Marsden again

[Peter Damian]

I'm working through the history of the Rachel Marsden affair. Jimbo and Rachel had known something of each other but only seemed to have hooked up (electronically) in January 2008. On February 8 they had a lurid conversation on Google chat, discussing what they were going to do on hotel bedroom chairs.

On February 29 http://valleywag.com/362564/transcripts ... -sex-chats Rachel leaked a transcript of the filthy talk in Valleywag.

On March 1st http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =195246705 Jimbo ill advisedly published a statement on his WP talk page, announcing he was not involved with Rachel anymore.

Rachel then announced to the world http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/wo ... Wales.html that this was the first time she had heard about the public dumping. She edited his WP biography http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =195278968 to include details of the 'marathon sex' thing.

But there is a problem with the chronology here. How could she claim she knew nothing about the dumping when clearly it was she who had leaked the material to Valleywag a day before? Surely she could have predicted that? Or is my chronology up the creek?

[thekohser]

Wales acknowledged publicly that there was a one-time, in-person hotel meeting with Marsden, so you need not tiptoe around that issue.

I think that Marsden's "surprise" at being dumped on Wikipedia is part of a hypothetical scenario such as this:

(1) Jimbo communicates privately to Marsden that he would still like to have her in reserve as a booty call, but that he doesn't view their relationship as monogamous.

(2) Rachel gets pissed, so she shares the chat transcripts -- either to a friend of hers who then leaked to Valleywag, or direct to Valleywag. Mind you, at this juncture, both Jimbo and Rachel might assume that they were still "dating", but Rachel is probably much less pleased with the arrangement than Jimbo is.

(3) Jimbo learns that his chat transcripts have been disclosed.

(4) Jimbo "dumps" Rachel publicly on Wikipedia, without even first contacting her. Mind you, he's probably enraged about the chat transcripts being leaked, so you can't blame him for not contacting Rachel privately.

(5) Rachel uses the "public" dumping as a lever to further humiliate Jimbo. Of course, her shock and surprise is a bit of an acting job here. You can't really blame her for being pissed that Jimbo thought little more of her than a sex partner.

[EricBarbour]

Plus, Marsden's BLP had already been a warground, for more than 2 years prior to this idiocy.
The history of her BLP is totally shredded and massively oversighted, hundreds of diffs missing. I have a capture of the first year of edits to it that Judd Bagley saved.
As soon as it was created in late 2005, left-wing Wikipedia trolls were trying to defame her therein. There is indication that in March 2008, JzG spent a good
deal of time "futzing" with it, and inserting a variety of scurrilous crap---all oversighted later. It's nice to have friends, with oversight.

Plus, we still have Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy, still excellent proof that Wikipedia is for defamation.

Just another case of "Who's crazier?": Marsden, Jimbo, or his Wiki-pals.

[Hersch]

I have no sympathy for Marsden's politics, but her description of Wikipedia is immortal ("Wikipedia is nothing more than the biggest and most prolific defamation machine that the world has ever known, run by people with varying degrees of personality disorders.") Incidentally, I am getting an error message when I try to access the orginal diff. Has it been "disappeared"?

[Moonage Daydream]

I have no sympathy for Marsden's politics, but her description of Wikipedia is immortal ("Wikipedia is nothing more than the biggest and most prolific defamation machine that the world has ever known, run by people with varying degrees of personality disorders.") Incidentally, I am getting an error message when I try to access the orginal diff. Has it been "disappeared"?

This link works for me.

[Hersch]

And an added bonus:

[Peter Damian]

And an added bonus:

Is this yours?

[Peter Damian]

Wales acknowledged publicly that there was a one-time, in-person hotel meeting with Marsden, so you need not tiptoe around that issue.

I think that Marsden's "surprise" at being dumped on Wikipedia is part of a hypothetical scenario such as this:

(1) Jimbo communicates privately to Marsden that he would still like to have her in reserve as a booty call, but that he doesn't view their relationship as monogamous.

(2) Rachel gets pissed, so she shares the chat transcripts -- either to a friend of hers who then leaked to Valleywag, or direct to Valleywag. Mind you, at this juncture, both Jimbo and Rachel might assume that they were still "dating", but Rachel is probably much less pleased with the arrangement than Jimbo is.

(3) Jimbo learns that his chat transcripts have been disclosed.

