All 250,000 Wikileaks documents leaked in Norway

[CptStern]

well the cat's out of the bag now

According to a report today in Norway's top business publication, the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten has managed to get a hold of the entire "Cablegate" database of some 250,000 diplomatic cables—Wikileaks has not granted any news organization this access, and has instead been providing access to relatively small batches, one at a time (what the Herald Sun calls "drip-feeding"). How did Aftenposten get access? They won't say, and Wikileaks won't either, but one guess could involve the database being stored on a server within Norway.

I'm wondering if unozero, virustype2 etc will call for the heads of the editor of the Norway newspaper for leaking the leaked classified documents or call them traitors

Aftenposten news editor Ole Erik Almlid told Dagens Naerings: "We're free to do what we want with these documents ... We're free to publish the documents or not publish the documents, we can publish on the internet or on paper. We are handling these documents just like all other journalistic material to which we have gained access."

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/22/wikileaks-all-250000.html

 

[No Limit]

Good, the more news organizations that have these the better.

 

[Nabobalis]

Please someone seed this.

 

[No Limit]

I dont think they actually released them yet.

 

[Hectic Glenn]

Having all the cables doesn't mean they've been properly organised & interpreted into meaningful info. They will probably need the same level of processing that wikileaks were doing.

 

[No Limit]

I didn't want to make a totally new thread so I'll just post this here:

JERUSALEM (JTA) -- WikiLeaks will release sensitive leaked diplomatic cables regarding Israel in the coming months, its founder said.

Julian Assange told Al-Jazeera Wednesday that his website will release top secret letters dealing with the 2006 Second Lebanon war, the assassination of a high-level Palestinian official in Dubai suspected to have been carried out by the Mossad, and other Israel-related cables.

Assange claims to have about 3,700 files related to Israel, most from the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv.

He reportedly told Al-Jazeera that few documents involving Israel have so far been published because the newspapers to which he gave exclusive rights to publish the cables were unwilling to publish sensitive information about Israel.

He said he was certain that Israeli intelligence is currently monitoring WikiLeaks closely and denied that there was a deal between Israel and WikiLeaks to keep information on Israel private.

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/12/23/2742303/wikileaks-to-release-more-israel-cables

I don't know which I look forward to more. The Israel cables or internal Bank of America documents.

 

[VirusType2]

I'm wondering if unozero, virustype2 etc will call for the heads of the editor of the Norway newspaper for leaking the leaked classified documents or call them traitors

What are you talking about, tool. This is good news.

 

[CptStern]

good news from a TRAITOR!

 

[VirusType2]

good news from a TRAITOR!

What are you even trying to say? That I think Assange is a traitor? That's not possible. Are you disputing the fact that Bradley Manning is a traitor?

You know, I don't like people like Steve Jobs and Julian Assange. Do you have a problem with that? Because, get over it.

 

[Warped]

Pandora's Box 2010

Also the CIA's new task force to combat this is called WTF...don't know where I read this but lol

 

[CptStern]

What are you even trying to say?

I'm asking if you're going to give the same level of scrutiny towards the norwegian editor for "leaking" the documents as you did with Assange/wikileaks?

This isn't whistle blowing, it's the entire world spying on all the conversations between nation leaders. For example: "we are hiding the bombs that will save the world here." Don't tell me that isn't endangering anybody.

It's confidential. How about if the entire world finds out what you've been thinking or what you do in the bathroom. Is that whistle blowing? The conversation between your friend that's a girl - your girlfriend spying on your email OK with you?

And I don't know anyone that is holding Wikileaks accountable.

 

[VirusType2]

I never had a problem with Wikileaks as I've said maybe a dozen times by now. :| It's a bit of a game changer, and change is a little intimidating, but it certainly has the potential for a lot of good.

What Bradley Manning did -- well intentioned or not -- was irresponsible. We all hope good things come from it, rather than bad, but that's irrelevant to that opinion. And I've already made the simple example as to why: "If my wife wouldn't have left me, I wouldn't have met you!"

I don't feel like this is an outrageous opinion, so I don't see the need to defend it all the time, although I have, and I probably will. If you disagree, then we disagree. It's a fundamental difference of opinion that isn't likely to change for either of us. No problem.

