Wikileaks: Next release is 7x the size of the Iraq War Logs

  Quote

"If you mean the previous leaks i've looked through a great deal of it, but i don't think a single human being could digest the entire thing, that's why i think people need to remember that the media is intentionally cherry picking information from these leaks, especially if they have like 10 huge stories about it the day they leak, how in the fuck could they possibly do enough research to have even half of the story?"

This is an excellent point. But are YOU not doing the exact same thing??????????????? If not, how not ?

i want to know more about that heavily encrypted, keyless INSURANCE file wikileaks posted a month or two back.

nigga wheres my leaks at

manning

evretngdd

  On 11/26/2010 at 10:43 PM, kaini said:

  On 11/26/2010 at 9:57 PM, Awepittance said:

  On 11/26/2010 at 9:18 PM, Babar said:

  On 11/26/2010 at 7:49 PM, Babar said:

WHAT ABOUT THE RAPES

 

since the charges were dropped almost immediately, the accusations have become discredited

 

new, less hysterical charges have been issued afaik

source?

  On 11/26/2010 at 11:42 PM, pulsewarrior said:

  Quote

"If you mean the previous leaks i've looked through a great deal of it, but i don't think a single human being could digest the entire thing, that's why i think people need to remember that the media is intentionally cherry picking information from these leaks, especially if they have like 10 huge stories about it the day they leak, how in the fuck could they possibly do enough research to have even half of the story?"

 

 

This is an excellent point. But are YOU not doing the exact same thing??????????????? If not, how not ?

if you could give me a specific example of how i'm cherry picking leaks from Wikileaks website to push my own hidden agenda please provide them.

edits: things like internal military records of death tallies would be hard to fake or manipulate.

i really can't be arsed looking them up (you try and do effective google-fu on anything assange-related, one can't help but think it's part of the smokescreen), but it was on slashdot - sexual assault charges as opposed to rape.

look, full disclosure, i think the whole assange clusterfuck is a hugely damaging thing for wikileaks at this point. wikileaks is closely involved with the FSF, and the people equating assange=wikileaks are doing exactly what people who don't agree with wikileaks want. assange needs to go now, because he's damaging the organisation and also because i think he's a massive douchebag.

in that respect, the people who oppose wikileaks have won. public perception is everything. i don't need to prove that you're a rapist, just accuse you of being one.

  On 11/26/2010 at 11:39 PM, pulsewarrior said:

[

Just as you say no-one should dismiss these documents, also no-one should attribute any great importance to them, because we all don't know what the hell is in them or if it's important or not

i think that's a strawman, i never said that 'no one should dismiss these documents' i was expressing surprise that most of the 1st half of this thread seemed very dismissive to me. You are confusing an opinion for me making some kind of objective declaration.

  On 11/26/2010 at 11:39 PM, pulsewarrior said:

so why are you telling us what the hell what we should and shouldn't care about?

I'm expressing what i personally care about, i don't think i have tried to shut down anyones opinions in regards to why Wikileaks last 2 major war leaks are insignificant. All i'm trying to figure out is how can one so easily say this? Sometimes emotions run high in political discourse, so excuse my shock.

  On 11/26/2010 at 11:39 PM, pulsewarrior said:

I'm not arguing whether the leaks are important or not - all I'm saying is to stop acting like a dick who thinks his opinions and sources are better than other people's.................as usual

if you have some beef with the way i debate in threads, fine but i was hoping you were getting to a greater point where you might express a substantiative opinion.... Do you have one on this issue?

  On 11/27/2010 at 3:56 AM, kaini said:

i really can't be arsed looking them up (you try and do effective google-fu on anything assange-related, one can't help but think it's part of the smokescreen), but it was on slashdot - sexual assault charges as opposed to rape.

 

look, full disclosure, i think the whole assange clusterfuck is a hugely damaging thing for wikileaks at this point. wikileaks is closely involved with the FSF, and the people equating assange=wikileaks are doing exactly what people who don't agree with wikileaks want. assange needs to go now, because he's damaging the organisation and also because i think he's a massive douchebag.

 

in that respect, the people who oppose wikileaks have won. public perception is everything. i don't need to prove that you're a rapist, just accuse you of being one.