(4) Jimbo "dumps" Rachel publicly on Wikipedia, without even first contacting her. Mind you, he's probably enraged about the chat transcripts being leaked, so you can't blame him for not contacting Rachel privately.

(5) Rachel uses the "public" dumping as a lever to further humiliate Jimbo. Of course, her shock and surprise is a bit of an acting job here. You can't really blame her for being pissed that Jimbo thought little more of her than a sex partner.

Thanks - that agrees with my hypothesis too. But see the account below, supposedly given by Rachel herself. Unfortunately the original (a comment on Valleywag) seems to have been lost from the net, and the only copy is on WR. I wonder if it is genuine. It claims that Jimmy 'well into the relationship' said he was a practitioner of polygamy and prefers multiple sex partners. I have never heard Jimmy say this. Rachel also could not take being in a relationship with "a lying, sleazy, sack of shit that will happily screw anything and everything on two legs".

These are harsh words.

QUOTE(Rachel Marsden @ May 17 2008 12:56 AM)
Actually the events are a bit out of order. Here, as someone who obviously is far more of an authority on the events of her life than an anonymous internet "fan", let me give you a hand, dear:

1) Rachel and Jimmy start fighting over his admission, well into the relationship, that he's a practitioner of polygamy and prefers multiple sex partners.

2) Rachel admits to Jimmy that she's not sure how much longer she can take being in a relationshp with a lying, sleazy, sack of shit that will happily screw anything and everything on two legs.

3) As a power-trip, Jimmy threatens Rachel with deportation if she ever breathes a word of their relationship to the point where the rest of his floozies find out he's been cheating on them with at least one other woman (in reality, he cheats on several women simultaneously, and is admittedly proud of it). Rachel tells him to go f himself.

4) Within a day, Jimmy posts breakup notice for the world to see on Wikipedia.

5) Rachel tells him she'll be responding to media inquiries about his breakup announcement in kind - by auctioning off his reeking clothes on eBay
http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/ ... 18247.html

[EricBarbour]

This is the original WR post by Somey. He says it was posted as a comment on Valleywag.
It's still there, buried in the 200-plus comments, it was posted 17 May 2008 3:56 AM.

(Warning, you need to have a recent browser and allow all kinds of funky XSS Javascripting in order to see that. I cannot speak for that actually being Marsden, of course.)

[Peter Damian]

Thanks. I've posted some of the comments on the wiki http://www.logicmuseum.com/x/index.php? ... _May_2008) . Do we have any idea about the identities of the characters commenting there? Rachel is Rachel and Greg is Greg of course. It was widely believed the 'colonel panic' was Jimmy himself. Certainly he showed more knowledge of the original affair than your average internet commenter.

Note the cruel comments by Troll 2.0 about 'buying an ice cream'. Nasty.

[Hersch]

And an added bonus:

Is this yours?

No, it was on Jimbo's talk page when I followed the link. The URL for the image itself is http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... imming.jpg

It's good that Wikipedia is Not Censored.

[EricBarbour]

Thanks. I've posted some of the comments on the wiki http://www.logicmuseum.com/x/index.php? ... _May_2008) . Do we have any idea about the identities of the characters commenting there? Rachel is Rachel and Greg is Greg of course. It was widely believed the 'colonel panic' was Jimmy himself. Certainly he showed more knowledge of the original affair than your average internet commenter.

Note the cruel comments by Troll 2.0 about 'buying an ice cream'. Nasty.

No idea, although I've seen other evidence of Marsden using sockpuppets, she doesn't do it very much.
I would not put anything past Wales, OTOH. For all we know, en-WP noticeboards are full of Jimbo sockpuppets.

[thekohser]

And an added bonus:

Credit: Durova.

[Moonage Daydream]

History repeats? Again? An IP which appears to be Marsden added this to Patrick Poivre d'Arvor (T-H-L):

From 2009 until at least 2012, he has dated political analyst, TV presenter, and syndicated columnist, Rachel Marsden.

You wouldn't tell your wife about us, so I posted it on Wikipedia.....?

[Heat]

History repeats? Again? An IP which appears to be Marsden added this to Patrick Poivre d'Arvor (T-H-L):

From 2009 until at least 2012, he has dated political analyst, TV presenter, and syndicated columnist, Rachel Marsden.

You wouldn't tell your wife about us, so I posted it on Wikipedia.....?

It's no wonder Marsden fled North America for France where sexual harassment is a national sport and harassing your ex-lover is considered the stuff of romantic comedy.