As for Assange, he has made it clear he has an agenda, so he's obviously not a good candidate to lead Wikileaks. You need someone completely objective. "Facts don't have a bias", I think he said, and he was right about that.

But what's to stop him from releasing only documents that slant things a certain way, from manipulating the documents to be misunderstood, or only showing damning documents that he has a bias against, while only showing good documents that he is biased for? No offense, but if you discount that, it's because you drank the kool-aid and you need to snap out of it.

Well, that ability is gone now, so all of them being leaked takes away all of his ability to manipulate things. That's why I say it's a good thing.

You guys think the media has done a good job manipulating people, but he has been doing the same, and quite well, in my opinion. I also think Ahmadinejad is a master of manipulation and I'm 'not too fond' of him either.

 

[No Limit]

There you go again with this bullshit what if game.

But what's to stop him from releasing only documents that slant things a certain way, from manipulating the documents to be misunderstood, or only showing damning documents that he has a bias against, while only showing good documents that he is biased for? No offense, but if you discount that, it's because you drank the kool-aid and you need to snap out of it.

Well, that ability is gone now, so all of them being leaked takes away all of his ability to manipulate things. That's why I say it's a good thing.

 

[VirusType2]

There you go again with this bullshit what if game.

There you go again with your fanatical ignorance: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...al+infrastructure&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

It's not what if... he did.

I'm not going to explain this to you. I don't think you could comprehend. No offense.

 

[No Limit]

What the hell does your google link prove? You are again playing this bullshit game of "what if". You have absolutely no evidance that he is keeping certain leaks hidden while releasing others to promote an agenda. In fact ALL the material that they do have were made available to various newspapers directly contradicting the suggestion you made above. Yet you keep making statements you have absolutely no basis for and then you want us to sit here and believe that you are impartial.

 

[Acepilotf14]

I would leak certain documents as an agenda, for sure. No such thing as unbiased media.

 

[comradesean]

This talk of agendas is lovely and all, but what agenda would a man from Australia have for leaking only sensitive documents on the USA?
I mean, if his agenda is to leak political documents for fame then why stop with the USA? I'm failing to see the connection here.

 

[No Limit]

There is no connection, Virus is just asking questions...again.

 

[Krynn72]

I heard Ole Erik Almlid raped some chick.

 

[CptStern]

I never had a problem with Wikileaks as I've said maybe a dozen times by now. :| It's a bit of a game changer, and change is a little intimidating, but it certainly has the potential for a lot of good.

yet later on you hammer in the point that it has a lot of potential for bad

What Bradley Manning did -- well intentioned or not -- was irresponsible.

I guess you have a problem with whistleblowing in general because in terms of the work related duties of the whistleblower it would be considered irresponsible to release documents that relate to your work. so which is it going to be: whistleblowing in general or wikileaks? because fundamentally they're the same thing; do you have a problem with Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein? because they knowingly passed secret information from an informant that led to the Watergate scandal. I guess Deepthroat acted irresponsibly when he revealed Nixon's criminal activity

We all hope good things come from it, rather than bad, but that's irrelevant to that opinion. And I've already made the simple example as to why: "If my wife wouldn't have left me, I wouldn't have met you!"

huh?

I don't feel like this is an outrageous opinion, so I don't see the need to defend it all the time, although I have, and I probably will. If you disagree, then we disagree. It's a fundamental difference of opinion that isn't likely to change for either of us. No problem.

you speak in riddles

As for Assange, he has made it clear he has an agenda

and what agenda would that be?

so he's obviously not a good candidate to lead Wikileaks.
You need someone completely objective. "Facts don't have a bias", I think he said, and he was right about that.

ya like Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner or Conrad Black; Giants of journalistic integrity that just so happen to run the biggest media houses in the world. hey but lets put a grassroots organization funded by donations at an astronomically higher level of scrutiny than any of these because HEY they should be completely objective ..unlike traditional media that has no such qualms. no it doesnt sound like you have an agenda when it comes to wikileaks/assange ...at all ...no sireee

But what's to stop him from releasing only documents that slant things a certain way, from manipulating the documents to be misunderstood, or only showing damning documents that he has a bias against, while only showing good documents that he is biased for? No offense, but if you discount that, it's because you drank the kool-aid and you need to snap out of it.

see foxnews, or the new york times or the washington post


ZOMG BUT WHAT IF ASSANGE SELECTIVELY EDITS INFOMATION. I MEAN WHAT IF!!!!

