Correct - but by definition, isn't that what trolls do?
Columbia University Reverses Anti-WikiLeaks Guidance
- Thread starter RLENT
- Start date
Yeah - we wouldn't want that to happen, would we?That's an entirely fair point
I should probably do it for my own benefit as well - so that I don't inadvertently mischaracterize yours (or anyone else's) statement.
It's been almost 30 hours and we're still waiting. It took me about 60 seconds to find the thread you're probably talking about - now it's up to you to post the quote to which you refer - IN CONTEXT I might add.
No - YOU can help in this matter by sourcing and/or substantiating your assertions. In addition to substantiating the first unfounded claim, now you can go back and show where I've called for "wanton death and destruction". You wouldn't want the good people that frequent this forum to think you're taking gratuitous personal cheap shots, now would you??
Good idea - let's do that. (emphasis mine)
"In an October analysis of earlier WikiLeaks disclosures, the Congressional Research Service reported that "it seems that there is ample statutory authority for prosecuting individuals who elicit or disseminate the types of documents at issue, as long as the intent element can be satisfied and potential damage to national security can be demonstrated."
Both elements exist in this case. The "damage to national security" is beyond question. As for intent, Mr. Assange's own words paint a ****ing picture.
In June, the New Yorker reported that Mr. Assange has asserted that a "social movement" set on revealing secrets could "bring down many administrations that rely on concealing reality—including the U.S. administration." The same piece revealed Mr. Assange's stunning disregard for the grave harm his actions could bring to innocent people, which he dismisses as 'collateral damage'."
Dianne Feinstein: Prosecute Assange Under the Espionage Act - WSJ.com
What most everybody truly understands about this article is that it's a legal opinion - to portray it otherwise is misleading to say the least. No doubt the Obama Justice Dept. favors this viewpoint rather than the one offered by Sen. Feinstein and the supporting study she used by the very same Congressional Research Service. One of the sad facts about this whole mess is the way the Obama/Holder justice dept. has dithered and fiddled while these classified documents are illegally disseminated. Just another example of the incompetence of this feckless administration.The linked document outlines the issue with respect to Wikileaks, and was, in fact, issued just this past Monday. It does require something more than a mere facile and glib reading, if ones wishes to truly understand what the lay of the legal landscape actually is:
Criminal Prohibitions on the Publication of Classified Defense Information
Bon Appetite !
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Well, can only speak for myself: I'd personally prefer to not do it.
As a general matter though, I do want to characterize your statements for what they actually are ....
Probably a good thing you weren't holding your breath or anything .... although I rather imagine that a red or blue face with veins bulging is not uncommon condition .....
Quite honestly: I got a load yesterday morning from Cincy to Philly. On the way over I had some vehicle issues (alternator light came on and went off 3x) spent some time last night before I hit the rack, and this afternoon (my morning) after getting up, mucking around with that, before I got called for a short load from Norristown to Shippensburg. I'm now over around Pittsburgh, waiting to see the Doktor in the morning.
I know that observation might not be a real strong suit for ya .... but you might have perhaps noticed that I haven't posted alot of anything in the past 24 to 36 hours .....
Believe me, sure ain't because I've had all kinds of free time on my hands and I'm purposely avoiding the computer.
.... so ?
You wanna a star next to your name or something ?
Here's a newsflash:
As I once told LOS when he essentially DEMANDED that I answer up or reply ON HIS TIMETABLE:
I'll respond when I respond - it's my prerogative, not yours.
If you don't like that .... well, you can pretty much go pizz off, as far as I'm concerned. Whining like some little child who didn't get the candy bar exactly when he wanted it, ain't gonna make it happen any sooner, that I can assure you ......
My intention is there to do exactly what I said - but if you want to take a dump all over that, please be my guest .... but it ain't likely to get you any result that you are likely looking for.
It always was (up to me) ......
You apparently have a very low ability to actually comprehend the English language - try reading what I wrote - I didn't say you called for "wanton death and destruction" .... I merely asked you not to do so ....