I generally agree. i think it would be a good idea for him to get someone else to do PR, when anything such as Wikileaks gets associated with one person and that person's character is continually scrutinized it would be a good idea to change things up

edit: although i do really like the guy, i've watched a lot of his media interviews and press conferences and he is able to hold his cool very well, much better than a lot of other people i've seen attempt similar things. I think the only time i really saw him 'loose it' was on CNN when the interviewer pretty much wanted to spend a 1/3rd of it about the rape charges

he may or may not be a sleazy mofo (tbh i am leaning towards 'may') but he is definitely not the sort of person who wikileaks should be thrusting into the spotlight. he's a weird-ass hacker/activist type... wikileaks should be hiring a skeptical, educated, and most of all palatable publicist along the lines of daniel brandt right now.

to relax the thread a little here is this humorous take on wikileaks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXbCwq4ewBU&feature=related

  On 11/27/2010 at 3:58 AM, Awepittance said:

  On 11/26/2010 at 11:39 PM, pulsewarrior said:

[

Just as you say no-one should dismiss these documents, also no-one should attribute any great importance to them, because we all don't know what the hell is in them or if it's important or not

.

 

i think that's a strawman, i never said that 'no one should dismiss these documents' i was expressing surprise that most of the 1st half of this thread seemed very dismissive to me. You are confusing an opinion for me making some kind of objective declaration.

 

  On 11/26/2010 at 11:39 PM, pulsewarrior said:

so why are you telling us what the hell what we should and shouldn't care about?

 

I'm expressing what i personally care about, i don't think i have tried to shut down anyones opinions in regards to why Wikileaks last 2 major war leaks are insignificant. All i'm trying to figure out is how can one so easily say this? Sometimes emotions run high in political discourse, so excuse my shock.

 

  On 11/26/2010 at 11:39 PM, pulsewarrior said:

I'm not arguing whether the leaks are important or not - all I'm saying is to stop acting like a dick who thinks his opinions and sources are better than other people's.................as usual

 

if you have some beef with the way i debate in threads, fine but i was hoping you were getting to a greater point where you might express a substantiative opinion.... Do you have one on this issue?

hope as you may, i don't have one. mostly because i haven't been through 70k pages of leak or even 1/20 of it and otherwise don't have enough solid and factual evidence to form one that i can be confident about.

i do have a beef with the way you debate threads, so....fine, just as i've said in other threads. just as a person who accepts what, say, the conservative media outlets tell them about these leaks, your own evidence is no more valid than theirs (unless of course you can prove what you're citing in the leaks - will you be able to ?). So to me, it's all just opinions, and noones opinion is better than anyone else's. I'd have no problem with the way you express yours if I didn't feel you were constantly putting down other members of the board while expressing yours. that's why i take issue.

  On 11/27/2010 at 5:36 AM, pulsewarrior said:

i do have a beef with the way you debate threads, so....fine, just as i've said in other threads. just as a person who accepts what, say, the conservative media outlets tell them about these leaks, your own evidence is no more valid than theirs (unless of course you can prove what you're citing in the leaks - will you be able to ?). So to me, it's all just opinions, and noones opinion is better than anyone else's. I'd have no problem with the way you express yours if I didn't feel you were constantly putting down other members of the board while expressing yours. that's why i take issue.

you have a problem with properly cited material from reliable sources? i'm all for informed discussion, but an argument where one side is providing credible information and the other is not isn't an argument at all.

I've got to say that Awep is probably one of the more thorough and careful debaters on this forum. He's patient too, I can't recall many instances, if any, of his passions overtaking him orof him resorting to hyperbole or blanket statements. When pressed on a statement he, more often that most on this forum has a thorough explanation for his claims.

  On 11/27/2010 at 5:36 AM, pulsewarrior said:

 

hope as you may, i don't have one. mostly because i haven't been through 70k pages of leak or even 1/20 of it and otherwise don't have enough solid and factual evidence to form one that i can be confident about.

 

i do have a beef with the way you debate threads, so....fine, just as i've said in other threads. just as a person who accepts what, say, the conservative media outlets tell them about these leaks, your own evidence is no more valid than theirs (unless of course you can prove what you're citing in the leaks - will you be able to ?). So to me, it's all just opinions, and noones opinion is better than anyone else's. I'd have no problem with the way you express yours if I didn't feel you were constantly putting down other members of the board while expressing yours. that's why i take issue.

you still haven't specified a single thing that you disagree with me on, you are taking some sort of reflexive centrist non opinion point of view which makes far less sense to me than someone making fun of Assange's behavior or wikileaks being insignificant.

If there was a specific part of the argument or a fact i claimed i had that is wrong please by all means point it out to me.

edit: and by 'this issue' i mean wikileaks in general, or lets choose one side of it, the notion that wikileaks is endangering our troops, or how about the point of view Kaini shares that Julian assange is damaging to the organization? these things all interest me, but if you are going to say you don't agree with me but not really explain what your point of view is, it seems like a non worthwhile debate.

  On 11/27/2010 at 7:17 AM, Awepittance said:

  On 11/27/2010 at 5:36 AM, pulsewarrior said:

 

hope as you may, i don't have one. mostly because i haven't been through 70k pages of leak or even 1/20 of it and otherwise don't have enough solid and factual evidence to form one that i can be confident about.

 

i do have a beef with the way you debate threads, so....fine, just as i've said in other threads. just as a person who accepts what, say, the conservative media outlets tell them about these leaks, your own evidence is no more valid than theirs (unless of course you can prove what you're citing in the leaks - will you be able to ?). So to me, it's all just opinions, and noones opinion is better than anyone else's. I'd have no problem with the way you express yours if I didn't feel you were constantly putting down other members of the board while expressing yours. that's why i take issue.

 

you still haven't specified a single thing that you disagree with me on, you are taking some sort of reflexive centrist non opinion point of view which makes far less sense to me than someone making fun of Assange's behavior or wikileaks being insignificant.

If there was a specific part of the argument or a fact i claimed i had that is wrong please by all means point it out to me.

 

edit: and by 'this issue' i mean wikileaks in general, or lets choose one side of it, the notion that wikileaks is endangering our troops, or how about the point of view Kaini shares that Julian assange is damaging to the organization? these things all interest me, but if you are going to say you don't agree with me but not really explain what your point of view is, it seems like a non worthwhile debate.

i'm telling you that i don't like the way that you present your opinions. i thought i made that perfectly clear in my last post and before. you seem to keep fixed on me needing to present an argument to some piece of information you've provided when i've clearly illustrated that I just think you're arrogant and that your version of the facts and sense of importance about these matters always wants to be more grand than other peoples here.

im with pulsewarrior when it all comes down to it we're all just citing websites none of us have ever read before and passing it off as the truth the vast majority of the time everyone just ends up believing some guy on the internet because he put his oh so massive "truth" penis in your moral vagina and awepitance likes to brag about being a truth slut.

the end

Ah the classic ad hominem - "I don't like the way you do something, so instead of trying to attack your argument, i will attack the manner in which you present information."

24ourange - at some point, you have to trust that some information has a very reasonable chance of being factual. When it has been verified by several independent sources, that boosts its credibility. Wikileaks releases the information to several news outlets at the same time, and those news outlets have people who go over them. Do those individuals have their biases? Of course they do. Everyone has bias, awepittance does, I do, even you do.

I get tested regularly, I'm bias-free

the point is that no matter how studious you are of your sources, you still just roll over and spread your legs for whomever jumps through your personal hoops. No one has any privileged information, and for all intensive purposes (ie intellectual internet strokeoffs), we all feed off of our respective flavor of predigested internet spin, it's what we intentionally look for and it's always available, hot and fresh daily, to confirm our opinions that we stole from someone else.

  On 11/27/2010 at 8:47 AM, lumpenprol said:

I get tested regularly, I'm bias-free

pro-tip: you can't catch bias from chinese pros. :)

  On 11/27/2010 at 8:56 AM, 24ourange said:

the point is that no matter how studious you are of your sources, you still just roll over and spread your legs for whomever jumps through your personal hoops. No one has any privileged information, and for all intensive purposes (ie intellectual internet strokeoffs), we all feed off of our respective flavor of predigested internet spin, it's what we intentionally look for and it's always available to confirm our opinions that we stole from someone else.

Unless of course you look at sources from a variety of points of view? You're never gonna eliminate bias completely, but you can mitigate it to a large degree.

oh and the phrase you're looking for is "for all intents and purposes".

  On 11/27/2010 at 8:56 AM, 24ourange said:

you still just roll over and spread your legs for whomever jumps through your personal hoops.

  On 11/27/2010 at 8:43 AM, chenGOD said:

Ah the classic ad hominem - "I don't like the way you do something, so instead of trying to attack your argument, i will attack the manner in which you present information."

but my whole gripe is the manner in which he presents information.......??????

please do explain the ad hominem (insofar as it is fallacious)