Well, that ability is gone now, so all of them being leaked takes away all of his ability to manipulate things. That's why I say it's a good thing.

lol your WHAT IF has morphed into OH YA HE DID in less than a paragraph

You guys think the media has done a good job manipulating people, but he has been doing the same, and quite well, in my opinion. I also think Ahmadinejad is a master of manipulation and I'm 'not too fond' of him either.

surprised you didnt throw in hitler. also you've already found him guilty of "manipulation" (in what exactly, who the **** knows) and equated it with the media's smear campaign

 

[VirusType2]

This talk of agendas is lovely and all, but what agenda would a man from Australia have for leaking only sensitive documents on the USA?
I mean, if his agenda is to leak political documents for fame then why stop with the USA? I'm failing to see the connection here.

Agenda? He said "I'm trying to stop two wars, here." Trying to manipulate the war effort is probably the most important item on his agenda. It's self evident.

There is no connection

See above, Kool-aids man.

yet later on you hammer in the point that it has a lot of potential for bad

Of course it does. Are you denying that it doesn't have the potential for "bad", that some of the information couldn't be used against innocent people? This just something you like to keep painting over, but the ugly shit is still there. That releasing every single classified document without discretion is "all good" for you. Are they leaking Taliban or Al-Qaeda documents, or their state sponsor's documents? Well, then I guess it puts the West at a severe disadvantage, doesn't it?

When one egg is broken, you should just throw them all out, in your book? He could have shared only the files that he saw as being a crime. Uploading them all is inhibiting diplomacy. Do you know what diplomacy is?

Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or states. It usually refers to international diplomacy, the conduct of international relations through the intercession of professional diplomats with regard to issues of peace-making, trade, war, economics, culture, environment and human rights. International treaties are usually negotiated by diplomats prior to endorsement by national politicians. In an informal or social sense, diplomacy is the employment of tact to gain strategic advantage or to find mutually acceptable solutions to a common challenge, one set of tools being the phrasing of statements in a non-confrontational, or polite manner.

Diplomacy out the ****ing window. Kind of like right now, between us.

you speak in riddles

This is called English:

I don't feel like this is an outrageous opinion, so I don't see the need to defend it all the time, although I have, and I probably will.

If you disagree, then we disagree. It's a fundamental difference of opinion that isn't likely to change for either of us. No problem.

I don't know how I would explain English to you or why. It's a popular language used for communication.

and what agenda would that be?

He said "I'm trying to stop two wars." Do you understand what the word agenda means? It's amazing, the ability to NOT understand that you guys display. When someone--perhaps Sulkdodds--comes in here and explains things, explains how he feels and why, you can see his perspective; he can see mine. We have an intellectually stimulating and civil argument where opinions are understood and even changed. Arguing with you guys is purely a brick wall experience.

ya like Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner or Conrad Black; Giants of journalistic integrity that just so happen to run the biggest media houses in the world. hey but lets put a grassroots organization funded by donations at an astronomically higher level of scrutiny than any of these because HEY they should be completely objective ..unlike traditional media that has no such qualms. no it doesnt sound like you have an agenda when it comes to wikileaks/assange ...at all ...no sireee

Fair point, but don't think for a second I don't criticize these media corps for being shitty and manipulative, because I do it all the time. I sponsored MediaFAIL. But we aren't talking about Fox news, etc. right now. They didn't posses hundreds of thousands of stolen classified documents and put them on the internet. With great power comes great responsibility. Discretion was not used by Manning, and it wasn't used by Assange.

Not the end of the world, but it's kind of a big deal. Discretion is what makes someone a whistleblower and a benefit. What if you had a pointer dog that pointed at every single damn thing? Not very helpful - especially if it was pointing at your friends.

lol your WHAT IF has morphed into OH YA HE DID in less than a paragraph

It was never what if, it was always 'he did'. And so, one can assume he will continue to do so. It's called reasoning. You might want to learn this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning

It doesn't really get along with fanaticism though, so you probably won't be able to put it to use.


