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

you have established this. about seventy times now.

stop being a douche.

how often do you clog the toilet with an iraqs war log?

  On 11/27/2010 at 9:27 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

you have established this. about seventy times now.

 

stop being a douche.

yeah, and would i had to have keep re-iterating like a fucking douche if people's comprehension levels around here were higher than a second graders.

i'll stop being a douche now.

  On 11/27/2010 at 9:05 PM, pulsewarrior said:

 

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.

(ad hominem swtich flipped)

The most passion you've displayed on this forum is how no one, including myself should have a self righteous opinion. That is an intellectually lazy position.

It is also a very boring. What i have deduced from this thread is that you are extremely boring and cannot argue your way out of a paper bag

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

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.

lol, you challenged me with absolutely nothing except for butt hurt insults and pseudo 'everything is subjective so we can't know anything really, everythings an opinion, hey'!

great way to contribute something worthwhile & interesting to the debate. Also, just for future when you attempt to form a cohesive argument, you have been using the logical fallacy in this thread of 'moving the goal posts' everytime someone counters you with a fact, you change the argument ie: the goal posts.

dammmn. who's butthurt now.

  On 11/27/2010 at 9:49 PM, pulsewarrior said:

dammmn. who's butthurt now.

pretty sure you are.

  On 11/27/2010 at 9:42 PM, Awepittance said:

  On 11/27/2010 at 9:05 PM, pulsewarrior said:

 

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.

 

(ad hominem swtich flipped)

 

The most passion you've displayed on this forum is how no one, including myself should have a self righteous opinion. That is an intellectually lazy position.

It is also a very boring. What i have deduced from this thread is that you are extremely boring and cannot argue your way out of a paper bag

Wrong, I believe the most passion I display was over you being a douchebag. And who said I was arguing in the first place ? I was just calling you a douchebag. It is all you who insisted on turning it into an argument and assigning (incorrectly) related terms (ie ad hominem etc.)

And I'm the boring one...yeah...have fun poring over 70,000 wikileaks docos

  On 11/27/2010 at 9:46 PM, Awepittance said:

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

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.

 

lol, you challenged me with absolutely nothing except for butt hurt insults and pseudo 'everything is subjective so we can't know anything really, everythings an opinion, hey'!

 

 

great way to contribute something worthwhile & interesting to the debate. Also, just for future when you attempt to form a cohesive argument, you have been using the logical fallacy in this thread of 'moving the goal posts' everytime someone counters you with a fact, you change the argument ie: the goal posts.

whether you perceive that position to be weak or not (everything is subjective), it's true. prove me wrong as far as the information you're working with. demonstrate how it is not subjective information, and that you can objectively prove what you are using for the basis of your arguments.

  On 11/27/2010 at 9:46 PM, Awepittance said:

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

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.

 

lol, you challenged me with absolutely nothing except for butt hurt insults and pseudo 'everything is subjective so we can't know anything really, everythings an opinion, hey'!

 

 

great way to contribute something worthwhile & interesting to the debate. Also, just for future when you attempt to form a cohesive argument, you have been using the logical fallacy in this thread of 'moving the goal posts' everytime someone counters you with a fact, you change the argument ie: the goal posts.

its also charming to me how you enjoy pointing out weaknesses in what you perceive to be other people's arguments (ie fallacies)

when your first post of this thread is riddled with them

and then continue to be rife in your posts

at least i'm not pedantic enough to sit here and try and cite them all riiiiight

3 in a row, again.

i think the citations are what gives more validity to awepittance's method of argument versus your attacking it from the comfort of subjectivity.

I can critique the hell out of what someone is saying and call them a douche and then likewise refuse to participate in an information-based, citation-based discussion/debate. It isn't groundbreaking, its either saying something we are all aware of, or its saying nothing at all.

What I am aware of is that Awepittance usually provides SOME source to back up what he's saying, if you want to argue the validity of it you are welcome to, but don't expect someone to take your "everything is bias" position as groundbreaking or even true in a sense when you don't specifically elaborate why or how the sources are biased. If you provided any evidence other than hearsay and some personal ambition to be a bigdog on an internet messageboard as to why awepittance is a conspiratorial condescending asshole, maybe people would listen.

i don't know if it's the way i'm replying or if i'm exceeding a time limit for it to combine them or what

  On 11/27/2010 at 9:46 PM, Awepittance said:

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

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.

 

lol, you challenged me with absolutely nothing except for butt hurt insults and pseudo 'everything is subjective so we can't know anything really, everythings an opinion, hey'!

 

 

great way to contribute something worthwhile & interesting to the debate. Also, just for future when you attempt to form a cohesive argument, you have been using the logical fallacy in this thread of 'moving the goal posts' everytime someone counters you with a fact, you change the argument ie: the goal posts.

by the way, just for fun, if you read back through the thread you'll notice that everyone else has been moving the goalposts....not me

So what were the logs about?

  On 11/27/2010 at 10:09 PM, Squee said:

So what were the logs about?

Pakistan, actually kind of worrisome, since we are not in active conflict with Pakistan at the moment. I question Assange's motives for leaking something like this before say the Afghanistan 'massacre' video he claims he's sitting on that shows 70+ people killed from an apache helicopter

  On 11/27/2010 at 10:05 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

i think the citations are what gives more validity to awepittance's method of argument versus your attacking it from the comfort of subjectivity.

 

I can critique the hell out of what someone is saying and call them a douche and then likewise refuse to participate in an information-based, citation-based discussion/debate. It isn't groundbreaking, its either saying something we are all aware of, or its saying nothing at all.

 

What I am aware of is that Awepittance usually provides SOME source to back up what he's saying, if you want to argue the validity of it you are welcome to, but don't expect someone to take your "everything is bias" position as groundbreaking or even true in a sense when you don't specifically elaborate why or how the sources are biased. If you provided any evidence other than hearsay and some personal ambition to be a bigdog on an internet messageboard as to why awepittance is a conspiratorial condescending asshole, maybe people would listen.

i'm not bothered about being an internet "bigdog". if anything, i feel that people end up getting bullied around by awepittance telling us what's important and not important and i wanted to respond to this because i think it's not cool. his first post has clearly shown that he's made assumptions that can't be backed up factual evidence, so i called him out immediately on that stuff. then i went on to say that it's a pretty gray area when we get in the realm of him citing wikileaks and a couple internet news sources. to be honest, if it makes me wrong that i can't sit here and specifically cite and prove that there's bias in his sources or that they may not be totally factual, then OK - i'm wrong. but i thought it can safely be assumed that like 24ourange said, none of us have priveledged information, we're all working with information that came from various internet sources, codging it together and forming our viewpoints out of it. do i really need to prove this point or is it common sense????? if i need to prove it, then fine, i'm wrong.

again, i have formed an opinion about a member on the board and the way he presents information, yet every next member that comes along tells me that i need to either a) argue with him about something or b) need to prove a general statement that says all sources are biased and we don't really know the truth.

...

  On 11/27/2010 at 10:13 PM, Awepittance said:

  On 11/27/2010 at 10:09 PM, Squee said:

So what were the logs about?

 

Pakistan, actually kind of worrisome, since we are not in active conflict with Pakistan at the moment. I question Assange's motives for leaking something like this before say the Afghanistan 'massacre' video he claims he's sitting on that shows 70+ people killed from an apache helicopter

the US also apparently sent a heads-up to several nations in advance, because of supposed information in there which could damage international relations. the article i read claimed 'to the point where US diplomatic envoys could be expelled', but i think that's a little hysterical.

have you stopped to think that maybe everyone is presenting their opinion about you? to which they are just as entitled?

  On 11/27/2010 at 10:15 PM, kaini said:

  On 11/27/2010 at 10:13 PM, Awepittance said:

  On 11/27/2010 at 10:09 PM, Squee said:

So what were the logs about?

 

Pakistan, actually kind of worrisome, since we are not in active conflict with Pakistan at the moment. I question Assange's motives for leaking something like this before say the Afghanistan 'massacre' video he claims he's sitting on that shows 70+ people killed from an apache helicopter

 

the US also apparently sent a heads-up to several nations in advance, because of supposed information in there which could damage international relations. the article i read claimed 'to the point where US diplomatic envoys could be expelled', but i think that's a little hysterical.

i could see a scenario in which Assange may be saving the "gold" so to speak for when he gets the peak of attention/notoriety....seems that a goal could just be to get people to read these documents to revive a public awareness.

  On 11/27/2010 at 10:14 PM, pulsewarrior said:

 

again, i have formed an opinion about a member on the board and the way he presents information, yet every next member that comes along tells me that i need to either a) argue with him about something or b) need to prove a general statement that says all sources are biased and we don't really know the truth.

 

...

yeah if you want a board where the whole point of it is to sit around and call each other "douche", there's a super elite one here.

so what was the new release?

  On 11/27/2010 at 10:24 PM, Abuse said:

so what was the new release?

Yeah, I still have no idea what it was about except from something about Pakistan?

  On 11/27/2010 at 10:22 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 11/27/2010 at 10:14 PM, pulsewarrior said:

 

again, i have formed an opinion about a member on the board and the way he presents information, yet every next member that comes along tells me that i need to either a) argue with him about something or b) need to prove a general statement that says all sources are biased and we don't really know the truth.

 

...

 

 

yeah if you want a board where the whole point of it is to sit around and call each other "douche", there's a super elite one here.

naw, that's not my aim at all. and that place must be the most god forsaken shithole on the internet.

i think that's one of the problems - wikileaks dumps info in such unfeasibly large amounts, it usually takes a week or two for someone to editorialise and provide a condensed version with the major points. (and introduce BIAS! BIIIAAASS!!! in the process, said cbrown)

  On 11/27/2010 at 10:31 PM, kaini said:

i think that's one of the problems - wikileaks dumps info in such unfeasibly large amounts, it usually takes a week or two for someone to editorialise and provide a condensed version with the major points. (and introduce BIAS! BIIIAAASS!!! in the process, said cbrown)

n/m. carry on.

  On 11/27/2010 at 10:49 PM, pulsewarrior said:

  On 11/27/2010 at 10:31 PM, kaini said:

i think that's one of the problems - wikileaks dumps info in such unfeasibly large amounts, it usually takes a week or two for someone to editorialise and provide a condensed version with the major points. (and introduce BIAS! BIIIAAASS!!! in the process, said cbrown)

 

n/m. carry on.

Befored you editted this post you claimed wikileaks may have some sort of bias.

The only problem with this is I've paid attention to a fair amount of coverage of wikileaks from every concievable side, and no one (including those it would be advantageous to) claimed the information in the last two leaks was false. If I am wrong about this and someone is claiming that wikileaks is making shit up, someone point me to the article/whatever it is.

Of course this doesn't apply to the leak that just occured because it hasn't been out long enough, but so far it seems that wikileaks is just putting real documents out there for everyone to see. Thus it is a reasonably reliable source, and reasonable is a standard which you'll have to accept, because in situations like this it doesn't get more reliable than that.