1.2%) - A recent interest. Expiation for sins commited in support of Jayjg?
• The Holocaust - 704 (1.2%) -- Shouldn't be controversial, but the world is full of idiots;
• Shooting of Jamal and Muhammad al-Durrah - 654 (1.1%); Talk:Shooting of Jamal and Muhammad al-Durrah - 439 (0.7%) -- Another highly controversial article. Slim has participated in the POV slanting of this article, though inexplicably she seems to have very slightly backed off in the last few weeks;
• Death of Michael Jackson - 481 (0.8%) -- Another huh? article. Whatever.

Take whatever meaning you want from this, but one point is that with "480 to the Duggan article and talk; 468 to Lyndon LaRouche and talk; 254 to Views of Lyndon LaRouche and talk; 139 to Schiller Institute and talk", that section, collectively, is right up there are the top of Slim's list of "interests".

You're mixing up article edit counts, with article+talk counts. Here are my top mainspace edits. The two articles HK sees me as "intensely" interested in are numbers 16 (LaRouche) and 20 (Duggan).

# 1058 - Marshalsea
# 1032 - New antisemitism
# 899 - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
# 893 - Animal rights
# 747 - Rudolf Vrba
# 741 - Animal testing
# 730 - 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramla
# 723 - The Holocaust
# 654 - Shooting of Jamal and Muhammad al-Durrah
# 574 - Animal Liberation Front
# 517 - Night (book)
# 481 - Death of Michael Jackson
# 457 - Wilhelm Reich
# 424 - Martin Luther
# 395 - Death of Ian Tomlinson
# 395 - Lyndon LaRouche
# 394 - Abu Nidal
# 380 - David Icke
# 331 - Bombing of Dresden in World War II
# 317 - Death of Jeremiah Duggan
# 303 - Brown Dog affair

I don't know what you mean about me participating "in the POV slanting" of al-Durrah, but having backed off in the last few weeks. I've edited it more in the last few weeks than I ever did before. And although I do sometimes make lots of minor edits (mostly when I'm doing section editing to fix formatting), I also make a lot of single edits that contain substantial amounts of text.

I am not mixing anything up. Your Talk: space edits are, if anything, more significant that your "mainspace" edits, as they often consist of your cajoling of other editors, misrepresentations of Wikipedia policies, and threats against opponents. A flippin' tapestry of manipulation, it is.

You guys keep making that mistake, and trying to reason with her.

Wasting your time.

The complete top 100 if anyone cares.

That is, it took so long to load I'll put it here so I don't have to load it again. Brion [edit: whoever has replaced Brion] will probably be happier too.