Given the above, one wonders what is actually received when something is read or heard .....
Oh .... I pretty much figger that there are some that will see things as they prefer to, regardless .....
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Greg,
It appears that you too are apparently afflicted with little to no ability to actually observe the obvious ..... so let me clue you in:
You might want to take a look at the amount of stuff I've posted over the last week, and then look at the formatting and editing that I've done with it, along with writing any included commentary .... then consider the amount of time it actually takes to find and then read the articles for understanding, and then consider the fact that I have managed to make a number of fairly lengthy (and decently written, if I do say so myself) replies to various individuals ......
Now weigh the fact that I am only a single individual, and consider the fact that I am in the position of having to respond to multiple individuals .....
And you really wanna whine about the fact that I haven't gotten back to you ?
My advice would be to just skip it ... since it makes you look like a bit of a twit ......
BTW, did you ever answer my question in the other thread about whether you were on drugs ?
I answered the same question honestly and truthfully - when you asked it of me.
Unlike having to reply to you, which in many cases is a fairly involved matter - because of the size of what I would have to reply to ....... and in at least some instances, nearly impossible to do - because of how indecipherable some of your posts are at times, the above is a fairly straightforward and simple question.
If the proof is all around, why aren't you citing it? Why are you telling me to go somewhere to prove that someone's statement is true or false? The person who makes the statement needs to prove it, not tell those who challenge it to go somewhere.Originally Posted by greg334
The proof is all around, go to a campus like Columbia and see for yourself.
YouTube - Our Mission
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
I'm going to largely ignore your quote from the CRS document, simply because it selectively quotes a portion of the document.
To form a full understanding of the situtation, as regards legal implications, one must read the entirety of the document - which is the exact reason I provided a link to it - rather than selectively quoting it.
That you want to selectively quote only the portions which you feel support your position (while ignoring those that don't) is what (among many other things
) makes having an informed discussion about it, with you, a joke ..... and believe me, it is a real hoot to watch ya try to make a case .....No, it's not - many people are, in fact, doing exactly that: questioning it.
Here's a question for ya Bunky:
Is an "administration" the same thing as a country or a nation ?
Is it even the same thing as "the government of ....."
The answer to both is obviously no - an "administration" is the common vernacular usually used to refer to the totality of the officials (elected and appointed) in the executive branch of government in the time frame of their particular term in office: ie. .... "the current administration" ..... "the last administration" ...... "the Nixon I'm-not-a-crook" administration" .....
Maybe you and your buddy Diane Whatsername could do a little mutual remedial study of the English language, working on very hard on the comprehension part .... and then have a little look-see at the Espisonage Act and see if "administration" is mentioned in there anywhere ...
I would, however, strongly suggest that youse two avoid the Evelyn WoodHead Speed Reading Course
BTW, I am curious about one thing:
Do you, like your buddy Diane, think that bringing down an administration that relies on concealing reality for it's survival would be a bad thing ?
Oh .... I see .... if Assange remarks that there might be collateral damage as a consequence of the truth being told .... then he's a clearly criminal .....
But, if we as a nation, go to some foreign land (uninvited), under lies and false pretenses, and then commit war on the inhabitants thereof, and some innocent folks happened to be killed it's merely a boo-boo .... (since obviously the halos over our heads clearly indicate that we are, unquestionably, angels .....)
We're sorry ... mistakes were made .... we'd like a do-over ....
Yeah ...... now I get it ...... you have me convinced ....
Now tell it to the 100,000 dead in Iraq ... right after you explain to them about all them WMD's that didn't seem exist ....
Yup - was someone portraying it otherwise ?
If you wanna make that claim, be prepared to defend it and show how that is so ....
Well one things for sure - that old prune surely ain't gonna hafta to prosecute it ...... in light of that, it's quite understandable why she is so prone to shoot off her mouth ....
(What isn't quite as clear, is why she would shoot off her mouth on this matter, considering who her constituency is .... I predict backlash .... probably big no whup for her, as she's probably about ready for retirement anyway ....)