Secondly, 'What if' is an important thing to consider. Anything that can happen eventually would. What if Iran or North Korea build a nuclear ICBM. What if terrorists detonate a dirty bomb in one of the most populace cities in the world?

Smart people plan for the 'what ifs', that's why all cars have seat belts and safety glass.

surprised you didnt throw in hitler. also you've already found him guilty of "manipulation" (in what exactly, who the **** knows) and equated it with the media's smear campaign

Oh, some Hitler again. Classy. Hmm... it makes sense. Of course you don't see him as manipulating things, because he's your hero. The iJobs agree.

 

[kazsymonds]

The only meaningful piece of information that wikileaks has revealed, is that governments are (not surprisingly) very bad at keeping confidential information confidential.

 

[Solaris]

The only meaningful piece of information that wikileaks has revealed, is that governments are (not surprisingly) very bad at keeping confidential information confidential.

And that US tax Dollars fund child sex slavery in Afganistan, or the the UK secretly agreed to allow the US to store illegal cluster bombs on it's soil.

Stop making assertions when you obviously don't know what you're talking about, it's a pathetic way to try and win an argument by asserting a fact like that.

 

[Escaep]

Why do people keep posting individual threads like this? Surely it'd be better to have one Wikileaks related thread that all news articles could be posted in? Instead, we have numerous other threads that start with one news article then in just a couple posts it falls back to the same bickering that we've seen in all of the other threads.

 

[CptStern]

I'm wondering why you even post in the politics forum at all. all you ever do is complain about the thread and rarely talk about the content contained in the thread. you're a wet blanket

 

[Escaep]

I'm wondering why you even post in the politics forum at all. all you ever do is complain about the thread and rarely talk about the content contained in the thread. you're a wet blanket

You're correct, I forgot we needed 11 different threads on the matter. I retract my statement and by all means keep flooding this forum with each individual news thread and filling said threads with your oh so enlightening opinions on the matter. Please, carry on.

Spoiler

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/sho...-250-000-Wikileaks-documents-leaked-in-Norway
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/sho...er-in-solitary-confinement-inhumane-treatment
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/sho...-up-efforts-to-charge-Assange-with-conspiracy
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/sho...ks-documentary-quot-leaked-quot-onto-internet
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/sho...rting-Wikileaks-could-jeopardize-gov-t-career
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/sho...orture-of-innocent-German-and-coverup-efforts
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/sho...nce-that-it-s-hosting-World-Press-Freedom-Day
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/sho...pe-for-not-pulling-out-because-a-condom-broke
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/sho...aks-due-to-leak-another-2.8-million-documents
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/sho...ands-investigation-over-leaked-police-reports
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/sho...u-have-the-wikileaks-quot-insurance-quot-file

 

[CptStern]

Of course it does. Are you denying that it doesn't have the potential for "bad",

you're a terrible debater; thinking that debate is about posting the opposite of what your opponent does. I didnt say any such thing so stop putting words in my mouth

that some of the information couldn't be used against innocent people? This just something you like to keep painting over, but the ugly shit is still there.

BUT IT"S STILL THERE!!! you're an alarmist ninny. you do this in every single post you make; always alluding the unspoken ZOMG WHAT IF!!!!

That releasing every single classified document without discretion is "all good" for you.

this is what I mean about you being an alarmist ninny; they released the documents to the new york times and the guardian MONTHS before they posted it on their site. the guardian in particular sent the documents to the US governemtn for comment. they had PLENTY of time to review the cables and even then they only released a fraction of what they said they had. BUT NOT YOU OH NO SIRREE WHAT IF MOFO WHAT THE MOTHER****IN IF?? CATS SLEEPING WITH DOGS!!!

Are they leaking Taliban or Al-Qaeda documents, or their state sponsor's documents? Well, then I guess it puts the West at a severe disadvantage, doesn't it?

what does this have to do with anything? are you seriously suggesting that they should post documents from terrorist organizations just to balance out the shit they post about foreign and domestic governments? this is utterly ridiculous.

