WikiLeaks site's Swiss host dismisses pressure

[Turtle]

The difficulty with your parallel is simply this:

While what Baghdad Bob said was clearly an obvious lie, it isn't clear that what Assange has said is (despite your very best efforts to imply that it is - with no real evidence whatsoever I might add )

Real evidence to back up an opinion? If there were real evidence, then it wouldn't be an opinion, it would be a fact. The only thing I'm implying is that Assange is starting to come off sounding a little like Bagdad Bob. The only real evidence I have to support the fact that I believe that Assange is starting to come off sounding a little like Bagdad Bob is the fact that I believe that Assange is starting to come off sounding a little like Bagdad Bob.

Some factual data to the contrary (just off top of my head):

You currently at least have 208 official mirrors of the data - OH WAIT ! - that has morphed to over 350 mirrors (355) within the last 12 to 18 hours (at most).....

Mirrored copies of the same stuff over and over again doesn't make Wilikeaks stronger, it just makes it more like Usenet.

Ya wanna lay odds on what the mirror numbers will be by the end of this coming week ?

No, because it really doesn't matter. If each mirror contained different stuff, that would be different. As it stands now, each mirror is just a redundant backup. Even if lots of redundant backups made them stronger, which it doesn't, he still comes off sounding like Bagdad Bob until he puts up or shuts up. This whole, 'if you come after me or try to shut me down I'll release this file,' crap is sophomoric in the extreme (and no, I don't have any facts to back up that opinion, either). If he's got something, he's going to release it whether anyone comes after him or not. He'll simply do it when they come after him, or when his publicity dies down a bit and his ego needs a boost. Why do you think he's piecemealing stuff to news outlets now, as it is, rather than just releasing everything on his site? It's because releasing everything in one whack will mean a short-lived spotlight.

Yesterday I watched the "people who like" (Wikileaks) on Facebook increase by 50,000 in the space of a couple of hours .... as of right now, about 24 hours later, it's up by another 323,000 ....

A logical fallacy, and you know it. You should see the number of "people who like" Ashton Kutcher. The number of people who like or believe something is not an argument for it, nor is it an argument for it's truth and validity or its strength.

While I realize that you really, really, really want your premise to be true, please just provide me and others here some actual factual evidence of it - as opposed to your characterizations and conclusions, which contain no real factual data to support them.

We're circling now. My premise is based on my opinion. Take it or leave it. There's nothing to back up, other than my own observations. To demand facts to back up an opinion is another logical fallacy unless you have irrefutable facts that are contrary to the stated opinion. And just so you know, a different opinion doesn't constitute irrefutable facts.

Assange is beginning to remind me of that kind of thing. The more you cut us down the stronger we become, really means just the opposite

You can reminisce all you care to, but the question remains:

Do you have any actual evidence of what you maintain above - or is just your (very carefully ? ) considered opinion, pulled out of some warm, dark place ?

Well, I could show you a CT scan that might possibly reveal the fact that Assange is beginning to remind me of that kind of thing, but other than than, no, I'm afraid I don't have any evidence.

Well, it's kinda a ****ed if you do, ****ed if you don't sort thing:

He been publicly pilloried for not being responsible enough to redact documents to protect the lives of others .....

So then the organization does engage in so doing, he's now gotta be "holding out" ...

Way, way too funny ....

Sorry, that's a dog that won't hunt. The file he's holding out on, the "insurance" file, is an encrypted file that is stored on several sites, some known, some not. There's no redacting any of the contents of that file without re-encrypting it and re-uploading it, which is not happening. The file has been sitting there since before the previous releases. There's nothing to do with it other than release the password for it.

Thus spake the Grand Oracle of Testudinis .....

Yes, I spake it. Nothing gets by you. Is that remark somehow supposed to discredit my comment? Oh, no, wait a minute, I get it, it's that ad homimen thing again, where you don't like what I say, so you come after me with a disparaging and or belittling comment. Got it. Good job!

Funny .... I was thinking the very same thing about few around here ....

Do you have factual evidence to back that up?

See how silly that sounds when it's coming at you?

 

[RLENT]

Your premise was essentially that because Assange was sounding like someone else (in your opinion) - based on a total of 8 words that the two individuals apparently spoke in common at different points ..... the individuals are therefore somehow, the same ....

Then you further asserted that the statement "really means just the opposite" (presumably because a different individual, in a different place, at a different time said ostensibly the same words - and it meant the opposite then ....)

Well then .... okey-dokey ....

No, because it really doesn't matter. If each mirror contained different stuff, that would be different. As it stands now, each mirror is just a redundant backup.

Precisely - it makes them stronger from the perspective that it is less likely that they will lose access to the info, or that they will be able to ultimately stopped from releasing the info .....

You should see the number of "people who like" Ashton Kutcher. The number of people who like or believe something is not an argument for it, nor is it an argument for it's truth and validity or its strength.

The relevant issue was: Is Wikileaks becoming stronger ?

It is often said that: ".... strength is measured in numbers ...."

So why the added, inapplicables ? (argument for, truth, validity)

If Wikileaks has more people that are aware of what they are doing, and support it (even if only morally), then in my book that constitutes stronger. YMMV.

My premise is based on my opinion. Take it or leave it. There's nothing to back up, other than my own observations.

Good - fair enough

The file he's holding out on, the "insurance" file, is an encrypted file that is stored on several sites, some known, some not.

Supposedly over 10,000 as I understand it (reported by Faux News and others) .... if one believes Assange ....

May contain stuff on BP and Gitmo .....

There's no redacting any of the contents of that file without re-encrypting it and re-uploading it, which is not happening.

How's come ?

The file has been sitting there since before the previous releases. There's nothing to do with it other than release the password for it.

..... or not release the password for it .....

IOW, he (or his agents) are in control of it.

Yes, I spake it. Nothing gets by you.

.... well, I try to pay attention ....

Is that remark somehow supposed to discredit my comment? Oh, no, wait a minute, I get it, it's that ad homimen thing again

It was just simply to point out that it was an authoritative statement of opinion ..... and was not backed up with a presentation of any facts ....

The actuality of it is this: neither you, nor I, has any real idea of what his true motivations are .... we both can speculate till the cows come home.

I prefer to take him at his word, you do not.

where you don't like what I say, so you come after me with a disparaging and or belittling comment.

I fail to see how it was disparaging or belittling ... jeez ... sorry ...

The reality of the matter of strength is simply this:

One measure of strength is the degree of support one receives from others.

That some unknown number of individuals are willing to provide space and access on over 350 servers to mirror, is to some degree or another a measure of that support ....

That some unknown number of individuals are willing to provide space to host the encrypted files on over 10,000 servers is to some degree or another a measure of that support ....

That over 823,000 people "like Wikileaks" on Facebook is to some degree or another a measure of that support ....

I won't address the financial aspects of recent support because I can't find the one article that I read that relates to it.

So ok - I get your point: What you said is an opinion

My point was simply: On what exactly is that opinion based on ?

And you have answered that question - thanks.

 

[Turtle]

Your premise was essentially that because Assange was sounding like someone else (in your opinion) - based on a total of 8 words that the two individuals apparently spoke in common at different points ..... the individuals are therefore somehow, the same ....

No, my premise what that Assange is starting to remind me of Bagdad Bob.

Then you further asserted that the statement "really means just the opposite" (presumably because a different individual, in a different place, at a different time said ostensibly the same words - and it meant the opposite then ....)

Correct, and I still maintain that position. And his recent actions support it. On his Web site he has stated goals and objectives, yet his actions in recent months are just the opposite of those goals and objectives. The Web site's goals are altruistic, yet he's been milking publicity and soliciting donations. His stated goals are to expose lies and corruption, yet he's releasing gossip (which was spoofed in spot-on fashion in this past weekend's SNL opening sequence).

The relevant issue was: Is Wikileaks becoming stronger ?

No, the relevant issue is that Julian Assange is starting to remind me of Bagdad Bob. You can try and make it into some other issue, but that won't change the fact that Assange is starting to remind me of Bagdad Bob.

It is often said that: ".... strength is measured in numbers ...."

So why the added, inapplicables ? (argument for, truth, validity)

Because they are applicable in the way that people will often use the fact that large numbers of people like or believe something as somehow being justification for it's validity, truth or strength.

If Wikileaks has more people that are aware of what they are doing, and support it (even if only morally), then in my book that constitutes stronger. YMMV.

Possibly. It might also merely be an illustration of the lemming quality of people's desire to fit in and be fashionable. Those silly magnetic ribbons people put on the backs of their cars is another example. They used to mean something, now it's just a fashion statement. Gotta have a ribbon. Gotta get Friended by Wikileaks. Don't want to be left out.

I guarantee you that if all those "people who like" Wikileaks were forced to take the same very real risks as Assange is taking, there'd be precious few "people who like" Wikileaks.

Supposedly over 10,000 as I understand it (reported by Faux News and others) .... if one believes Assange ....

The file is on Usenet. Which means it's on nearly half a million servers.

But he's still not redacting a thing in that file.

How's come ?

Because there's nothing to redact. Any redacting to be done was done long ago.

..... or not release the password for it .....

IOW, he (or his agents) are in control of it.

So there's no d*mned if you do, d*mned if you don't going on with this one. If he's all about exposing lies and corruption, he wouldn't be holding his "insurance" file back as blackmail to prevent people from coming after him.

It was just simply to point out that it was an authoritative statement of opinion ..... and was not backed up with a presentation of any facts ....

It was a sarcastic ad hominem slam is what it was. I'm not, nor have I ever claimed to be, a great oracle of anything.

I prefer to take him at his word, you do not.

I used to take him at his word, until his actions stopped matching his words.

I fail to see how it was disparaging or belittling ... jeez ... sorry ...

Refuting what I said is one thing, but it's disparaging and belittling when you try to refute what I said by there mere fact that it was _I_ who said it, and do so by characterizing me with a sarcastic (if not sardonic) characterization designed to dismiss me, and thus what I've said.

The reality of the matter of strength is simply this:

One measure of strength is the degree of support one receives from others.

That some unknown number of individuals are willing to provide space and access on over 350 servers to mirror, is to some degree or another a measure of that support ....

Yeah, but it's not a very strong measure of support, since hosting a mirror presents little or no risk to the host.

That some unknown number of individuals are willing to provide space to host the encrypted files on over 10,000 servers is to some degree or another a measure of that support ....

That over 823,000 people "like Wikileaks" on Facebook is to some degree or another a measure of that support ....

People like an underdog.

I won't address the financial aspects of recent support because I can't find the one article that I read that relates to it.

That's because Assange is slightly less than transparent when it comes to the financial aspects of Wikileaks.

So ok - I get your point: What you said is an opinion

My point was simply: On what exactly is that opinion based on ?

The same thing that the opinion of a 17 egg omelet looks like something that came out of Sigourney Weaver is based on - a simple, hopefully humorous, observation.

"There are no Blue Screens of Death here." - Redmond Bob