sure someone has archived it, basically it was like a sixth former who really liked the matrix
but 20 years older
i c&ped the best pic upthread
― nax arrrrrgh (nakhchivan), Thursday, 16 December 2010 22:55 (thirteen years ago) link
lol warlock - I was trying to think of something witchcrafty like The Wicki Man but it didn't quite work since it's the cop who's being locked up in that movie.
― StanM, Thursday, 16 December 2010 23:01 (thirteen years ago) link
http://spire.ee/shop/images/harry_harrison___bill_the_planet_of_the_robot_slaves.jpg
― jabba hands, Thursday, 16 December 2010 23:13 (thirteen years ago) link
"fleeing the fearsome machine of Swedish justice"
― seandalai, Thursday, 16 December 2010 23:56 (thirteen years ago) link
I've had email correspondence in the distant past very much like that alleged set of JA emails. A belgian guy I met when I first got online was really similar - lots of "I AM A NIHILIST" rambling. Really spergy, basically.
― Strange Crüt (Trayce), Friday, 17 December 2010 00:47 (thirteen years ago) link
Manning offered plea bargain if he names Assange as co-conspirator
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/freed-on-bail-ndash-but-us-steps-up-efforts-to-charge-assange-with-conspiracy-2162639.html
― StanM, Friday, 17 December 2010 13:22 (thirteen years ago) link
and now he's just ignoring you, aspie or what
― nax arrrrrgh (nakhchivan), Friday, 17 December 2010 13:25 (thirteen years ago) link
joeks, stanm is an a+ dude
― nax arrrrrgh (nakhchivan), Friday, 17 December 2010 13:26 (thirteen years ago) link
huh? Who did I ignore?
― StanM, Friday, 17 December 2010 13:31 (thirteen years ago) link
Maybe there should be one thread about Wikileaks and another for weird speculation about Julian Assange.
― The New Dirty Vicar, Friday, 17 December 2010 15:12 (thirteen years ago) link
Maybe Wikileaks needs its own board.
― Mordy, Friday, 17 December 2010 15:13 (thirteen years ago) link
don't want paypal shutting down the next funding drive.
― e.g. delete via naivete (ledge), Friday, 17 December 2010 15:14 (thirteen years ago) link
stanm -- i was making a ref to trayce's belgian emailer ;_;
― nax arrrrrgh (nakhchivan), Friday, 17 December 2010 15:18 (thirteen years ago) link
oh, ok, lol!
― StanM, Friday, 17 December 2010 15:45 (thirteen years ago) link
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/18/julian-assange-allegations-wikileaks-cables
interesting. wonder if the guardian will continue to be favoured by WL. didn't read the article by the women.
― history mayne, Saturday, 18 December 2010 23:09 (thirteen years ago) link
You should, it's the most complete and objective overview of both sides' claims.
― StanM, Saturday, 18 December 2010 23:20 (thirteen years ago) link
srsly u gotta hope polanski lives long enough to make a film of this
s0 s0 'fucked up'
― nakhchivan, Saturday, 18 December 2010 23:20 (thirteen years ago) link
haven't read this but posting anyway
http://destructural.wordpress.com/2010/12/18/the-cerebral-male-argument-against-rape-denial/
― No Wicked Heart Shall Prosper.rar (nakhchivan), Sunday, 19 December 2010 21:46 (thirteen years ago) link
GoldenScepter
If you had written this more concisely, less subjectively, been a bit less in denial of yourself, perhaps a bit more open-minded, left out the speculation on any specific (scurrilous allegations), it might have been something worthwhile.
As it is, it seems like nothing more than a bid to win approval and a pat on the head from some women you won’t get to have sex with. Looks like you throw men’s rights under the bus because you’re socially conditioned to be a wuss.Permalink, ReplyDecember 19, 2010 8:40 am
* mpharris
That’s the thing though – it’s a really bad anti-rape argument for anyone to use to get laid. It’s an argument by a man mostly to men about the way we’re taught to understand the world.
Also, fuck you, troll. Permalink, Reply
― No Wicked Heart Shall Prosper.rar (nakhchivan), Sunday, 19 December 2010 21:55 (thirteen years ago) link
so much terrible writing, so much distrust
h8 interneth8 assangeh8 cia
wish we could go back to the 18th century
― No Wicked Heart Shall Prosper.rar (nakhchivan), Sunday, 19 December 2010 21:57 (thirteen years ago) link
So, about this cable that suggested Michael Moore's film Sicko was banned in Cuba. So the cable said.
So the Graun just reported that right?
...except it wasn't true, which (as Moore pointed out) the G could have worked out with five minutes of research and not just swallowed the cable's contents and spewed them back out.
Graun article: http://bit.ly/gkiGec
Michael Moore's blog: http://bit.ly/i5wfdF
its worth noting the paper did do a correction later... but still. This brings up questions of media regurgitating info without research, not to mention the fact a lot of the cables are full of porkies (theyre diplomats! Of course they'll make things up to keep thier betters happy).
― Strange Crüt (Trayce), Sunday, 19 December 2010 22:38 (thirteen years ago) link
Ah crap, that first URL is now broken. Darn.
― Strange Crüt (Trayce), Sunday, 19 December 2010 22:39 (thirteen years ago) link
LOL its broken because the Guardian have deleted the entire article, WTF.
― Strange Crüt (Trayce), Sunday, 19 December 2010 22:40 (thirteen years ago) link
This is what it says now instead. I'm a bit pissed a paper of repute would delete their error.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/18/wikileaks-us-diplomats-story-cuba-banned-sicko-film
― Strange Crüt (Trayce), Sunday, 19 December 2010 22:41 (thirteen years ago) link
Whoever noticed this is some kind of evil genius.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/assangehumphries.gif
― tl;dr swinton (suzy), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 00:17 (thirteen years ago) link
cuba didn't ban this film (unlike a shit-ton of other films, being a dictatorship), but why the hell would it? it's doing the cuban govt's job for it. it's well established that the scenes double-m shot in the 'cuban hospital' were actually done in a ward only built 4 cuban party apparatchiks.
― moholy-nagl (history mayne), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 00:21 (thirteen years ago) link
Does this mean that John Inman is a "rapey looking bro"?
― shaking my hamster (KMS), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 00:42 (thirteen years ago) link
Should have been phrased: Does this mean that John Inman was a "rapey looking bro"?
― shaking my hamster (KMS), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 06:26 (thirteen years ago) link
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/21/assange_guardian/
― caek, Tuesday, 21 December 2010 13:36 (thirteen years ago) link
Assange <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9309000/9309320.stm">interview with BBC</a> - John Humphrys is really excellent in the first half.
― sean gramophone, Tuesday, 21 December 2010 18:55 (thirteen years ago) link
CIA launches the Wikileaks Task Force (if you're wondering about the abbreviation: yep, it is)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/21/AR2010122104599.html
― StanM, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 15:44 (thirteen years ago) link
BoA buying up unflattering domain names ahead of expected leak
http://www.finextra.com/news/fullstory.aspx?newsitemid=22124
― dan m, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 17:40 (thirteen years ago) link
hahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahaaha
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 22 December 2010 17:41 (thirteen years ago) link
yall shook!
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 22 December 2010 17:42 (thirteen years ago) link
Gonna have to be some huge beyond insane stuff, otherwise ill be rmde. The public knows these banks are crooked, this shit has been all over the news, in the leaked emails (remember the whole "Shitty products" fiasco?), and none of that has mattered cos the gov't and the financial system are pretty much one and the same. I mean, if some really damaging stuff comes out about Bank of America all they need to do is whine and say the economy is about to collapse and before you know it we will give them trillions of dollars. It's really a rigged game.
Maybe some higher ups will be fired or something, who knows. But it doesnt matter as long as the rules stay the same and if the past 2 years have taught us anything its that these people write those rules.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 23 December 2010 01:04 (thirteen years ago) link
great article by Bruce Sterling:
http://spectregroup.wordpress.com/2010/12/23/crypto-blast-shack-finally-goes-off/
― sleeve, Friday, 24 December 2010 20:48 (thirteen years ago) link
It's a good article but a little dour. I think he mythologises Assange a bit much. Perhaps he knows better than we do. All I know is that I watched the Wikirebels documentary earlier and am feeling much more positive about the long-game than perhaps Sterling does. But then, like Manning, I'm a little naive...
― acoleuthic, Friday, 24 December 2010 21:13 (thirteen years ago) link
That said, I think Sterling projects a great deal. Is it SO naive to think some of these people are simply trying to make the world, in the tritest possible way, a better place?
― acoleuthic, Friday, 24 December 2010 21:16 (thirteen years ago) link
http://totallylookslike.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/387efa66-3bbb-4b65-9941-a02f679a9b43.jpg
― old man yells at cloud computing (am0n), Saturday, 25 December 2010 03:07 (thirteen years ago) link
kind of shooting fish in a barrel obv but greenwald owns these retards
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 28 December 2010 22:58 (thirteen years ago) link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XInz4i6AV8M
^^^^ Saw it this morning. Great stuff.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 28 December 2010 22:58 (thirteen years ago) link
Ok, this woman is really really stupid. k3v otm that shooting fish in a barrel and I'd really like to see Greenwald argue with someone who actually knows what they're talking about.
― Mordy, Tuesday, 28 December 2010 23:09 (thirteen years ago) link
"do you think it's ironic that he's getting his book published by a major corporation?""yes, thank you for pointing out the important literary elements of this political story."
― Mordy, Tuesday, 28 December 2010 23:10 (thirteen years ago) link
The problem: no one who opposes the release of the information or supports criminal prosecution of Assange knows what he's talking about.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 28 December 2010 23:11 (thirteen years ago) link
That's half true. No one who supports criminal prosecution knows what they're talking about (presumably, tho I've seen some cases made for prosecution lately that are compelling) but there are people who oppose the release of information who make strong cases against their release.
― Mordy, Tuesday, 28 December 2010 23:17 (thirteen years ago) link
Re the first thing, I'm not enough of a legal scholar to evaluate the merits of this - http://www.slate.com/id/2278922/ - but it seems well reasoned to me.
― Mordy, Tuesday, 28 December 2010 23:18 (thirteen years ago) link
It's not reasonable at all, in my opinion. To believe in the efficacy of the Espionage Act as passed by the Wilson administration, you'd think subversives posed so much of a threat that they disrupted the preparation and prosecution of a (needless) war.
Besides, subsequent SCOTUS rulings on the First Amendment have gutted most of the Act.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 28 December 2010 23:24 (thirteen years ago) link
Greenberg allows several cavils, but he basically accepts the Wilson administration's justifications, which history has repudiated.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 28 December 2010 23:25 (thirteen years ago) link
wrt the book deal = profiting from espionage
seems like a stretch to me---would they have to prove that the main reason he released the docs was to someday bag a book deal? or do they merely have to prove that without the release of the docs there would be no book deal? the whole thing seems outlandish but I swear I read that this was an avenue of investigation for the doj
― kanellos (gbx), Tuesday, 28 December 2010 23:37 (thirteen years ago) link