Just more silly commentary ..... there is absolutely nothing they can do to prevent these documents from coming out ... it's gonna happen ....
There were (as of several days ago) over 100,000 copies out in the digital ether ..... that number may have even doubled by now .... and the likelihood is, is that Assange is not the only one who has the key ....
The most plausible explanation is that they are being very, very careful - because if they screw it up anymore than they already have, it will be a very big deal.
Before they do anything - like try to prosecute him under the Espionage Act - they will want to be fairly certain they can obtain a conviction.
BTW - why are you even talking to me - you're supposed to have me on "ignore" ?
Last edited:
Not really. Bringing something about someone into the current thread from outside the thread, either from another thread or from a PM or real life, in order to use it against a person in lieu of dealing with the issues at hand, usually tends to be more of an adhominem attack rather than a troll. Each thread and post should stand on their own, and will, as long as people reply to what was posted, rather than to who posted it. In many cases, especially in topical issues of opinion, who posted it irrelevant. Not in all cases, to be sure, but for the most part if posters were completely anonymous with no references to their identity, then who posted really and truly would be irrelevant. Either they properly made their case, or they didn't, regardless of who they are.Correct - but by definition, isn't that what trolls do?Originally Posted by Turtle
That's part of that whole dragging into the current thread, something from outside, ah, never mind. <shrug> <sigh> Whatayagonnado.
A troll, on the other hand, is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online forum with the primary intent of provoking other users (usually everybody) into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
For example, let's say someone, oh, I dunno, let's call him Doug, creates a new screen name and posts something like, "Expediters are idiots and morons," that would be a troll. On the hand, I could say that no one should pay attention to <insert name here> or what he says about trucking rules and regulations, because he once admitted that he flagrantly violates the seat belt laws. That would be straight up ad hominem attack.
Sometimes an out-of-context ad hominem attack can be troll-like, but it's not really a trolling post. At least not intentionally. Mostly, it's just schoolyard silliness no different than Pee Wee Herman dialog from those who feel they have to take some personal shot at someone in order to either win the argument, or to make them feel better about themselves. The natural response is to reply in kind, with another personal shot fired right back. From that point on, generally speaking, intelligent discourse is over.
This, of course, is only my opinion, and I have no facts to back any of it up, other than nearly 30 years of online observations.
Last edited:
OK, I'll go along with all of the above. But since we've drifted onto this tangent, here's a little more to add to the Troll Education of those (including myself) who are less internet savvy.
"There are a number of different types of trolls. In the most classic case, a troll harasses an Internet community for a few weeks, posting contradictory opinions or statements on bulletin boards in an attempt to stimulate a response. Internet trolls are differentiated from people who genuinely wish to present a different viewpoint by their attitudes and aggressiveness; their goal is not to discuss a situation, but to frustrate the members of a discussion board. They often use fallacious arguments or attack the users of a site when they attempt to defend themselves from the troll's activities.
In some cases, a troll becomes a recurring figure who is well known by long-term members of a bulletin board. The individuals often tell newcomers to the community to ignore the troll, who may use various tactics to get a rise from newbies. In more serious cases, an Internet troll may try to drive a wedge through a community, often with the assistance of sock puppet accounts. A sock puppet is a fake identity which is used by someone who does not want to post under his or her regular name; some trolls have multitudes of sock puppets to make their side of an argument look like it has a large number of supporters."
What is an Internet Troll?
It seems that not only can "troll-like" behavior be seen occasionally, but also varying degrees of trollishness (if there is such a term) can exist as well.
Of course you'll ignore it, because it offers a contrary opinion and comes to a conclusion that's different from yours.
Yep - this is what I get for purging cookies and then coming on this website without logging in: lo and behold, the first thing I see is one of your unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks accompanied by the usual name-calling. So, against my better judgment I took the bait and responded.BTW - why are you even talking to me - you're supposed to have me on "ignore" ?