When one egg is broken, you should just throw them all out, in your book? He could have shared only the files that he saw as being a crime. Uploading them all is inhibiting diplomacy. Do you know what diplomacy is?

lol this doesnt even make sense. he hasnt released everything; only a trickle at a time and if his goal is transparancy wouldnt only posting negative stuff be contrary to that? you'd be the first one who'd scream foul because he was selectively editing info at his discretion. you cant have it both ways

Diplomacy out the ****ing window. Kind of like right now, between us.

lol you're so over the top. from now on we will only go through official channels; have your people contact my people because obviously diplomacy has failed

This is called English

FISH BREAD DONKEY KUMQUAT

this is also english. however much like your post it doesnt make any sense

I don't know how I would explain English to you or why. It's a popular language used for communication.

yes maybe you should stress the part about communication because you're not clearly communicating your point

He said "I'm trying to stop two wars." Do you understand what the word agenda means? It's amazing, the ability to NOT understand that you guys display.

it's not my ****ing job to figure out exactly which quote you're talking about when you make the overly broad statement that he has an agenda. it's your job to qauntify your statement not mine. it's your failing as a debater

When someone--perhaps Sulkdodds--comes in here and explains things, explains how he feels and why, you can see his perspective; he can see mine. We have an intellectually stimulating and civil argument where opinions are understood and even changed. Arguing with you guys is purely a brick wall experience.

my patience with you ended awhile back when you made it personal

Fair point, but don't think for a second I don't criticize these media corps for being shitty and manipulative,

I really couldnt give two shits about what you find manipulative or not. the fact is that you hold wikileaks to a far higher standard than you do established media giants and that speaks volumes about your bias

because I do it all the time. I sponsored MediaFAIL. But we aren't talking about Fox news, etc. right now. They didn't posses hundreds of thousands of stolen classified documents and put them on the internet. With great power comes great responsibility. Discretion was not used by Manning, and it wasn't used by Assange.

it's no different than Bernstein and Woodward. you just cant/wont see that

Not the end of the world, but it's kind of a big deal. Discretion is what makes someone a whistleblower and a benefit. What if you had a pointer dog that pointed at every single damn thing? Not very helpful - especially if it was pointing at your friends.

It was never what if, it was always 'he did'. And so, one can assume he will continue to do so. It's called reasoning. You might want to learn this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning

It doesn't really get along with fanaticism though, so you probably won't be able to put it to use.

off topic rambling

Secondly, 'What if' is an important thing to consider. Anything that can happen eventually would. What if Iran or North Korea build a nuclear ICBM. What if terrorists detonate a dirty bomb in one of the most populace cities in the world?

Smart people plan for the 'what ifs', that's why all cars have seat belts and safety glass.

if the queen had balls she'd be king; it is useless to speculate what can happen because it's just baseless speculation

Oh, some Hitler again. Classy. Hmm... it makes sense.

you dont get my meanuing. you rarely get my meaning. conversations with you are frustrating

Of course you don't see him as manipulating things, because he's your hero. The iJobs agree.

lol surprised you didnt say something about me having a McJob to go with my iJobs lifestyle. dont know why I bother because you wont understand that either

 

[VirusType2]

you're a terrible debater; thinking that debate is about posting the opposite of what your opponent does. I didnt say any such thing so stop putting words in my mouth

You think I'm debating with you? I already understand your position. I am not trying to convince you that my opinion is right, and yours is wrong, I am trying to convince you that I am not a strawman. But anything but Assange knob-jobs is too ****ing foreign for you to accept, so you attack it, like a foreign body.

You're a terrible debater. You don't even know whether you are debating or not.

Look you started off the damn thread with a strawman argument attached to my username. So calling me a terrible debater is fairly hilarious.

I don't pigeonhole people and assume they think a certain way as part of some alignment or sect. You make a strawman argument as usual. All of you desperate losers do this shit. I only argue by what you reveal about yourself not what I imagine you believe. That's why I asked the question: Are you denying that it doesn't have the potential for "bad"? Several of you have argued that. I'd have to read a bunch of your gibberish posts to actually find out if you were one of them, so I'll take your word for it instead.

BUT IT"S STILL THERE!!! you're an alarmist ninny. you do this in every single post you make; always alluding the unspoken ZOMG WHAT IF!!!!

You don't seem to follow simple analogies very well. How is it alarmist when it is happening? "Hey, important things are happening", but it's not worth mentioning. So I SHOULD JUST KEEP MY OPINIONS TO MYSELF, RIGHT? Yeah, you'd like to shut me up. Only you get to decide what is important, because you're a big baby. Geez, it's like going against the church of Assange. :upstare: You probably only read things that support your opinion all the time.

And you make every effort to misunderstand people whom you disagree with, and it's really childish. "LALALALA you don't make sense because I can't hear you!"

the guardian in particular sent the documents to the US governemtn for comment. they had PLENTY of time to review the cables

HAHa. That's a nice story you made up. Prove it - I'll help you get started

and even then they only released a fraction of what they said they had. BUT NOT YOU OH NO SIRREE WHAT IF MOFO WHAT THE MOTHER****IN IF?? CATS SLEEPING WITH DOGS!!!

"Cats sleeping with dogs"... and you say I speak in riddles. How does it relate to anything? LOL

They "only released a fraction" so they can manipulate public interest. Assange even said so himself. And you are trying to deny it to cover for him. OOPS.


Oh, and here I'll throw you a bone: A few Assange quotes, off the top of my head (examples of manipulation):

- Oh, "I don’t really THINK IT’S THE CIA THAT SET ME UP. PROBABLY NOT."

- "EVEN IF YOU THINK AMERICA’S WAR IS LEGAL..."

- "Collateral Murder" - HMMMmmm I guess "Soldiers doing their job, getting approval before firing, but Civilians Accidental Killed" doesn't have the same ring to it.

This wasn't a cover up or a murder, this was clearly a mistake that deserved internal scrutiny so it doesn't happen again, not a framing of this information that damages the reputation of the coalition.

Without framing it in a certain way, the video could have done much more good. You don't have to lie and say they murdered people and laughed about it and covered it up. Things aren't always investigated on the god damn battlefield. Be realistic. It was all documented though (unlike any other military I know of), and there is a reason for that. The military goes over it with a fine tooth comb and generally processes that information (bringing charges and making changes) after the war, when there is plenty of extra manpower.

Assange himself says that "information doesn't have a bias" but he does. An anti-war bias. To be clear: maybe we all have a bias, I'm not faulting him for having one or having a particular one.

Soldiers kill and don't think much of it, and they may congratulate themselves. I feel guilty when I step on a bug, but I wouldn't be shocked when I saw an exterminator in action.

This is the middle of a war zone and non-combatants (including foreign news corespondents) were there documenting the war. Warzones are dangerous places; war corespondents have a dangerous job with risks. I mean, come on man. It's ****ing sad. But soldiers are trained to deal with killing in a way that you might call brainwashing. So if they don't make a big deal about it,... that's their damn job. That's their training.

what does this have to do with anything? are you seriously suggesting that they should post documents from terrorist organizations just to balance out the shit they post about foreign and domestic governments? this is utterly ridiculous.

The point is: It's damaging the coalition war effort. Guerrilla wars are won and lost over PR. But that's okay with you because THE WAR IS ILLEGAL!!!111!11 (hint: it's not)

lol you're so over the top. from now on we will only go through official channels; have your people contact my people because obviously diplomacy has failed

Sounds good.

Diplomacy has failed. Well, I went there, so deal with it.

FISH BREAD DONKEY KUMQUAT

this is also english. however much like your post it doesnt make any sense

yes maybe you should stress the part about communication because you're not clearly communicating your point

Actually that's not English at all. Those are English... words...

But I understand your point. I really don't mean this to be offensive, but this is what is so frustrating: the things I say do make sense to someone who has sufficient reading comprehension.

Fail/Fail

it's my ****ing job to figure out exactly which quote you're talking about when you make a broad statement that he has an agenda. it's your job to quntify your statement not mine. it's your failing as a debater

It's your fault for attacking things that you don't yet understand. If you want to say "HAHAHAH FOOL, THE EARTH ISN'T ROUND!", and attack me because I haven't yet explained why. It's not necessarily my responsibility to explain 'why'. And what makes you think you deserve it? Similarly if I use a word you don't understand, it's not my job to explain what the word means! Use the ****ing internet.

And it's not my job to translate your gibberish into English, either (but I do). You're either not making any effort here or you should look to yourself as to why you can't understand me.

my patience with you ended awhile back when you made it personal

You tried to pigeonhole me on the opening post. So, you brought me into the discussion. A direct attack on a position you assume that I have. So, you started off a discussion with a strawman argument...

