Julian Assange - Still a Class-A prick

[Trolldor]

No, he can't, because you had to point it out to him.

[Ronja]

TMH - you're not helping...

[Trolldor]

I'm not here to help. I'm here to state the obvious in an unnecessarily jarring and offensive manner.

I'm also not going to let the delusion persist that he can somehow take a highground here. He can't.
There is no 'smarter role' after months of unmitigated ideological masturbation.

[sandinista]

TMH - you're not helping...

It's OK, he can't help himself. The mentally handicapped just require a little more patience sometimes.

[Trolldor]

And that is evidence why he can't.

[sandinista]

And that is evidence why he can't.

Quite possibly the best example of I've ever read here, and that's saying A LOT!

[Ronja]

Sandy, it might help your credibility a little bit, if you did not use the words "mentally handicapped" in that manner. You see, one of your readers just might have a minor brain damage since birth, related trouble with walking and balance, ADHD, reading and writing difficulties, and be on life-long medication. Or be close, personally or professionally, to a mentally handicapped person. Such readers just might dislike your way of using the term, and therefore become more negatively inclined towards you message(s), current and future.

Just saying.

[Trolldor]

And that is evidence why he can't.

Quite possibly the best example of I've ever read here, and that's saying A LOT!

Not really. I have no inclination to stop. I take pleasure in watching you tie your own rope.

[sandinista]

Sandy, it might help your credibility a little bit, if you did not use the words "mentally handicapped" in that manner. You see, one of your readers just might have a minor brain damage since birth, related trouble with walking and balance, ADHD, reading and writing difficulties, and be on life-long medication. Or be close, personally or professionally, to a mentally handicapped person. Such readers just might dislike your way of using the term, and therefore become more negatively inclined towards you message(s), current and future.

Just saying.

Not concerned with my "credibility" sorry.

And that is evidence why he can't.

Quite possibly the best example of I've ever read here, and that's saying A LOT!

Not really. I have no inclination to stop. I take pleasure in watching you tie your own rope.

Too easy.

[Don't Panic]

Those are very good questions, cunt.

Could you please just go away?

[Pappa]

Those are very good questions, cunt.

Could you please just go away?

[JimC]

As much as that might be nice in principle, it is not something that governments in general will encourage or even permit.

How much more likely is that now? We should go for a quick fix that focuses not on corruption but arbitrary, unregulated and unrestricted releasing of information from an unregulated body because "governments in general" wouldn't support such bodies?

Domestically we have the ICAC, Jim, an organisation which investigated and brought to justice its own head.

Anti-corruption bodies are a good thing, and Australia does that aspect reasonably well. Not perfect, but a fuck of a lot better than most countries. However, they are not designed to do what WikiLeaks is doing, particularly in trans-national areas. WikiLeaks is not a perfect solution, there are some arbitrary and ego-driven aspects to it, and it is not without risks. However, IMO, in balance it has done more good than harm IMO...

Anyway, WikiLeaks is a collaborative endeavour with the world's media, not a stand-alone process. A certain level of care and restriction is hopefully the result.

[Trolldor]

But it won't ever be the result. Wikileaks is not about exposing corruption and abuses of power, but very simply about making anything and everything available for consumption.
The risks outweigh the benefits precisely because of this, and precisely because they have nobody to answer to, and precisely because they aren't objective, and precisely because they aren't there to expose corruption or abuses of power.

[Gawd]

But it won't ever be the result. Wikileaks is not about exposing corruption and abuses of power, but very simply about making anything and everything available for consumption.
The risks outweigh the benefits precisely because of this, and precisely because they have nobody to answer to, and precisely because they aren't objective, and precisely because they aren't there to expose corruption or abuses of power.

What you are looking for is not democracy, but communism. Democracy is about having an informed population that can make informed choices. You are advocating for a Stalin-era Soviet Union where it is a don't ever ask and we will do what we want.

[Cunt]

Sandy, it might help your credibility a little bit, if you did not use the words "mentally handicapped" in that manner. You see, one of your readers just might have a minor brain damage since birth, related trouble with walking and balance, ADHD, reading and writing difficulties, and be on life-long medication. Or be close, personally or professionally, to a mentally handicapped person. Such readers just might dislike your way of using the term, and therefore become more negatively inclined towards you message(s), current and future.

Just saying.

Hi Ronja. My work brings me close to such people more often than most. I have really fallen for a group started by them. I have been to various types of conferences and such. Theirs, by FAR, has been the best of them.

The group is called People First of Canada and I would like for you to go snoop around their principles, goals and stories. Especially the stories.

While you do, remember that I am applauding you for addressing this to Sandinista. It used to be pretty much unimpeachably okay to use 'nigger', 'woman', or 'homo' as insults. I think it's wrong to use 'cunt' as an insult. Using 'cunt' as vulgarity (or any of those other terms) suggests a breathtaking lack of respect for cunt.

------------

But it won't ever be the result. Wikileaks is not about exposing corruption and abuses of power, but very simply about making anything and everything available for consumption.
The risks outweigh the benefits precisely because of this, and precisely because they have nobody to answer to, and precisely because they aren't objective, and precisely because they aren't there to expose corruption or abuses of power.

Wikileaks (as far as I can tell) is not there to provide policing. There are, as you pointed out, existing organizations for that (at least in the parts of the world you think important enough to have it)

What they have done is made EVERYTHING available - like a library. You, me and any other asshole can become investigators. If someone really wants to read all that shit, I mean. I doubt I would.

As to whether this or that should be leaked, too late. The standard has been set. The methods of exposing things will continually improve while the security laid on the secretest documents Ian knows about, laid in place today, are fairly static.

Secrecy is going to still be around, but I don't think it's ever going to be smart to count on it after this.