1. 1058 - Marshalsea (T-H-L-K-D)
2. 1032 - New antisemitism (T-H-L-K-D)
3. 899 - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (T-H-L-K-D)
4. 893 - Animal rights (T-H-L-K-D)
5. 747 - Rudolf Vrba (T-H-L-K-D)
6. 741 - Animal testing (T-H-L-K-D)
7. 730 - 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramla (T-H-L-K-D)
8. 723 - The Holocaust (T-H-L-K-D)
9. 654 - Shooting of Jamal and Muhammad al-Durrah (T-H-L-K-D)
10. 574 - Animal Liberation Front (T-H-L-K-D)
11. 517 - Night (book) (T-H-L-K-D)
12. 481 - Death of Michael Jackson (T-H-L-K-D)
13. 457 - Wilhelm Reich (T-H-L-K-D)
14. 424 - Martin Luther (T-H-L-K-D)
15. 395 - Death of Ian Tomlinson (T-H-L-K-D)
16. 395 - Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D)
17. 394 - Abu Nidal (T-H-L-K-D)
18. 380 - David Icke (T-H-L-K-D)
19. 331 - Bombing of Dresden in World War II (T-H-L-K-D)
20. 317 - Death of Jeremiah Duggan (T-H-L-K-D)
21. 303 - Brown Dog affair (T-H-L-K-D)
22. 299 - Joel Brand (T-H-L-K-D)
23. 258 - Pan Am Flight 103 (T-H-L-K-D)
24. 255 - Deir Yassin massacre (T-H-L-K-D)
25. 243 - Factory farming (T-H-L-K-D)
26. 241 - Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (T-H-L-K-D)
27. 239 - Bernard Williams (T-H-L-K-D)
28. 217 - Rat Park (T-H-L-K-D)
29. 203 - Israel and the apartheid analogy (T-H-L-K-D)
30. 198 - Islamophobia (T-H-L-K-D)
31. 190 - Rachel Corrie (T-H-L-K-D)
32. 156 - Hamas (T-H-L-K-D)
33. 152 - John Mark Karr (T-H-L-K-D)
34. 147 - Barry Horne (T-H-L-K-D)
35. 133 - On the Jews and their Lies (T-H-L-K-D)
36. 128 - Gillian McKeith (T-H-L-K-D)
37. 121 - Hizb ut-Tahrir (T-H-L-K-D)
38. 117 - Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt (T-H-L-K-D)
39. 114 - Germaine Greer (T-H-L-K-D)
40. 113 - Stanley Green (T-H-L-K-D)
41. 113 - Pro-Test (T-H-L-K-D)
42. 111 - Steven Emerson (T-H-L-K-D)
43. 111 - Silver Spring monkeys (T-H-L-K-D)
44. 110 - Veganism (T-H-L-K-D)
45. 107 - Ingrid Newkirk (T-H-L-K-D)
46. 106 - Zoo (T-H-L-K-D)
47. 106 - Human (T-H-L-K-D)
48. 105 - Antisemitism (T-H-L-K-D)
49. 105 - Rudolf Kastner (T-H-L-K-D)
50. 100 - Rod Coronado (T-H-L-K-D)
51. 99 - Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (T-H-L-K-D)
52. 99 - Michael Jackson (T-H-L-K-D)
53. 97 - List of British Jews (T-H-L-K-D)
54. 96 - Bill White (neo-Nazi) (T-H-L-K-D)
55. 92 - Animal testing on non-human primates (T-H-L-K-D)
56. 92 - Gill Langley (T-H-L-K-D)
57. 90 - Parenthetical referencing (T-H-L-K-D)
58. 89 - Daniel Pipes (T-H-L-K-D)
59. 87 - Munich massacre (T-H-L-K-D)
60. 87 - David Irving (T-H-L-K-D)
61. 86 - Animal liberation movement (T-H-L-K-D)
62. 86 - Chip Berlet (T-H-L-K-D)
63. 86 - Lauren Slater (T-H-L-K-D)
64. 81 - Views of Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D)
65. 80 - Alan Dershowitz (T-H-L-K-D)
66. 79 - Ernest Gellner (T-H-L-K-D)
67. 78 - Schiller Institute (T-H-L-K-D)
68. 77 - Pit of despair (T-H-L-K-D)
69. 76 - Seattle Jewish Federation shooting (T-H-L-K-D)
70. 75 - On the Jews and Their Lies (T-H-L-K-D)
71. 75 - Pallywood (T-H-L-K-D)
72. 74 - Britches (monkey) (T-H-L-K-D)
73. 74 - Taliban (T-H-L-K-D)
74. 74 - Huntingdon Life Sciences (T-H-L-K-D)
75. 73 - Nick Cohen (T-H-L-K-D)
76. 72 - Covance (T-H-L-K-D)
77. 67 - Center for Consumer Freedom (T-H-L-K-D)
78. 65 - Cambridge University primates (T-H-L-K-D)
79. 64 - Perverted-Justice (T-H-L-K-D)
80. 63 - Draize test (T-H-L-K-D)
81. 63 - Danny Casolaro (T-H-L-K-D)
82. 62 - List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus (T-H-L-K-D)
83. 62 - Michael Jackson memorial service (T-H-L-K-D)
84. 60 - Books published per country per year (T-H-L-K-D)
85. 58 - Cambridge Apostles (T-H-L-K-D)
86. 58 - T. S. Eliot (T-H-L-K-D)
87. 58 - Anti-globalization and antisemitism (T-H-L-K-D)
88. 55 - SPEAK campaign (T-H-L-K-D)
89. 54 - Shehzad Tanweer (T-H-L-K-D)
90. 54 - Vivisection (T-H-L-K-D)
91. 53 - Jack Sarfatti (T-H-L-K-D)
92. 53 - Steven Best (T-H-L-K-D)
93. 52 - Lod (T-H-L-K-D)
94. 50 - Robin Webb (T-H-L-K-D)
95. 50 - Heather Mills (T-H-L-K-D)
96. 47 - Keith Mann (T-H-L-K-D)
97. 46 - Vincent Cannistraro (T-H-L-K-D)
98. 46 - Machsom Watch (T-H-L-K-D)
99. 45 - Ian Stevenson (T-H-L-K-D)
100. 44 - Alf (name) (T-H-L-K-D)

On the other hand new items may appear at any given time. I don't recognize half of them but I couldn't help but notice the recent interest she has taken in T. S. Eliot (so she must be alright).

I'm glad you like good sources. I like good sources, too. Could you explain in a very specific way what makes these sources not good, other than the obviously wrong POV?

→ Slim Cherry Pickens

Ja Ja

Trying to get your love to give you a cherry without a stone? Always worth a try...
And then you find you're a chicken, without a bone....

You know, that song is a lot more obscene than I thought.

Let she who is without SYN stash the first cone.

Ja Ja

SV, you're an experienced editor when it comes to reliable sources, and, from what I understand, speak more than one language. Why didn't you join in that thread and tell Will that he was wrong? Why didn't you threaten Will with a block for rejecting reliable sources from other countries? Why aren't you being fair and following Wikipedia's policies, which you helped write, when it comes to the LaRouche articles?

Separate question...GWH, when are you going to tell the ArbCom that you are topic banning SV and Will BeBack from the LaRouche articles?

Er, point of information: those sources were rejected by Slim, not Will (diff.)

Perhaps Slim's crowning achievement at WP was in conniving to have WP:V trump all other policies, in particular WP:SOAP. Wikipedia became the apotheosis of the popular press, and abandoned any pretext of being a real encyclopedia.

Except that WP:V is suspended if the source is from the wrong country or POV.

An I certainly also wanted to see the power you/Jayjg and all your sycophants had on wp destroyed. And I have never been banned. *And* I´m female.

Jeez, ms. Hell, I can´t believe that you still have this attitude

Can´t you get into you head that it was your actions that created all this hostility? The fact that we all watched how rules against socking, "outing", against whatever, did not apply to your "friends", but only to those you did not agree with?

I do think things are changing, albeit, slowly. And even you have changed, a bit, at least the double-standard is not as blatantly obvious as it was. I was genuinely, truly stunned when you reported a pro-Israeli sock. But lets take a look at that story: you got to know this was a blocked editor, because she emailed you from an email-account belonging to a blocked user.

Now, how come, that a blocked user did this? Was it because she wanted to "commit wiki-cide?" Hardly.
Or was it perhaps because she felt it so safe to tell you, indirectly, that she was blocked, ´cause SV had a reputation of never, ever, initiating/supporting any sanction against those who shared her POV?
Now, who on earth could have given her that impression, ms. Hell? Hmmm?
Do you think it was HK, Gomi, Daniel Brandt, Lar, me(?) ??....Or was it perhaps (shock!).....yourself?

If you want to change your reputation; then only you can do so. And I wish you the best of luck. Honestly.
(But it will take more than 6 months work to "undo" 5 years of relentless POV-pushing.)

Now, here's an interesting development: the LaRouche article now links to a BLP of LaRouche on the Arabic Wikipedia (yes, Virginia, there is one.) The Arabic article is written with a pro-LaRouche POV, to roughly the same extent that the English-language one is written with an anti-LaRouche POV. So, will Slim 'n' Will attempt to muscle in on that one and take it over? There may be language difficulties. Here is the Google translation of the Arabic article.

There has been a new development in this case, followed by a new POV editing-orgy by Slim. On February 23, the German Constitutional Court finally put the Duggan case to rest. 5 days later, this edit appeared at Jeremiah Duggan (T-H-L-K-D), which Slim created when she first arrived at WP and has continued to be jealously WP:OWNed by her as her personal WP:SOAPbox to the present day. The article had been written, over the past view years, from the standpoint that the activity of Slim and her admirers would cause the Constitutional Court to overturn the police conclusion that Duggan's death was a suicide. The new setback has provoked, so far, 57 edits by Slim over the past view days, with all her trademark moves, including the "tidying" edit summary when she slips something really POV in there, and the disguised reverts of any editor who gets in the way.