i assure you, you started it when you came out of nowhere to lecture me about how i shouldnt tout a blogpiece as justification for what wikileaks is doing. and since you had an issue w/ "blogs", i posted two other non-blog articles out of several i came across via google. i did this so that you could see that this story being was being reported in more forums than just the houston press "blog". you said multiple times that you would read said articles - seems to me like if you were really interested in more than just whining you would read them. seems like you are the one going "on and on". i have not initiated one post in your direction. all i have done is responded to each post you have directed towards me. am i supposed to ignore you? you are good at whining and telling others what to do...perhaps you should take your own advice and... it doesnt have to change how you originally felt about the article - you challenged the credibility of the article b/c it was a "blog" and you didnt like the headline - i posted two other articles that made the same implications the "blog" made and you said several times that you would read them. i dont care if you do or dont - i just want to make sure you are aware that the houston press "blog" isnt the only source for this story. and again, if you were really interested in the content you would have read them by now. seems to me like you are the one who is "worked up". again, all im doing is responding to your posts. and generally, when people go around accusing other posters of being "upset" or "angry" or getting "worked up", it is they themselves who are the ones that are feeling that way. you arent as entertaining as sam fisher and you lack the sense of humor of a fattyfatbastard or tradertexx, but i am having fun with you.
crazydave, i posted a link to an article that shows that wikileaks does provide important leaks. The croatian government is seeking a former prime minister over corruption charges because of some leaked documents showing criminal behavior. you realize that only a thousand or so out of 250k cables have been leaked so far right? look them up on wikipedia, they do from time to time release some pretty important stuff.
Yes I read your link, though I didn't see a link to the cable for that one. Yes, I realize that not all of the cables have been leaked at once. I never said they didn't or couldn't release important stuff via the cables, and just because I didn't agree with the implications of the original article in question as posted by the vigilant jomama, doesn't mean I think that they don't. In fact I have said otherwise in this thread and I believe in my original post. Just for the record... again.... my issue in all this was with one article's interpretation or presentation of the facts of one cable. Due to what I thought was a disingenuous presentation of one cable's facts, I made the mistake of not agreeing that the journalistic piece in question was a complete justification of WL and forgot my shytestorm umbrella. Been swimming in it ever since.
lol...say what? <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8aAeC1F1STI?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8aAeC1F1STI?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
and for the record...again...since you have an issue w/ "blogs" and the wording they used, i posted a couple other non-blog articles that made the exact same implications as the "blog" and you said several times that you would read them. i never said it was a "complete justification of WL" - i said it was one example of the kinds of things that justify wikileaks doing what they are doing. i posted two other non-blog articles which discuss the same things the blog did and you said you would read them. its been a week now...have you read them yet? and the sytestorm you speak of is of your own making. again, you should follow your own advice and "let it go".
You put words in my mouth, insult me, and wax aggressive, and I'm supposed to just let it go, but when I add the word "complete" to your original statement you feel the need to defend yourself. Even if I did read your supplementary articles, why would I discuss it with you? You never appeared to want to discuss both sides of anything. You ignored points I did make, made up things i didn't say, couldn't agree to disagree, lunged at me after I twice said "we disagree" and insulted me through and through. It's cool. Now I know. They have heard enough out of me on this, and certainly enough out of you too. I tried to put it back on track, several times now. Let's both let it go. One.... Two... THREE!
"wax aggressive"? - jesus dude - you are an even bigger baby than i already thought you were. you seem to forget that you started this whole silliness when you tried to lecture me about the credibility of "blogs". for your benefit i posted a couple other non-blog articles that made the exact same implications as the "blog" and you said several times that you would read them. you dont have to discuss it w/ me - i just want to make sure you know that there are more sources for this story than the houston post "blog" which got your panties in such a wad. actually, i did - thats why i posted the other two articles, which backed up the allegations made in the "blog" that you took issue with. it is you who seems to not want to "discuss both sides of anything". again, if you were interested in more than whining you would have looked into them. you ignored the two articles i posted which you said several times that you would read. "lunged" at you? really? if anything, you "lunged" at me when you tried to lecture me on how i shouldnt get my news from "blogs". you seem to have a real persecution complex. you start an argument with me and turn into a whiny little baby when i reply to you. what up with that? seems to me like your primary interest is just whining - again, if you were really interested in the content of the story you would have looked into the other non-blog articles i posted. and since you started this whole silliness you are the one who needs to "let it go". all im doing is replying to posts made in my direction so if you dont like it stop responding to me.
wow, man. Just wow. Do me a favor and read this thread again sometime next year after you've calmed down.
you should follow your own advice. and ill point out again that in general when people accuse others of being "worked up" or tell them to "calm down" it is they themselves who are actually upset.
