Assange says signed 1.1 million pounds in book deals
- Thread starter RLENT
- Start date
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
I'll assume that it's a rhetorical question ....
What an utterly simplistic canard ...... lacks any real insight .....
Is it your understanding that "attorney fees" are the only thing that would constitute "legal fees" (..... uhhh ..... ever heard of bail ?)
And I have read of at least 3 or 4 attorneys who are representing Assange in various places .... the actual number may be higher.
As someone who has personally paid well over $75,000 in attorney's fees ten years ago (and that wasn't even a criminal matter), I can tell ya the use of lawyers can get very expensive real quick.
BTW, would you consider it wise, when facing what is likely to be inevitable, massive legal action from the largest power on Earth, to not prepare adequately to fund one's own defense ?
I understand that you (probably among many others) have a real woodie, wanting to "stick it" to Assange (and Bradley Manning as well apparently
) - to the point that you are deliberately mischaracterizing the guy's motivations (as stated by him) thru some fairly lame-o attempts at character assassination, often stating things as fact - which are really just your opinions - without offering any substantive, specific and verifiable facts as a basis for those opinions ..... unless you want to count the irrelevant and immaterial, which are then used to apparently construct and support (falsely, only after much twisting and torture) your position.I'm going to try and address some of them, over the next few days, provided I don't get dispatched. I would have already done so in several instances, save for the fact that my browser tends to crash (taking with it partially typed replies), whenever I have over 30 or so tabs/windows open at one time.
Couple of quick items:
Yes, there does indeed exist an archive of Usenet - it's on Google Groups and appears to be largely complete (containing over 800 million posts), except for the first two years (when Assange was figuratively in diapers, being only 8 or 9 years old), and it is searchable.
Perhaps you can do a little digging and entertain us all - by linking to some old posts of his - which you say you have personal knowledge of - that support your conclusion/positions with regard to Assange - since you are familiar with what groups the two of you frequented, and the general time frame in which these posts occurred, I would guess it would be a fairly simple matter.
In regards to your characterization and explanation of Splendide Mendax: you totally butchered it .... altering and perverting the meaning far from what it actually is, in order to character assassinate Assange ..... this one was truly unfortunate (for me) - as I had the response to that post almost completely finished .... and lost it when my browser crashed.
I won't go into more detail at the moment - you are on your own to figure out exactly where you went off the rails on that one .... but I will re-create my response to at least that portion of your post, as time permits.
And yes - I really do understand why it is that some people have a problem with people who are anti-authority
Last edited:
I don't get the fascination with this guy? He engaged in a act of treason. He can make the claim he is "anti-authority" or whatever, so can many without participating in what he did.
The espionage angle is a little questionable.
At the end of the day, he is a self serving guy. It is not a surprise he is suddenly writing a book along with the Kardashians. Had he not gotten involved in all these leaks and illegal doings, he wouldn't need all this cash for lawyers.
Maybe if he cuts his time at "the mansion", his financial struggles would be less stressed.
I believe his biggest enemy isn't the US government, but his own personal agenda..
The espionage angle is a little questionable.
At the end of the day, he is a self serving guy. It is not a surprise he is suddenly writing a book along with the Kardashians. Had he not gotten involved in all these leaks and illegal doings, he wouldn't need all this cash for lawyers.
Maybe if he cuts his time at "the mansion", his financial struggles would be less stressed.
I believe his biggest enemy isn't the US government, but his own personal agenda..
Well, I guess if you want it to be rhetorical, then it's rhetorical. It's not rhetorical, tho.I'll assume that it's a rhetorical question ....
