On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 11:32:07 -0400
Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> on 8/2/07 7:19 PM, Armed Blowfish
Excellent point, AB. I was thinking in terms of 1-1
dialogue. But, you are
right, in the larger scale of a public forum, the
hatemongers must be met
head on, and with a group voice that is loud and clear.
Victims do feel very
much alone; we, by our voice and our embrace, can assure
them they are not.
Thank you for this.
The analogy is fine, and one which I agree with. If
someone has been stalked many times over, it does have a
lot of symptoms that are similar to being raped many times
over. The feeling of helplessness, of nobody
understanding, of feeling like you are responsible, of not
even feeling the power to be able to make a complaint.
Indeed, many kinds of crime engender many of the same
kinds of symptoms - people who are bullied and beaten up
many times by a school bully, people who are robbed
multiple times, gays who kept getting beaten up and
harassed for being gay, asians or people from a minority
racial group who just accept that they are going to be
racially abused, the list goes on. It is different to
rape as well, because obviously they don't have the same
physical symptoms (there are physical symptoms of course,
but they differ significantly). There are also many
psychological symptoms that differ greatly. But you are
right that the most painful and hence most important part
of being raped on multiple occasions, which is shared by
repeat victims of many types of crime, is that it is
repeated. Many rape victims, after they have been raped x
amounts of times by different people (or in some cases all
by the same person) don't even bother to complain about it
anymore. They don't try to tell anyone, and hide it, lie
to themselves that it didn't happen, and so forth. This
is the ultimate tragedy of this kind of problem, and this
happens with all of them. Ultimately, it can lead to
suicidal feelings, and this is the same for all of them.
Ultimately, to get out of this vicious circle the best
possible way is to get justice for what has happened. You
don't necessarily need for every single person who abused
you to go to jail, but you do need to have something
serious that you can refer to that proves that you won,
that sends a message out to every other one that comes
after you that you aren't an easy victim, that you can
win, that you can succeed.
For me personally, this happened thanks to a person called
Bonnie, who amongst other things wrote a web site about it
You can see my name on
there, and this e-mail address. This made a big
difference to my coping with cyber stalking.
Now, the problem with what you are saying isn't your
analogy. If we were dealing with actual cyber stalking,
the kind that I dealt with, and that many others have
dealt with, then I am sure that not many people would have
an issue with it. The problem is that we are not dealing
with real cyber stalking.
The person who produced the information was an
investigative journalist who specialised in the Lockerbie
bombing and was covering the recent major news that the
Lockerbie bombing case was being re-opened because of an
MI5 agent that had deliberately changed the course of
events, something that Colonel Qaddafi himself was on
record recently admitting. The question that is being
asked in the mass media now is who was that MI5 agent?
The over-riding issue has nothing to do with Wikipedia.
This was not a critic of Wikipedia, this was an
investigative journalist who was interested in the
Lockerbie bombing, who had never previously (or since)
written anything about Wikipedia. He looked through the
research provided by Wikipedia Review and concluded that
the MI5 agent responsible may have been *****, the person
who was a former assistant of ABC journalist Pierre
Salinger, who at the time was suspected of being an MI5
agent. Furthermore, he was able to conclude from looking
through Wikipedia Review evidence that she had used
Wikipedia to further this perversion of truth.
The issue was that MI5 was changing truth. This is the
issue that was being discussed.
Now, I am sure that nobody likes it when they are being
researched by the major media, and they find it rather
bothering, especially as it may eventually lead to
criminal charges. They probably feel harassed and upset
But suggesting that this is akin to cyber stalking, when
no personal details were released, and when Wikipedia
Review redacted all of the names (at least prior to the
names being revealed by the major media). Is that akin to
To compare the two is ridiculous, and it is very
irresponsible and insulting to anyone who has ever been
through something like that. To suggest that Wikipedia
Review are stalkers in general, when a number of them have
been victims of serious stalking, myself included, is very
hurtful. Wikipedia Review has never engaged in stalking,
and indeed never will.
If SlimVirgin alleges that Wikipedia Review has ever said
a single thing about her that is true, then it has always
been said that all that she needs to do is to prove that
it is false and they will remove the untrue information.
As far as Wikipedia Review are aware, everything that
they've ever said about her is true. If not, it was most
certainly not deliberately false. It was an attempt to
reveal true information about it.
This is a topic of utmost importance to Wikipedia, because
there is evidence that facts have been altered on
The fact that this evidence was oversighted from Wikipedia
is disgusting in itself. The fact that Jimbo Wales has
lied that it was oversighted for privacy reasons is
disgusting quite frankly. None of the edits that were
oversighted contain any private information whatsoever.
They merely indicate that SlimVirgin had never, at any
stage, edited with a genuine purpose to help Wikipedia.
From the very beginning, she edited with an obvious
agenda, both in terms of changing things from truth to
untruth, and in terms of her manipulating people to her
ends. SlimVirgin did not inadvertedly reveal her true
name - she inadvertedly revealed her agenda.
Why did Jayjg bother to oversight it when it had already
been quoted on Wikipedia Review, if the concern was her
privacy? People can simply go to Wikipedia Review and
read it. The only reason to oversight it was so that when
we get to this inevitable news story (which will
undoubtedly get much bigger from this point on) then they
have plausible deniability, because we can't prove that
those edits were SlimVirgin's first edits. We can prove
that she made the changes, but Wikipedia can argue that
she didn't do it from the very beginning. If she'd done
it from the very beginning, then it'd be evidence that she
was a secret agent, someone with an agenda from the very
So Jayjg, restore those edits. Show to people that there
was private information. Did SlimVirgin inadvertedly
reveal her full name, address and phone number? No, she
didn't. All that she revealed was an agenda.
Using this as "evidence" of stalking is disgusting. To go
further and to refer to Wikipedia Review as being the same
as rapists, and to refer to ME as effectively a rapist is
disgusting. I am extremely offended at that.
If you want to know what really happened, go and have a
look at our blog:
I would like please for people to cease referring to
Wikipedia Review as stalkers. You can feel free to refer
to us as mad, crazy, loonie, conspiracy theorists,
nutjobs, banned users or anything like that, but not
stalkers. It's not on.