[BBC] Julian Assange Loses Case, Is To Be Extradited To Sweden http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12564865 "I would say that what we're looking at here is political and legal gang rape of my son," AAP quoted Christine Assange as saying. "It's a real David and Goliath situation," she said. "What Julian through his site is proving (is) the need for WikiLeaks," his mother said. "I'm, obviously, scared for him as a mother but the world ought to be scared for its democracies." "The greatest fear I have is that the Western world in its effort to shut up someone who's telling the truth to the people of their countries will breach every piece of legislation in order to get him and will co-operate across borders to do so."
I don't think this deserves its own thread. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41863472/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times Assange complains of Jewish smear campaign Wikileaks founder claims his comments were 'distorted, invented or misremembered' LONDON — A report published by a British magazine on Tuesday said the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, suggested that British journalists, including the editor of The Guardian, were engaged in a Jewish-led conspiracy to smear his organization. His remarks appeared in the magazine Private Eye, in an article by its editor, Ian Hislop, who outlined a rambling phone call that Mr. Assange made on Feb. 16 to complain about the coverage of WikiLeaks. He was especially angry about a Private Eye report that Israel Shamir, an Assange associate in Russia, was a Holocaust denier. Mr. Assange complained that the article was part of a campaign by Jewish reporters in London to smear WikiLeaks. A lawyer for Mr. Assange could not immediately be reached for comment, but in a statement later released on the WikiLeaks Twitter feed, Mr. Assange said Mr. Hislop had “distorted, invented or misremembered almost every significant claim and phrase.” The Private Eye article quoted Mr. Assange as saying the conspiracy was led by The Guardian and included the newspaper’s editor, Alan Rusbridger, and investigations editor, David Leigh, as well as John Kampfner, a prominent London journalist who recently reviewed two books about WikiLeaks for The Sunday Times of London. When Mr. Hislop pointed out that Mr. Rusbridger was not Jewish, Mr. Assange countered that The Guardian’s editor was “sort of Jewish” because he and Mr. Leigh, who is Jewish, were brothers-in-law. Later, the article recounted, Mr. Assange asked Mr. Hislop to “forget the Jewish thing,” but he continued to insist there was a conspiracy against WikiLeaks based on the friendship among Mr. Rusbridger, Mr. Leigh and Mr. Kampfner. In the Twitter feed, Mr. Assange said that “in particular” the Private Eye report that he believed in a “‘Jewish conspiracy’ is false, in spirit and in word. It is serious and upsetting. Rather than correct a smear, Mr. Hislop has tried to justify one smear with another.” “That he has a reputation for this, and is famed to have received more libel suits in the U.K. than any other journalist as a result, does not mean that it is right,” Mr. Assange’s statement said. “WikiLeaks promotes the ideal of ‘scientific journalism’ — where the underlying evidence of all articles is available to the reader precisely in order to avoid these type of distortions. We treasure our strong Jewish support and staff, just as we treasure the support from pan-Arab democracy activists and others who share our hope for a just world.” After Mr. Assange was accused of sexual abuse by two women in Stockholm last summer, he cited a “smear campaign” against WikiLeaks. A London court ruled last week that he must be extradited to Sweden to face questioning on those accusations.
Gleen Greenwald's take: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/01/assange TL;DR - NYT is doing some crappy, opinionated journalism.
So you didn't read it but decide it is crappy opinionated journalism? I read the Greenwald piece and he makes a good argument. This is pretty much a he said / she said piece which is why I didn't think it deserves its own thread.
While I think this Assange character is a pretty big jerk, I have trouble believing he'd be an anti-semite. I'll wait for corroboration.