No need to be rude or quite so presumptive. It's a simple question, not a derogatory or baseless canard. True enough, I have no insignt into Assange's legal arrangement, but I'm not stupid, either. To wit:
No, it is not my understanding at all. Thanks for the canardic assumption, tho. His bail was 200,000 pounds, plus two separate 20,000 pound sureties. That's 240,000 pounds. Sooo, apparently, he's spent zero on his entire legal defense other than his bail and sureties. At least nine friends and supporters of Assange agreed to offer about 75,000 pounds towards bail, which brought the total guaranteed amount to about 275,000 pounds, which is more than enough, but less than the 200,000 he's said that he has spent on legal costs thus far. Knowing that, my silly little rhetorical question, and then, what was it, oh, yes, the utterly simplistic canard, both still stand as valid, honest questions. If the stated 200,000 pounds for legal costs do not include bail and sureties, which it apparently does not since the numbers do not match and he had to pay more than that (or perhaps he was just rounding it off), where did he get that 200,000 that he's spent on legal costs, since he clearly needed donations to cover his bail? And if it does include bail and he was merely rounding the 240,000 off to a nice even number for brevity's sake, has he spent not a pound or shilling on any kind of legal fees elsewhere and he's being represented by 4 or 5 legal teams all on a pro bono basis? These are not silly, canardic rhetorical questions.
I've read the same thing. Doesn't change my question, tho.
As someone who has also paid legal fees of various sorts, I'd agree with you. But none of that reconciles the numbers of Assange, since the numbers for his bail, and the numbers he's spent so far on legal costs, do not include any legal costs for attorney fees.
To answer the question within the rather broad hypothetical scope as stated, yes, I would consider it wise to adequately prepare for the funding of a defense. But I don't know if I'd consider a couple of chicks in Sweden to be the largest power on Earth, nor would I consider spending money on one's own legal defense the same as preparing to fund one's one legal defense.
You understand incorrectly. I don't ever recall making such a statement, nor even hinting at such a notion, so I cannot imagine where you came up with such an understanding, other than in your own mind. Don't much care for the implication of innuendo, either. I just try to see things as they are without being blinded or deceived by my own emotions.I understand that you (probably among many others) have a real woodie, wanting to "stick it" to Assange (and Bradley Manning as well apparently
As duly noted, I'm characterizing them as stated by him, and as I see them in within that context. I'm not sure how or why you'd charge me with mischaracterizing them, but I suppose you have your reasons. Regardless, just because my characterizations differ from yours doesn't make mine mischaracterizations. Unless, of course, you have some unique insight or direct line of communications where Assange has personally replayed his real and true motivations to you, then of course, just as someone with corrective shoes, I shall stand corrected.
It is a fact, or an opinion, that I'm using "lame-o attempts at character assassination"? Because it sure reads like a factual statement. I just want to be clear before I start tossing around the "h" word. In order to assassinate someone's character, you have to make stuff up or skew things about their nature so as to project a false image of their nature. I have not done that, but I have especially not done that in the two lines which I posted in reply to the article that started this thread, which resulted in me being charged with character assassination. Awesome.
Oh, that's OK, you do the same thing often enough. That's the great thing about opinions - they are often based on something other than facts. That's why they're called opinions. If they were facts, they'd be called facts. See how that works?
Irrelevant like the ad hominem attack in this paragraph/sentence, you mean? In a thread where I make a three simple comments about what was contained in the thread starter, I get a floodgate of off-topic irrelevant crap thrown at me? Got it.
You know, just because you don't agree with it doesn't necessarily make it irrelevant. Relevancy has a way of being easily dismissed when it doesn't support a preconceived agenda. Happens all the time.
Some of what? You mean some of stuff not in this thread?
Ah, OK, not in this thread. OK. Yes there is a rather extensive archive of Usenet, but "largely complete" is a very subjective and mostly incorrect term. Entire hierarchies from the alt.* groups are missing, the text of most (if not all, at all of the ones I checked) posts that had attachments with them are no longer available.
That's a really bad guess, as even if the posts were all there, it could take weeks or months to find relevant posts. I've on occasion looked for something I posted, and know what I posted and when, and had a considerable amount of trouble finding it, sometimes not finding it at all. (Then I remembered the newsreader hacks that most of us were doing which prevented posts in certain newsgroups from being archived. Some we wanted archived for future reference, usually some technical advice, but most we did not.) To do that just for someone's entertainment here on EO is not something for which I'm willing to devote the time and effort, because you (perhaps others) would either dismiss it outright or rationalize it in some way, whether it be a contextual matter (as a handful of posts from Usenet wouldn't even begin to put things in the proper context, it's not like people made a lot of outright blunt statements about certain things in there) or the passage of time as making this or that irrelevant, and that's even if I were able to find enough relevant posts at all.
It's often hard enough agreeing on current events, without dragging the already pre-dismissed historical record into it. Of course, I expect the fallacy of if-this-then-that to be leveled upon me, but I really don't care. It is what it is.
Kind of an unsubstantiated charge there, isn't it? In any case, perhaps my memory failed me, and you found the Usenet posts where Assange himself detailed the name, but I don't think I mis-remembered it bad enough to be classified as totally butchered. But I'm sure you can find a contradicting meaning of what the term currently means, or in what someone else has concluded that the term means or meant, and that's fine. All I know is that I'd never heard or read the term prior to it being used on Usenet in the explanation of a nick that someone had chosen. And until very recent times, I'm not sure that I've heard it since. But I know what the terms mean, separately and together, and I didn't alter or pervert a single definition. And what they mean now coincides with what my memory of them was in the context of Assange when Mendax and Cue Ball were both used. And the things that were done under those guises matched up to the meanings I previously stated in another thread. You can chose to believe it, dismiss it, refute it, or anything else you like. Won't change things, tho.
I don't see any real reason to prove what I remembered, what happened, and what all went on. For example, I was a member of this group (among others), but I can't prove it and wouldn't even if I could. But, most importantly, and I cannot stress this enough, no one else can prove I was, either. You can chose to believe it or not. Doesn't make much difference.
Well good, since that would be dragging something from outside this thread. My comments here were about the story posted, not about some other thread days or weeks ago.
Oh, I'm sure you'll set me straight. At least insofar as you can perceive it. But do keep in mind that you're not trying to refute a conclusion, but a memory. Good luck with that.
Good for you. Personally, I don't have a problem with people who are anti-authority, I just have a problem with some people who are anti-authority when they use that as an excuse because they want to be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, without any consequences. And when they don't get their way, they throw a temper tantrum or plot some kind of infantile revenge. Those are the ones I have a problem with.And yes - I really do understand why it is that some people have a problem with people who are anti-authority
As a side note, Dave pretty much nailed it.
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Dave,
I really hate to have to be the one to point this out to you, because I have a pretty high regard for you as a being a smart and reasonable individual.
But if you are making the above statement with respect to Julian Assange, it is an absolutely stupid and boneheaded remark.
Julian Assange is an Australian national - not a US citizen - and so owes no allegiance to the United States.
It is therefore impossible for him to have comitted an act of treason against the US (and his own country has already found that his actions constitute no crime in his native land) .... despite whatever utterly ignorant elected officials might say .....
Well, actually the espionage angle could be alot more likely than treason would ever be ..... but in the end, yeah: the espionage angle is highly questionable for alot of reasons
OMG ....... <shaking head> .....
..... spectatorism at it's very finest ......
Tell ya what: just forget the whole thing where I said something about you being a smart and reasonable guy ..... looks like you're spending more time staying informed about Kardashians than paying attention to vital matters and current events which have the potential to greatly affect individual liberty, personal freedom, the future of this nation .... and, arguably, the fate of the world ....
You can now go back to Dancing with the Stars, House, NCIS, Amercian Idol or whatever tv shows you spend your free time on .....
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
So what are you trying to tell us here: that you have no idea of the definition of the crime of treason either ?
We interrupt this personal attack for an important message from our dictionary...
To be engaged in something is to participate in it. If Assange was in cahoots with Manning in any way, then Assange participated in Manning's act of treason (assuming that Manning's act was, in fact, treason). Assange's nationality is irrelevant to participating in the act. The stealing of unauthorized classified material (if that qualifies as treason) is the act, and if Assange participated in that act in any way, shape or form, then he engaged in an act of treason (again, assuming...), even though Assange himself didn't commit treason nor can he be charged with treason.
This message was brought to you by Funk and Wagnalls, because at Funk and Wagnalls, he's a little bit funky, and she's a little bit wagnally.
We now resume the the Ad Hominem Festival...