Now after three of your lengthy, prattle-filled posts the only thing that's been established is that we still have different opinions about WikiLeaks / Julian Assange, and NO substantiation of your assertion that I "openly called for the mass extinction of the inhabitants of Palestine (aka "the Palestinian people") ...... without any shame or remorse whatsoever, I might add ...."
Something else to keep in mind, considering one of your other recent quotes from earlier in this thread:
"...merely saying stuff repeatedly - with no verifiable substantiation - does nothing to bolster your credibility .... in fact, it has quite the opposite effect ..."
Over 48 hours and still waiting...
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Pilgrim,
I have went back and found the thread that that I based my statement off of .... and I am composing my reply now - may take awhile, might not have it done until some time later today.
Just to give ya a little heads up:
I wouldn't be getting your hopes up for any sort of an apology from me.
After reviewing what it was that you actually said at the time, and what my response was to that, I have concluded that the only thing I have to apologize for is my own moral failure
for being "resonable" and attempting to engage you in a rational conversation (when you clearly did not merit it) .... and for failing to utterly condemn at least some of the views you espouse in that thread. ..... stay tuned .....
Last edited:
For cryin' out loud dude, it's not like you're making an argument before the Supreme Court.
You're kidding me - right? As though that would actually be worth anything?
After reviewing what I actually said, it was no doubt obvious that you flagrantly misrepresented what I actually said. Granted it was just another one of your off-subject personal cheap shots that have become all too common, but there are some of us that won't put up with it.After reviewing what it was that you actually said at the time, and what my response was to that, I have concluded that the only thing I have to apologize for is my own moral failure
However, if anyone's interested in the exchanges that took place in that particular thread (which by this time is doubtful), it's easy enough to look it up in the "Search" feature: "Israel attacks Gaza, 195 reported killed" from 1/5/2009. It's obvious that I wasn't alone in making the point that if the Palestinian civilians are going to elect a terrorist organization like Hamas to be their governing body, give them aid and comfort and allow them to hide among the population, then these people are guilty of collusion with the terrorists and deserve the same fate. This is nothing more than a re-statement of the Bush Doctrine in the war on terror which was established shortly after the 911 attacks. It has also been common practice in wars throughout history.
Save your time, effort and meaningless condemnations for somebody who cares, 'cause I'm changing channels - we're done.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
..... ah .... your point is what, exactly ?
Well it might be - if I had actually misrepresented what you said - but I didn't.
Funny thing - when I initially went back and quickly scanned through that thread I thought I might actually owe you an apology and said (there is an another EO member that can verify this, as I was on the phone at the time and told them so) .... but on a careful reading of what you said, I realized that I had nothing to apologize for, save for what I mentioned in my previous post.
Your opinion - rest assured, there are others, even besides myself, that may not agree.
Good - don't put up with it then (whatever that means ....
)Nice try at preempting a statement from me, elaborating on the reasons for my characterization .... but you will not escape that easily - I will post what you said, and give my reasons why I see it as I do.
Others can then judge the merits of my position .... and yours as well.
Ahh yes .... Argumentum ad populum: a type of red herring fallacy, where a proposition is claimed to be true solely because many people believe it to be true ("appeal to belief", "appeal to the majority", "appeal to the people")
And you really believe that is some type of exculpatory association ?
Considering that the case has been made by some, that those pushing that doctrine are guilty of war crimes, I wouldn't be quite so quick to associate myself with it ...
You make the error of thinking that anything I have to say about the matter is intended solely for your consumption - it is not.
Gee ... why am I not surprised ...
You can certainly choose to bail out and run .... however I have no such plans ....
FWIW, I had most of my response to your statements typed up and just had a little ways to go when my browser "unexpectedly quit" (something that has happened more times than I would care to admit) .... and I lost all of what I had typed.
But I've managed to retype much of it .... as I'm at home now, and subject to the call of SWMBO, I can't say exactly when I will have it finished .... but rest assured, at some point I will.
Last edited: