Were the other veg cooked more to your liking?
An intriguing mini-drama has emerged from backstage at the WikiLeaks theatre. Julian Assange has fallen out with the two senior Guardian journalists who have been central figures in the global publishing of classified US military and diplomatic documents this year. Arguably, he's not a man who can afford to lose friends at the …
Were the other veg cooked more to your liking?
"So now he's signed up "exclusively" with Murdoch's Times. Gosh."
Many would consider that a real dumb move, totally at odds with the spirit of Wikileaks.
Hat's off to you.
Clearly, amanfrommars1 isn't from the same planet as amanfrommars, because that post made sense.
>>"So now he's signed up "exclusively" with Murdoch's Times. Gosh."
>Many would consider that a real dumb move, totally at odds with the spirit of Wikileaks.
Speaking of 'Mammon', the saintly aura surrounding St. Jules (partially clipped away to reveal a hoary lower layer) fades daily. He intends to profit from his racket:
Not so squeaky clean then, eh? No longer St. Julian from Heaven, but El Diablo Julian from Hades. Think on the possibilities here.
The rate the dopey sod is going, I don't think anyone is worried about him being turned into a martyr when he turns up, floating face-down in the Thames next week.
That the Daily Wikileaks will now get back to its mainstream job as a lifestyle blog.
Julian Assange and the Grauniad - no danger of any serious journalism in that pairing.
This story epitomises why I have little or no time for either Assange, or Wikileaks. Aside from the rampant hypocrisy of Assange, it shows that he is not a whistleblower calling time on nefarious dealings. He is just dumping stuff on the web as a means of either self promotion, or spurious justification of his wrong doings.
It is indeed nice to see the tables have been turned for a change.
So Assange's reaction to being fitted up is "conspiratorial" and is mockingly attributed to (woooo) "unseen dark forces".
So the Reg joins the ranks. This shameful Wikileaks hunt has been more revealing than any popular conspiracy theory could ever hope to achieve. I ashamed to be human, frankly.
Me too. Every day. I look at my dog and I think, dog, I envy you.
Any creature that can toss its own salad goes on my Karma wishlist.
Would you still be saying that if your dog was Ug?
(yay I achieved a legit daily wail link, thats 7pts)
I think you will find it was Assanges lawyer who attriuted the allegations to 'dark forces'. So who is mocking who?.
I think you will also find its Assange and co who attribute this extradition busniess to some kind of giant conspiracy relating to his entirely unrelated wikileaks shennanigans.
He says that during the humphries interview. The allegations of rape have nothing to do with wikileaks.
So boo shucks to you!
Oh, yeah whilst typing this post I was listening to the humphries interview. He is a creep, I have no sympathy. Thats my impression.
"On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog."
Merry Christmas to you too!
Dogs have masters, but cats have servants.
A festive Yuletide to all.
"Oh, yeah whilst typing this post I was listening to the humphries interview. He is a creep, I have no sympathy. Thats my impression."
That's a bit harsh - I think Humphries is OK, myself
I wonder why Sarah wishes her dog Merry Christmas *every* day.
But who am I to question the small details in the meaningful relationships of others?
I still wonder, though.
Merry Christmas, Sarah and Dog!
Such cutting wit in a single sentence. <3
I now wonder what sort of Dog Sarah has?
I heard John Humphrys' s interview with him this morning and I thought that Humphrys pwned him. Assange came over as an arrogant whiner. Whether his is or not is a different matter but he seemed it in the interview.
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9308000/9308216.stm for the interview
and rather creepy. I think anyone who heard it will probably have revised their opinion on the man.
I imagine his lawyers were facepalming in the next room listening to him. I don't think he will have won anyone over with such a performance.
Assange sounded completely reasonable in everything he said. Humphry sounded excessively aggressive, and asked some really poor questions. Seriously, why was he asking Julian how many women he'd slept with?
I seriously thought he was autistic or something the way he kept trying to talk over her questions as if she wasn't even speaking. He was very articulate but there was something very odd about it
I'm convinced that he just runs this site as a means to get laid.
Starting half-way through Page 5 in this article:
I don't mean to speak ill of anyone's mother, but wow... just wow
Humphreys is a terrible interviewer, he interrupts himself all the time, so the interviewee can usually get away with saying nowt. But Assange came over as very creepy.
Who needs a CIA conspiracy when the protagonist is as ropey as Assange?
As far as I'm aware "coming over as creepy" isn't an arrestable offence (yet). He just came over as softly spoken and extremely careful with his words to me.
I have no opinion on whether or not Julian Assange is guilty or even has a case to answer in Sweden. But a lot of people listening to that interview form their opinions based on how he sounds. And sad as it may seem, a lot of people base their opinions on how people look or sound.
Going on Today was a bad move for Assange. John Humphries technique was honed on politicians with skins so thick they're sought after in Chinese medicine. Assange's lawyers or publicists should have spent enough time with him to know he wasn't going to come across well.
Maybe he would have come across better on the One Show with Chris Evans?
I listened to 2 minutes of the same interview and turned the radio off. I'd rather drive in (relative) silence than listen to John Humphrys' forthright wittering.
There are lots of people in this world who have opinions, and lots of people who are able to ask awkward questions and that alone should tell you that the ability to have an opinion and ask awkward questions isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to be.
Maybe Assange is creepy - that doesn't make him guilty.
Maybe Assange is guilty - that doesn't mean WikiLeaks is doing the wrong thing.
Assange put himself in the spotlight. Either he should receive proper media training or he should pick and choose who he is interviewed by (i.e. definitely not Paxo & chums) , or he should keep his mouth shut and confine interviews to email. The latter is probably more in keeping with his character anyway. While there are some people who can't or won't accept it, everytime he opens his yap in the non-specialist media he is undermining himself and wikileaks.
"Either he should receive proper media training or he should pick and choose who he is interviewed by (i.e. definitely not Paxo & chums) , or he should keep his mouth shut and confine interviews to email."
<Irony>Buhbuhbubuh^but he's a journalist an' an editor, didn't you know?</Irony>
The Times will show Wikileaks how to put their secrets behind a paywall so that nobody will be arsed to read them anymore.
Rarely in the field of human conflict can such an unappealing set of combatants have entered the same ring. In no particular order...
Divers crooked governments
At a pinch I'd still back the underdingo - but wish rather they would all just annihilate each other in a puff of hadrons.
One of those things is not like the others.
Clue: It's the one that isn't really creepy.
Personally, I tend to think of egos sort of like the magnetic field of an inductor. Ever charged up a powerful inductor and then severed the connection on both ends? The magnetic field collapses with nowhere to go but the inductor itself and the inductor rather suddenly isn't very happy. I personally wish that all four of the entities mentioned would very suddenly and abruptly have everyone ignore them. The lack of attention would cause their egos to collapse suddenly and abruptly, hopefully converting the lot of them into a pink mist.
Wrong time of year old chap for leeks to be any good. James Bond would have known that and shot you dead for ordering them.
I am quite convinced it is a honeypot, just not a CIA honeypot.
It's a honeypot from a different branch of the anarchists mob. It got sprung at this point in time because he wasn't important enough before now for the accusations to catch much wind. Best part for them is not only does it advance their specific subcause (all sex is rape) it also helps undermine trust in government because they can play the fascist CIA card.
Not that Beck played that angle. He didn't seem to know what was going on, just that it was all rather fishy.
I can believe that that is certainly possible but please tell me you do know that Glenn Beck is full of shit though, don't you?
He recently connected the student protests in London with Assange and then a circular nonsensical connection to George Soros. The student protests were not about attacking Royals or Wikileaks even remotely, quite simply they were about many young voters who had their first opportunity to vote, voted for the Lib Dems as they had a policy pledge that affected them directly and were let down badly.
I actually think that there is a case for a rise in fees or a reduction of the number of students but you can't get away from the fact that the voters were lied to. (yeah, yeah - colation this, compromise that - Bullshit, it was a direct lie to a large section of their voters)
Anyway i digress - Glenn Beck is an idiot!
That's giving Fascism a bad name
He connects everything to George Soros. Eventually.
Mr Assange should remember there is no honour amongst journalists. If you make yourself the story, your former journalistic comrades will turn on you and treat you like you're just another story. In the meantime, I'm off to a flashmob snowball fight in Regents Park. Should I get hit by too many snowballs I will be hiring Mr Assange's legal team and loudly proclaiming it was all a big conspiracy, as shown by the mobile records....
Merry Chrimbo one and all! Merry Traditional December Gift Day to those less inclined to the Christian fable.
There is a degree of honour amongst journalists, and I am glad to see it return: the good ones report without bias, and dig out the lies. Here are 3 free media tips for you:
1 - assume "off the record" does not exist.
2 - never, ever lie to a journalist, because you'll pay for that when (s)he finds out.
3 - never mention any assumptions either.
Assange cannot claim it's OK to disclose confidential information without agreeing to the same treatment. The information of the Swedish case against him clearly shows he's been telling stories that have no basis in reality, so I can well imagine he's pissed off. It shows, for instance, that this would not have blown up if Mr Ego would have done the decent thing.
Those women were not out to hang him, they were simply trying to get assurance that he had not infected them. By not bothering to respond to what I personally think was not an unreasonable request to get himself tested he basically dug his own hole, especially as he appeared to have been too impressed with himself to listen to these people.
He's a t*sser. Or I bet he wished he was one now..
This article doesn't seem particularly biased to me, the key point seems to be that Assange missed an appointment with the Swedish police. This presumably is why they have issued an arrest warrant for him.
The article does then go on to mention text messages and so on that might suggest that the women concerned could have cooked the whole thing up for money, or not as the case may be. It seems pretty even handed as a discussion of the events.
I started to read it - and upon getting to this point:
Another friend told police that during the evening Miss A told her she had had "the worst sex ever" with Assange
Looked at how much more drivel there was - and gave up.
Bottom line :
a) No sex crimes of any note.
b) Hes a creepy wierdo
c) It all deflects attention away from the real issues - which is the main point of this story.
"Bottom line :
a) No sex crimes of any note."
Of course you're thinking in terms of laws outside of Sweden.
The fact that he attempted to have sex without a condom, meant that he was committing non-consensual sex, or Rape.
Under the laws in Sweden, the accusal is enough to warrant and investigation along with possible charges.
His crimes in Sweden are *the* story with respect to his current legal problems. The other shoe, the US issue, hasn't dropped yet.
In another thread a poster has posted links to Assange's criminal past where he was convicted of hacking the US when he was in Australia. Being a convict does have some limitations too. Just ask Martha Stewart or Paris Hilton.
funny, I stopped at the same place too.
"Another friend told police that during the evening Miss A told her she had had "the worst sex ever" with Assange"
If it is know admitted practice that bad sex and a no condom is enough to call in Interpol, millions of us are in trouble.
"The fact that he attempted to have sex without a condom, meant that he was committing non-consensual sex, or Rape."
Erm, one moment...
"The fact that he is accused of attempted to have sex without a condom, meant that he is accused of non-consensual sex, or Rape."
Might as well be accurate, eh?
Nope, the article still doesn't seem biased to me, it discusses the highlighted flaws in the evidence of the women, and Assanges failure to turn up for a police interview.
So onto the subject of prevarication it is now emerging that Assange's claims that Sweden’s actions are part of a CIA (or other US organisation conspiracy) are in fact less than truthful. I guess it is just difficult for the 'Cult of Assange' to accept what is now hitting them in the face.