To be engaged in something is to participate in it. If Assange was in cahoots with Manning in any way, then Assange participated in Manning's act of treason (assuming that Manning's act was, in fact, treason). Assange's nationality is irrelevant to participating in the act. The stealing of unauthorized classified material (if that qualifies as treason) is the act, and if Assange participated in that act in any way, shape or form, then he engaged in an act of treason (again, assuming...), even though Assange himself didn't commit treason nor can he be charged with treason.
This message was brought to you by Funk and Wagnalls, because at Funk and Wagnalls, he's a little bit funky, and she's a little bit wagnally.
We now resume the the Ad Hominem Festival...
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Really ?
..... sorry to have to do this, but .....
Turtle said:
Turtle said:
Turtle said:
Turtle said:
...... considering the above, I was thinking that you were quite a fan of the implications of innuendo ..... given how often you seem to like to use it.
No, what I'm trying to tell you is, Dave is really good with a hammer, and hits the nail right on the head a lot. True enough, I can't prove it, don't have indisputable evidence that he's good with a hammer or hits the nail on the head a lot, but it's something I believe nonetheless. I could be wrong, of course, and he may be particularly unskilled with a hammer, but I don't think so. In this case, metaphorically speaking, with the hammer being the text emanating from his keyboard and the nail's head being the crux of the subject at hand, he nailed it.
Yes, really.Really ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle
Don't much care for the implication of innuendo, either
Sorry? Really? I don't think you're sorry at all. If you were, you wouldn't have done it.
Yeah, I'll use innuendo a lot. It's a very effective writing tool. However, considering every single one of those quote are from another thread and have nothing to do with this one, and considering only two of the above are innuendo and the other two are outright statements with no innuendo intended, and considering none of my innuendos above were used in a direct attack on any EO member, and your innuendo was used to directly attack me instead of what I said, I think you're extraordinarily out of line and have failed at being a smart and reasonable guy in knowing how to keep replies to the current thread and in knowing how to debate issues without attacking the people who say things you don't agree with.
You 2 could just pick up the phone ya know?*lol*
or is this just for show? or make a point?
or is this just for show? or make a point?
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
What a crack up ...... you're really having to engage in some real impressive semantical gymnastics here buddy .... pretty funny
It might sell in here .... and you may actually convince some who don't know any better ... but ain't no way it would ever fly in a court of law, or even in a discussion of those who are more well informed ....
My advice: put down the shovel before you dig yourself in any deeper.
"As a side note, Dave pretty much nailed it."
Dave's statement was:
"He engaged in a act of treason"
That is an emphatic, affirmative statement of what purports to be a fact.
.... and now back to our regularly scheduled wordplay foolishness ....
It might sell in here .... and you may actually convince some who don't know any better ... but ain't no way it would ever fly in a court of law, or even in a discussion of those who are more well informed ....
My advice: put down the shovel before you dig yourself in any deeper.
Ooookkkaaayyy ...... that's certainly not the definition that would apply legally ... and I do believe that the issue is one of a legal nature ....
Well, aside from the above, those qualifications weren't in your original statement:
"As a side note, Dave pretty much nailed it."
Dave's statement was:
"He engaged in a act of treason"
That is an emphatic, affirmative statement of what purports to be a fact.
LOL ....... okay .... you're killin' me here .... but ok.
wow........ three qualifications ..... in a single sentence .... now I am truly impressed ....
So basically what you are saying then, is that he didn't engage in treason .....
.... and now back to our regularly scheduled wordplay foolishness ....
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Nice try ... but that dog don't hunt .....
BTW, using your logic (sans the military personnel aspect, since Ellsberg was a civilian) the New York Times would have been "engaged in treason" for merely receiving the Pentagon Papers ..... you really, really, really may want to read up how the Supremes finally came down on that one .....
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Whew ...... I was afraid you were going to suggest a room
It's always for the point ..... always ....
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Just so we are really clear on this one particular point, since I didn't address it my former reply:
The stealing of unauthorized classified material qualifies as ..... the stealing of unauthorized classified material.
It, alone, is not treason.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Manning committed treason, he has aided the enemy of the country during war time and Rlent you can't prove it any other way. We can't see it any other way because you and everyone else in the public can't have access to either the people who read the stuff, know what they need or the additional information that is still there behind locked doors to make a determination what is important to them or what is trivial.
The material he released which can be used against the US is not the diplomatic stuff, it is other stuff that includes operational information that Assange talked to the government about before it was released. The leak alone is a serious crime and because everyone has a twisted view of what crimes are and how punishments should be in this country today, he will more likely get a prison sentence instead of death.
The difference between Ellsberg and Manning is the uniform, it is the oath and the fact that Ellsberg wasn't covered under the UCMJ which spells out a lot with defining actions and punishments. In addition to that simple fact, Ellsberg did this at a time when we had a lot of hatred for government and the administration that was in power while loyalty to the country within the population were declining thanks to an effort from China and the Soviet Union within our schools. In other times it would have been considered treason of what Ellsberg did but because we entered a new ****ed up age of reason, he and others who followed are heroes to many.
Rlent, you can spin all of this any which way you want, you can use your intellect to slice and dice the comments from us but regardless this really isn't something that was done to fight for justice or fight for 'transparency' but rather it always comes down to the money. Manning is a foolish pawn, as others who came before him. Assange is driven by money, not by principles and his actions speak a lot louder lately to that fact.
The material he released which can be used against the US is not the diplomatic stuff, it is other stuff that includes operational information that Assange talked to the government about before it was released. The leak alone is a serious crime and because everyone has a twisted view of what crimes are and how punishments should be in this country today, he will more likely get a prison sentence instead of death.
The difference between Ellsberg and Manning is the uniform, it is the oath and the fact that Ellsberg wasn't covered under the UCMJ which spells out a lot with defining actions and punishments. In addition to that simple fact, Ellsberg did this at a time when we had a lot of hatred for government and the administration that was in power while loyalty to the country within the population were declining thanks to an effort from China and the Soviet Union within our schools. In other times it would have been considered treason of what Ellsberg did but because we entered a new ****ed up age of reason, he and others who followed are heroes to many.
Rlent, you can spin all of this any which way you want, you can use your intellect to slice and dice the comments from us but regardless this really isn't something that was done to fight for justice or fight for 'transparency' but rather it always comes down to the money. Manning is a foolish pawn, as others who came before him. Assange is driven by money, not by principles and his actions speak a lot louder lately to that fact.
Correct, it alone is not reason. That is something that will be factually decided in court. All of the allegations here are predicated on the ruling of the court. But, assuming that what Manning did was treason, it is not semantical gymnastics in the least to make that statement.
No, those qualifications weren't in my original statement. They shouldn't have to be. The qualifications should be understood, since they are self evident. Do I really have to explain and qualify everything I write so the lowest common denominator can comprehend it? I don't think so.Well, aside from the above, those qualifications weren't in your original statement:Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle
If Assange was in cahoots with Manning in any way, then Assange participated in Manning's act of treason (assuming that Manning's act was, in fact, treason).
"As a side note, Dave pretty much nailed it."
Dave's statement was:
"He engaged in a act of treason"
Not even. It's an opinion, pure and simple. Since no one involved in the case has yet to be tried, much less convicted of anything, including treason, and everybody knows that, one cannot make a statement of fact regarding treason here, and must instead make certain assumptions (about the possible charges and the outcome of legal proceedings). There's nothing wrong with doing that, by the way, it's often how many people offer up their opinions on various issues.
Since we all know that no charge of treason has been filed, much less adjudicated, the statement can be viewed in that context, and not as a statement purporting a fact. This isn't rocket science, you know. It's pretty straightforward stuff. Take the 'He said something bad about Assange or Wikileaks!!!' blinders off and just read what others have to think. Then think about what they think. You might learn something about what they think. Then you can comment on what they think, and then people will read what you think. Or, you could just keep on playing the cornered badger. Yeah, that's the way to keep a good conversation going.
That is assuming, of course, that the "semantical gymnastics" comment was made about the subject of this thread, and not about my reply to the ad hominem innuendo comments (hard to tell since no portion of the conversation was quoted to let the reader know what, exactly, you were commenting on), as there are no semantical gymnastics in what I said in that reply, either. A personal attack is a personal attack, regardless of how one might which to deflect it towards something else.