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

Because how he presents his information has no relevancy to the content of the information?

He's saying look: "i've checked here and here and here, and this is what I believe to be true as a result of my research".

You're saying: "I don't like the tone of your voice, or the font that you type in."

His manner of presentation doesn't affect the results of his presentation, yet you persist in criticizing the manner of presentation, as opposed to offering up a counter-argument.

will you guys hush up I'm trying to get someone to jump through my personal hoops

  On 11/27/2010 at 10:21 AM, lumpenprol said:

will you guys hush up I'm trying to get someone to jump through my personal hoops

is that some Buddhist paradox? I mean how many hoops do you have man!

  On 11/27/2010 at 10:21 AM, chenGOD said:

Because how he presents his information has no relevancy to the content of the information?

He's saying look: "i've checked here and here and here, and this is what I believe to be true as a result of my research".

 

You're saying: "I don't like the tone of your voice, or the font that you type in."

 

His manner of presentation doesn't affect the results of his presentation, yet you persist in criticizing the manner of presentation, as opposed to offering up a counter-argument.

Last I checked, just because you thought someone presented their version of the facts like a douche, you didn't have to sit there and prove any of their arguments wrong - is that correct or am I being fallacious again?

  On 11/27/2010 at 7:39 AM, pulsewarrior said:

i'm telling you that i don't like the way that you present your opinions.

alright, if that's what you've brought to the table and are offering no other arguments than it seems better to let it go.

so back to Wikileaks..

I just did a search on google news and it looks like the new leak is exclusively about Pakistan. Since they are still an autonomous government, not directly controlled by the united states it will be interesting to see the fallout from this. I'm guessing the North korea situation will probably overshadow it but we'll see. edit: sorry if someone already posted this in the thread, i missed it

to be fair though, i have questioned the extent of his research on the new wikileaks docos. answer: hasn't even read them yet.

i have also stated that we are all culling our information from various biased sources, then adding our own bias, which really makes it nothing more than opinion.

and i've stated that his opinions shouldn't be worth more than anyone elses here, nor should they try and reflect fact.

since he has chosen to air his opinions with a degree of self-righteousness and condescension imo (read his first post again), i've focused my position on the manner in which he is presenting them.

how again am i wrong because i'm not challenging him on a specific piece of wikileaks-related news?

lets assume he is being condescending in tone, that hurts his message, but it doesn't invalidate what is being presented.

What a fucking waste of time and energy. "your style offends me, so thats all I want to talk about... Me me me, and how you make me feel."

That's why this world is screwed... People are far more concerned with how things are said, than what things are said. If you care about the subject of this thread, discuss it. Otherwise, go start a new topic about your dislike of awepittances demeanor. Your probably wont right? Because we all know, you included, that no one gives a shit, and if it's not worth starting a new thread about. So use that logic, and apply it to your posts.

  On 11/27/2010 at 3:46 PM, thanks robert moses said:

haha, classic ;-]

  On 11/27/2010 at 6:44 AM, Wall Bird said:

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.

true. i used to get really involved in these debates, but with awe on the scene, and chen as wing man. weez got it covered. Both for prez.

  On 11/27/2010 at 10:55 AM, pulsewarrior said:

  On 11/27/2010 at 10:21 AM, chenGOD said:

Because how he presents his information has no relevancy to the content of the information?

He's saying look: "i've checked here and here and here, and this is what I believe to be true as a result of my research".

 

You're saying: "I don't like the tone of your voice, or the font that you type in."

 

His manner of presentation doesn't affect the results of his presentation, yet you persist in criticizing the manner of presentation, as opposed to offering up a counter-argument.

 

Last I checked, just because you thought someone presented their version of the facts like a douche, you didn't have to sit there and prove any of their arguments wrong - is that correct or am I being fallacious again?

You're being fallacious again.

  On 11/27/2010 at 11:03 AM, pulsewarrior said:

A)to be fair though, i have questioned the extent of his research on the new wikileaks docos. answer: hasn't even read them yet.

 

B)i have also stated that we are all culling our information from various biased sources, then adding our own bias, which really makes it nothing more than opinion.

 

C)and i've stated that his opinions shouldn't be worth more than anyone elses here, nor should they try and reflect fact.

 

A)To be fair, you fail at reading comprehension, since Awepittance hasn't made any claims regarding the new wikileaks.All the information he's talking about sourcing is regarding the older leaks.

B)Everyone already knows that bias exists. At some point though, when information has been verified by multiple sources, it becomes the responsibility of those challenging to prove it otherwise. I am aware that it is difficult to challenge orthodox ideas. That doesn't lessen the responsibility of the person challenging the orthodoxy

C)Nowhere has Awepittance stated that his opinions are worth more than others.

My opinions are worth 20 regular opinions

I love how when I try to challenge a board member being a pompous fucking idiot and spreading his opinion like gospel I get bashed for even trying. Not only that but it takes everyone ten pages to even understand the point I'm trying to make.

-cbrown

But don't you see how you thinking that he is a pompus fucking idiot, is just your opinion, yet you are stating it like it is gospel. So for you to focus so much time on this, it annoys people just as much as he annoys you. So what it boils down to, is that it's just off topic. Let's all talk about the wikileaks, and for the sake of sanity, let's append "IMO" to every single post, so no one gets defensive.

IMO.

  On 11/27/2010 at 8:40 PM, Kcinsu said:

But don't you see how you thinking that he is a pompid fucking idiot, is just your opinion, yet you are stating it like it is gospel. So for you to focus so much time on this, it annoys people just as much as he annoys you. So what it boils down to, is that it's just off topic. Let's all talk about the wikileaks, and for the sake of sanity, let's append "IMO" to every single post, so no one gets defensive.

 

IMO.

Sure, it's definitely my opinion. Have a look at the original post and see whether my "opinion" can be construed as fact or not.

  Quote

i don't think i have ever seen this much apathy in a single thread on watmm before

 

Joyrex, the claim that Wikileaks 'endangering' people or innocent of afghanis has been completely and utterly debunked. The pentagon tried to claim this about 7 months ago but then had to retract their statement.

 

It's also quite interesting to me that all the people in this thread who are downplaying Wikileaks act as if they have read all 70,000 or however many documents have been leaked .

 

You guys are basically only reading the media's interpretations of events, and if you can trust those since the NY times loves to tell us how little of a big deal these leaks are, then we have a problem. Critical thinking seems to be lacking in this mindset

 

All of these strange oppositions to Wikileaks (besides criticizing Assange's looks) could be equally applied to Daniel Ellseberg, perhaps one of the most important figures that help end the Vietnam war.

This reminds me of something my stepdad frequently complains about regarding the media today, and while he's very hypocritical for stating this he makes a great point anyway.

It seems as though nobody in this day and age can said aside their emotions and biases and debate an issue solely on the merits.

The definition of Merits that I am using(The most important part of my post): Intrinsic advantages, as opposed to political or procedural advantages; Substance, distinguished from form or procedure

While any of us could be wrong for using petty language tricks to make our point sound more convincing, arguing over semantics, while they are being abused today perhaps more than ever, should be largely avoided in most discussions if possible so that we may stay on topic and have a more meaningful discourse.

  On 11/27/2010 at 5:55 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 11/27/2010 at 10:55 AM, pulsewarrior said:

  On 11/27/2010 at 10:21 AM, chenGOD said:

Because how he presents his information has no relevancy to the content of the information?

He's saying look: "i've checked here and here and here, and this is what I believe to be true as a result of my research".

 

You're saying: "I don't like the tone of your voice, or the font that you type in."

 

His manner of presentation doesn't affect the results of his presentation, yet you persist in criticizing the manner of presentation, as opposed to offering up a counter-argument.

 

Last I checked, just because you thought someone presented their version of the facts like a douche, you didn't have to sit there and prove any of their arguments wrong - is that correct or am I being fallacious again?

 

 

You're being fallacious again.

What you're failing to understand is that I'm not rejecting any of Awepittance's actual arguments based on my opinion of him being a douche - I am simply calling him a douche for the way he presents them. Perhaps I confused you because I questioned the extent of his knowledge on these matters and then stated (which everyone already knows), that it's just his opinions we're dealing with, in an effort to neutralize how douchey he is. However I did not challenge any of his arguments directly, nor try to prove anywhere that he was wrong by submission of my statement.

I think it's your comprehension that fails, honestly. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

  On 11/27/2010 at 8:40 PM, Kcinsu said:

But don't you see how you thinking that he is a pompus fucking idiot, is just your opinion, yet you are stating it like it is gospel. So for you to focus so much time on this, it annoys people just as much as he annoys you. So what it boils down to, is that it's just off topic. Let's all talk about the wikileaks, and for the sake of sanity, let's append "IMO" to every single post, so no one gets defensive.

 

IMO.

Good point and thanks. It's definitely my opinion. But honestly I'm tired of Awepittance slipping under the radar while being a pompous douchebag. Every thread he enters with the slightest hint of a conspiratorial smell to it gets the old treatment from him and I'm tired of it. People get insulted and made to feel inferior in the process as we can clearly see in his first post. So I see this and I call out his bullshit because I think it's wrong. Whether I annoy people is irrelevant to me. Moreover than people being annoyed here is their inability to recognize what I'm actually arguing. It's taken some members 10 pages and they still haven't noticed or accepted the basis of my position. And once they do then I turn into the bad guy, not the guy who I've so studiously tried to point out is being a pompous douchbag at every left turn.

Ah well! On with the wikileaks that no-one's even read yet!

stop being a douche.

  On 11/27/2010 at 8:27 PM, pulsewarrior said:

-cbrown

and all becomes clear

Because the way you stated it made it seem like you were trying to offer an argument.

Why beat around the bush and say "oh your presentation is blah blah blah"? Just come out and say "you're a douche".

btw - you're a douche ;)

I like how this thread is now about you, and you had to make three posts in a row (You do realize you can quote multiple posts in one post right?) It's like you think your opinions are...more important than others opinions?!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Now let's get back on track everyone.

  On 11/24/2010 at 9:33 AM, the anonymous forumite said:

  On 11/24/2010 at 9:27 AM, Gocab said:

  On 11/24/2010 at 9:18 AM, the anonymous forumite said:

What I was saying wasn't that a few civils deaths and soldier torture were no big deal but that Wikileaks hypes up information that everyone should be suspecting or is already suspecting.

 

  On 11/23/2010 at 9:20 PM, chenGOD said:

I only question the impact of it precisely because of the apathy. Basically it seems to me that people will actually need video of George Bush rimming Osama before any possible critical tipping point occurs.

 

And what would happen if such a video was made public ? Nothing.

 

Sure it would, FOX news would make a fuss and Sarah Palin would be elected president.

Sarah Palin WILL be elected president.

You have no choice.

 

Media buzz for sure, but people would continue their routine and keep browsing the internet at home. This is the real tragedy, no matter what is disclosed, people will keep on living in a trance.

i agree with this.....ignorance is bliss

  On 11/27/2010 at 9:19 PM, Al5x said:

I like how this thread is now about you, and you had to make three posts in a row (You do realize you can quote multiple posts in one post right?) It's like you think your opinions are...more important than others opinions?!!

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

 

 

Now let's get back on track everyone.

nah man, it just turned out that way. i'm not trying to seperate my posts...

  On 11/27/2010 at 9:15 PM, chenGOD said:

Because the way you stated it made it seem like you were trying to offer an argument.

Why beat around the bush and say "oh your presentation is blah blah blah"? Just come out and say "you're a douche".

my SECOND post of the topic:

"'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"

My comprehension is fail, so you say.