How about I make a thread about being old and senile, or about Canadian lumberjacks, and then "I wondered why Stern was that way"?

Now you humiliate yourself and you want to cry about it? Blame it on me, then call for a moderator to save your ass. "Wahhhh ;( You make it personal."

I really couldnt give two shits about what you find manipulative or not.

Likewise. But you asked; I did not. So you can stick your foot in your mouth now.

the fact is that you hold wikileaks to a far higher standard than you do established media giants

And we hold the US to a higher standard than the terrorists. Why? Because the US is supposed to be better than the terrorists.

"Manipulation/corruption/crimes/cover ups/hiding the truth is: bad, bad, bad", but then that's what he's ****ing doing too. All of them. Well, he's innocent on some of that so far, but IT WOULD BE FUNNY. I would laugh just because I hate fanboys and fanatics.

off topic rambling

I thought maybe a picture would help you understand. You have too many excuses to not understand me. My writing is pretty ace and my reading comprehension is my strongest suit. I test a perfect score for professional clerical office work, but you can't understand it. Is it really my fault? You love to point out that I dropped out of school and American public schools suck all the time. (Hint: You know who else dropped out of school? Julian Assange)

if the queen had balls she'd be king; it is useless to speculate what can happen because it's just baseless speculation

OK, I like this. Did you get it from a fortune cookie? "If something was completely different, then things could be completely different" But that's not the case at all. Maybe the cookie confused you.

"It's useless to worry things that have happened and will likely happen again." OK, Stern. You ever put covers over the electrical outlets to safe-guard your kids, and hide the household cleaners, things like that? No, not at all, I'm guessing.

you dont get my meanuing. you rarely get my meaning. conversations with you are frustrating

Let's see. For the third time you mention Hitler, and "I'm not bright enough to follow along." And I'm to blame? Ever consider using an example that isn't the verbal equivalent of sweeping the board-game on the floor?

And I'm frustrating? Well, loosing all the time is frustrating for you, I'm sure. But here's why you are frustrating: you don't want to understand, you want to argue. I constantly have to repeat myself.

If you wouldn't stop strawman pigeonholing and failing to understand, then you'd have no one to argue with, and then no one to complain about arguing with.

You pick arguments with me, and then say you don't want to argue with me!

lol surprised you didnt say something about me having a McJob to go with my iJobs lifestyle. dont know why I bother because you wont understand that either

Uh, whatever. The iJobs crack was referring to the fanboy cult following of Steve Jobs and equating that to the near-religious following of Julian Assange.

 

[Mogi67]

lol, he thinks the US is better than terrorists.

 

[Kaptain H]

I applaud your efforts, VirusType.

 

[leib10]

Same here. Nice post. Too bad he's so self-absorbed that he won't listen.

 

[No Limit]

A discussion with Virus over coke vs pepsi would turn in to a 30 page quote war. And yes, wikipedia would be involved.

 

[ríomhaire]

I like this random word emphasis in different colours that Virus is doing. It's like playing Zelda.

 

[Doomination]

A discussion with Virus over coke vs pepsi would turn in to a 30 page quote war. And yes, wikipedia would be involved.

well obviously pepsi is the superior product, so there's no point in debating that

 

[No Limit]

well obviously pepsi is the superior product, so there's no point in debating that

It's not a debate brah, I'm not asking you to change your mind. I'm just telling you that you are wrong.

 

[Doomination]

only religious republicans drink coke

 

[Remus]

only religious republicans drink coke

I'm an atheist libertarian, and I drink coke, plus other beverages made by Coca Cola.

Also how the hell did this thread get to a Pepsi vs Coke debate?

 

[comradesean]

My blood is 90% caffeinated pepsi. We will win this war.

 

[No Limit]

only religious republicans drink coke

I'm an atheist libertarian, and I drink coke, plus other beverages made by Coca Cola.

Haha, doomination got pwned.

 

[Kadayi]

I see not much has changed at the net in the last year. Also I'm fairly sure the cables aren't going to reveal anything to us which isn't already common knowledge. That Israel doesn't give a hoot about international law is hardly going to be much of a surprise. :dozey: