WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has told the Australian national broadcaster that Guardian journalists David Leigh and Luke Harding invented a quote attributed to him in the book WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy, and that he is suing The Guardian. On the ABC's 7.30 programme, presenter Leigh Sales asked Assange …
And a dog farts in the woods...
While this is not surprising, I wonder why we should give any weight to what this ego-maniac says anymore. Or care, for the matter.
>>> Well, I'd slow down a minute, whilst yes it's popular to hate Assange, I think a more pertinent question is whether we should trust the existing media?
Do we have to trust either of them at all? I don't.
@AC re Slow Down...
"Let's be honest, Assange's organisation did at least publicise leaked material that the press could only have dreamed of, and our press in the UK are horrendously agenda driven- you only have to look at how bad things get at election time where the Murdoch press basically slander whoever they decide is less beneficial to their business, The Guardian goes for whoever is left leaning and so forth."
I guess we should slow down because of all of those children who took the short bus to school need to pay attention.
If you have read anything about Assange in the press for the past year or so.. you'd see that he had a personal agenda. He's focusing on the US for a *reason*. In one interview it was stated that he had nothing personal against the US but that if you're going to pick a fight, you pick a fight with the largest person in the room.
Poor Julian. Had he paid attention in school, he would have learned why the US had earned the nickname of a slumbering giant, and not not just known by the Chinese as a 'Paper Tiger'.
I doubt that the Guardian made up those quotes. Too many other statements were made outside this encounter which support the Guardian's position.
I for one don't care
There are more important issues in the world today and my mind is on far more important things than this attention seeking roach. Who care? El-Reg of course. That's why they keep supporting the guy by featuring his articles
Wikileaks could have been a good thing. Now the only story in town is about the man trying to control it all, and the more this drags on the less credibility he has.
Can't somebody have a quiet word and explain how foolish and paranoid he looks? I appreciate he needs to defend himself against (a) extradition to Sweden (b) Sexual assault claims (c) the Yanks but to keep making unsubstantiated claims against anyone who he thinks crosses him is starting to make him look, well, a bit unhinged...
re: Oh dear...
I must the the word "Wiki", it is cursed!
smell the propaganda
"Wikileaks could have been a good thing. Now the only story in town is about the man trying to control it"
.... which is exactly what the mass-media would want us to believe: if you don't like the message, shoot the messenger. Which actually proves that Wikileaks (and thus Assange) are - mostly - correct. That doesn't mean they're 100% correct, nobody can be completely correct in such complex affairs, but "mostly".
"...but to keep making unsubstantiated claims against anyone who he thinks crosses him is starting to make him look, well, a bit unhinged..."
What do you mean by saying 'starting'?
The vast majority of unsubstantiated claims are being made about Assange. Are all the people making unsubstantiated claims about Assange also unhinged?
In addition the US intelligence services are now on public record as running a campaign to discredit both Wikileaks and Assange. This campaign dates back to 2008. The aim, to create as much controversy about both, so the media deals with them rather than the contents of the leaks. Judging by the comments sections within the register, this campaign has been highly successful.
random thoughts on information engagement, remind us what the psyop budget is again?
Information engagement means using all elements of national power to influence the perceptions and will of key audiences. It means becoming an integral presence in the ongoing public conversation out there, in all the forums where critical audiences dwell.
proactive engagement can set the conditions so that “propaganda and violent extremist propaganda don’t have a place to go... If I can discredit my adversary, then I don’t have to kill him. I’ve achieved my objective by eliminating him as a threat of influence over a broad population by making him laughable. I’ve emasculated him in the eyes of his target audience. So now they are no longer going to pay attention to him. They are going to pay attention to me. And I have won. It is low fatality, pinpoint accurate, and I have no blowback.”
New media can also enhance OPSEC by reducing footprints, aiding Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) and enabling deception, although the latter strategy has the potential for blowback given the lack of control over information once it gets out into the GIE
“You have to be very careful with using deception in an environment that you do not have much control over. Traditionally, deception and OPSEC have gone hand in hand to support each other. But this environment makes deception much more difficult because of the risk of being compromised. If your deception gets out in the free press, the damage to your credibility can be dramatic.” This potential for blowback is especially strong in counterinsurgency and stability operations. The dilemma is that the same people you may need to deceive to protect OPSEC (NGOs, contractors, and especially the indigenous population) are the people that you want to trust you.
Cyop (pronounced “PSYOP”) defined as “cyber psychological operations that aim to directly attack and influence the attitudes and behaviors of Soldiers and the general population.” http://leav-www.army.mil/fmso/documents/new-psyop.pdf
I imagine both sides are playing!
Lot of waffle to say one thing
"Use of the media to influence opinions"
And shouldn't it be "Cyop", conveniently pronounced the same as PsyOp (from Psychological Operation )
waffle from us army 'strategic communications'
did I forget to mention that I copied the text from 'new media and the warfighter' a 3 day workshop held at USAWC carlisle barracks Pennsylvania where the DoD DoState and agencies debated and produced 99 pages of this (cleared for public release). I extracted the best bits. (it's 2008 vintage so not aimed at Assange TM but at UBL and حزب الله)
reading the 99 pages leads one to think "don't believe what you read , don't believe what you hear"
on either side
Waking the dead
Anyone see Waking the Dead from 2 weeks back? ... perhaps Assange(TM) has had a mission to discredit wikileaks and associated activities all along!
I notice the article does not use the (tm) after Assange's(tm) name. He'll be after you, you know...
The Problem With Assange
Alright one of the problems....
...is that it has become clear that he will say anything that it suits him to say at the time. As such it becomes very difficult to tell when he is telling the truth. It's not so much that this means that he's lying, but that he's become like the boy who cried wolf.
his general cry is basically "everyone's out to get me! whatever you've heard about me is made up by the media/government/US/whoever because they dont want me to spread the TRUTH!". I started out having really quite a lot of sympathy for him, but (unless the media are flat out lying to us, which is highly unlikely in this day and age - they can twist the truth, but to outright claim he said something at a press conference that he didnt? no.) he's just constantly making a tit of himself, and its becoming increasingly clear that he's not on the side of 'freedom of information' or anything like that, he's just on the side of getting vast amounts of money for illegally obtained information.
Sales said, the authors said they wanted Assange "to redact the names of informants mentioned in the Iraq War logs and they claim that you said, 'Well, they're informants, so if they get killed, they've got it coming to them, they deserve it'. Did you say that?"
Assange described this as "completely fabricated", saying "we are suing them for libel and we have witnesses to show that is a libellous claim, and is an ongoing dispute, so there's a lot of vitriol in the top end of the news business and a lot of back-stabbing, and unfortunately we happen to be on the receiving end of it from this individual."
The Guardian's David Leigh, now a regular Assange antagonist on Twitter, responded that Assange's claim was itself a fabrication. “#Assange tries to mislead Oz media. Claims he is suing #Guardian #Wikileaks book for libel. It’s a lie. No lawsuit."
This is too funny.
First, I would say that the reporters are much more credible than Julian.
Second, this is actually one of Scorchoi's favorite quotes because it shows Assange for what he truly is.
Third, I love the fact that Assange is threatening to sue everyone who has a contradictory statement.
Seems the bundle of lies you call Assange is starting to fall apart.
I suspect I'll be down voted because I dare to speak the truth.
"I suspect I'll be down voted because I dare to speak the truth."
But the truth is in dispute. Just what evidence do you have to prove the truth one way or the other?
You will be down voted not because you speak the truth, but because you assume to be the arbiter of truth without any proof one way or the other.
Yes, your too funny!
So were you in the room with the NYT, Guardian, and Assange and his ontourage?
That's ok, neither was I.
So what we have is one party making statements accusing quotes made by others to be libel and false.
The other party is of course denying that there is a lawsuit, that the statements are libelous and that Assange really did make those statements.
So whom are we to believe?
If we consider several other incidents and statements which aren't being refuted, combining them with Assange's other out bursts, we can determine that the reporters are credible.
An example is the fact that the reporters and editors decided to not link their articles back to wikileaks' site. Their stated logic was that Assange nor Wikileaks did enough redaction or filtering of the data and exposed sensitive data. In one instance one of the reporters who was ex-military and had been embedded in the service(s) felt that operational detail that should have been redacted wasn't.
We don't see Assange denying this, do we?
We see in another passage, reporters spoke of Assange as 'skipping' down the street like a small child. And in another we hear about Assange bursting in to one of the editor's offices with lawyer in tow threatening to sue because someone leaked Wikileaks' data to the press.
The point is that taken as a whole, we can see a pattern emerging from Assange that calls to question his credibility. Add to this his past... you know, the hacking conviction back home in Australia. ...
But to your point about being down voted. I believe I and others get down voted because we speak our opinions and provide the facts to support our opinions. These facts are from historical events and legitimate news sources.
"You want truth? You can't handle the truth." While this is a line from a movie, its unfortunately a very true statement concerning the world around us.
I believe Scorchio is in the UK, and I'm in Chicago (US).
We're two different people who seem to share a common opinion of Assange based on our reviewing of material found outside of El Reg.
Credit Scorchio for outing Assange's conviction back in Australia and for posting links to some of the earlier pieces done on him in the New Yorker.
"I suspect I'll be down voted because I dare to speak the truth."
No..... You'll be downvoted because you appear to hang around El Reg waiting for an article on Assange, then posting simultaneously as IMG and Scorchio. I'll also "dare to speak the truth". Its getting a bit boring. You seem to like rational argument; try it on some of the other boards. Everyone knows your opinions on Assange. Everyone knows that the last line of the post will be a snippet imploring people not to down vote. Its like bloody groundhog day.
My point is that you are providing hearsay and innuendo as evidence to truth. I am not claiming one or the other as the truthful and factual course of events. You are providing opinion and then trying to sell your opinion as fact.
The facts are there are allegations flying left, right and centre, US intelligence agencies are running a campaign to discredit both Assange and Wikileak's (yes this is fact as there is proof in the public domain) and have been since 2008, Wikileaks is a major threat to mainstream news organisations and they are running their own campaigns to mitigate this threat. The combination of these could equally be the cause of the pattern you are describing.
Fact is your opinion does not equal truth.
The reason people vote your "truth" down is because it is simply opinion being dressed up as truth.
You want your opinion to be considered as the truth? Provide solid evidence rather than speculation and opinion based on hearsay and innuendo.
And also just how does his hacking lend credibility to your opinion?
The judge at sentencing gave such a light sentence because he determined that the hacking was neither destructive or for personal gain. His confession to this crime was also instant, full and detailed. He has no track record of untruthfulness prior to the US intelligence services campaign against him, wikileak's became a threat to mainstream media and a falling out with a few fellow wikileakers.
Are you aware that Assange help the Federal Police in Australia smash a pedophile ring? If the federal police considered Assange as being untrustworthy, they simply would not have asked for his help.
When all the KNOWN facts are considered, there is a lot of doubt to the veracity of your opinion, because you are not considering ALL THE KNOWN FACTS.
It was Victorian Police Assange help not Federal Police. But the same applies, if he was considered untrustworthy he's assistance would not have been sought.
I seriously doubt you've hung around lawyers much.
First Assange was given a lighter sentence because the judge felt sorry for him and felt that his home life, or rather lack of a home life was to blame. Schorchoi ?sp? actually has some quotes and a link to his case. The lighter sentence was not a reflection on the crime or rather an understanding of the seriousness of the crime. Were this crime committed in today's climate... meaning that some other person did it... the outcome would have been different. Hmmm. What's his name... McKinnon? You know the Brit fighting extradition to the US?...
But lets get back to the point.
Assange claims to be suing the Guardian. According to the Guardian, they haven't seen anything about the suit.
Were this lawsuit ever to materialize and go to trial, Assange would be in a difficult spot.
Its a "he said, she said" situation. So on one side you have the Reporters/Editors who will all testify that Assange made those comments. That they were present and witnessed it. Assange and members of his entourage present would obviously make statements to the counter.
So whom is the judge to believe? Who has the more credible statement?
This is where you get in to the character of the person making the statement.
As I stated, there are enough ancillary statements and stories whose facts are not in dispute which tend to corroborate the reporter's statements.
Even if you end with a toss up... that is that both sides present evidence which can't be corroborated, the burden of proof is on Assange to show that he didn't make the statement.
The truth is that if the statement were a fabrication, Assange would have jumped on it immediately. Remember how he reacted when one of the papers (The Guardian in fact) that received leaked material from a Wikileak's insider? And how an editor (NYT wasn't it?) had to defuse the situation? Yet months after the alleged statement was made in the press attributing Assange to being insensitive... he's now threatening to sue for libel?
Add to this the fact that Wikileaks released their documents on the world, and then later redacted them, well after the fact?
Like I said, Assange's claims don't add up.
WIth respect to the pedophile bust ... I could make a joke about it. (But then the Moderator would reject this post) Instead I'll leave you with a thought... Pedophiles don't do well in prison. So should we give a medal to those inmates that beat on pedophiles too? Or should the police not use felons as snitches?
@ Ian Michael Gumby - Too Funny
"First, I would say that the reporters are much more credible than Julian"
Ha! Nice one! You mean, the reporters that work for those newspapers that will silence anything so not to piss off their big corporate and/or government sponsors? Sir, FYI the time of big independent media promoting investigative journalism passed decades ago. Assange may or may not be corrupt. Big media are rotten to the core.
Re: RE: Too funny
"Are you and Scorchio lovers perchance?
Or is it just a sockpuppet account.
You two just seem to go hand in hand a little too comfortably in terms of opinions, writing style, and praise of each other to be seperate independently minded people."
"Oh you'll have to do better than that"
Tsk, silly child. A number of points; 1) I could say the same of Julian clones that post here, denying respectably sourced material relating to the convict, Julian Assange 2) if you really have such difficulty in telling apart the two cultures, one English the other US, go and use either an online Web 2 pattern matching package, or download one. It's very simple really; pump into them blocks of text under my name and blocks under IMG's name and watch the package tell you there is a difference. Here is a clue or two:
My patience begins to evaporate, right down to the point where people rationalised about this man's criminal offences, in the same way that SOs and their facilitators do about their grisly crimes. "It's alright because he is a nice man really". Riiiiiiight.
Otherwise your stuff is sublime ad hominem material, showing it would seem an inability to address the data that have been posted up. This reminds me of Usenet, where kooks play sock puppetry using anonymous Usenet remailer services and accuse others of doing the same. I've been in this game for nearly 20 years, I've seen this all before. I saw Julf's Anon penet fall under $cientology pressure, I and others figured out ways to determine who was posting from this and other sources. Nah. You are not even a weak second to the sock puppets I've been up against in Usenet. Your powers of reason are feeble.
Re: Too funny.
You failed at the first fence, since you did not specify which of his posts contained material that, in spite of his claims to have posted material garnered from reputable sources (e.g. UK court transcripts), is untrue and you failed to demonstrate *why*: you merely used a sleight of hand technique of argument requiring him to show which of his posts were true, while the onus is upon you to show him the error of his ways.
You know that you can do it. If as you say he does not post the truth it is a simple matter for you to demonstrate this to be the case.
Be brave, be grown up, show the man which of his posts were not true, and why.
OTOH, perhaps St. Julian will oblige us by confessing that he is not suing the journalist? Perhaps he will not have the chance. After all, a man in a prison cell is going to have some difficulty in suing another man in another country, fat salary, pay wall and autobiography notwithstanding.
"But to your point about being down voted. I believe I and others get down voted because we speak our opinions and provide the facts to support our opinions. These facts are from historical events and legitimate news sources."
Oh but it is a delight that they do so! You see with every down vote they demonstrate that their fluffy little heads cannot compute.
BTW I was amused when you started to go through the court transcripts. I hadn't thought of that, and felt a tad lazy.
"An example is the fact that the reporters and editors decided to not link their articles back to wikileaks' site. Their stated logic was that Assange nor Wikileaks did enough redaction or filtering of the data and exposed sensitive data. In one instance one of the reporters who was ex-military and had been embedded in the service(s) felt that operational detail that should have been redacted wasn't.
We don't see Assange denying this, do we?"
He cannot, due to the publicly available words of an Icelandic MP and former 'colleague' of his:
"Now it is not just governments that denounce him: some of his own comrades are abandoning him for what they see as erratic and imperious behavior, and a nearly delusional grandeur unmatched by an awareness that the digital secrets he reveals can have a price in flesh and blood.
Several WikiLeaks colleagues say he alone decided to release the Afghan documents without removing the names of Afghan intelligence sources for NATO troops. “We were very, very upset with that, and with the way he spoke about it afterwards,” said Birgitta Jonsdottir, a core WikiLeaks volunteer and a member of Iceland’s Parliament. “If he could just focus on the important things he does, it would be better.” "
Assange is a danger, and this is a matter of record.
""I suspect I'll be down voted because I dare to speak the truth."
No..... You'll be downvoted because you appear to hang around El Reg waiting for an article on Assange, "
What, not like you do to speak this convict's praises?
"then posting simultaneously as IMG and Scorchio."
Do you realise how childish, how silly this appears to be? Just put our text through pattern matching software and you will see just how silly you are.
How old are you? What educational attainments have you?
Do vote me down though. It detracts from your case.
"My point is that you are providing hearsay and innuendo as evidence to truth."
Then you will have no difficulty at all with quoting appropriate passages and demonstrating absolutely why they are untrue.
I'm waiting. He's waiting. Until you do this you will look a fool and have to post as ac.
"He has no track record of untruthfulness prior to the US intelligence services campaign against him"
Oh no, not at all, only that he stole passwords from US Air force 7th Command Group in the Pentagon in the early 90s.
You must be effing desperate to spout bilge like that.
The judge said "there is just no evidence that there was anything other than sort of intelligent inquisitiveness and the pleasure of being able to—what's the expression—surf through these various computers". He also took into consideration the fact that there was no intention of personal gain or damage by the hacks. Yes, he also took into account his childhood, but it was only a minor part of his summary during sentencing. I remember the case well because it was high profile here.
"So should we give a medal to those inmates that beat on pedophiles too?"
Your giving the impression Assange was given a custodial sentence. He was not, he was released on a bond. He was not an "inmate".
"Or should the police not use felons as snitches?"
He was not a snitch, this gives the impression he was an informant that had a reduced sentence (or other special treatment) on offer as a result of his assistance. This was not the case. He was a free man (well on a bond) and the police sought his assistance because he had the technical expertise they lacked (at the time) and the police considered him trustworthy. He was not compelled nor coerced to assist, neither did he have anything to gain by helping except the simple act of performing a good deed for the public good.
"As I stated, there are enough ancillary statements and stories whose facts are not in dispute which tend to corroborate the reporter's statements."
So what stories and statements are they?
Just why are the news organisations or reporters more trustworthy? In their dealings with Wikileaks they showed they were quite untrustworthy when they broke various agreements. On various occasions they tried to freeze Wikileak's out of the loop despite agreements made between the parties. Yes they made various claims to justify their actions, most of these shown to be spurious by Glen Greenwald at Salon.com. Fact is, until Wikileaks had provided them with all the leaked documents under the agreement, they had no problem with what Wikileaks were publishing. Many media commentators believe it was simply a case that once the media organisations had obtained all the documents, they simply tried to cut Wikileaks and Assange out. Yes, their honesty is in question.
Lets not forget, most of the people making statements that are in dispute are also writing books they want to sell. Obviously their claims have to be considered carefully with regard to the full history between them and their competing interests.
I maintain what I have previously said about your posts. You cherry pick facts leaving out facts that are detrimental to your claims, twist events to suit your position, add in speculation and hearsay, and try to sell it as truth.
>This is too funny.
>I suspect I'll be down voted because I dare to speak the truth.
Don't have to read the middle bit to know it's some kind of trolling rant.
Can you explain what makes a legitimate news source?
Would you describe the Washington Post as a legitimate news source? A news organisation that depends on the US government for 61% of it's revenue can hardly afford to be forthright and impartial. This revenue is generated via Kaplan (owned by Washington Post co) while the newspaper looses money. Kaplan is a for profit education provider. This type of situation of news organisations being depend on government money via other interests while the news organisations loose money is growing in the US. So now we have a situation in the US where not only are news organisation beholden to their advertisers but also the government. Any animosity from the Government could single-handedly doom the Post Co.'s business, including the news section. Hardly conducive to a free and fearless press.
So please explain to me again what makes a legitimate news source?
A few people have denounced him for various reason, but the vast majority of people within Wikileak's have not. Also my point is that without weighing the personal vested interests of these people it means nothing, especially when there are competing organisations being set up and books written. Everyone knows that in all organisations large and small, there are jealousies, power struggles, differences of opinions, personality clashes etc etc etc. That some of these have come to the surface should not be a surprise to anyone. It would be more surprising if this was not the case. Some criticisms may be warranted, some may not. My point has always been and continues to be that neither you or Gumby are in a position to know with any certainty what is and what isn't.
"have a price in flesh and blood"
What flesh and blood? There has not been a single instance of "flesh and blood" attributed to Wikileaks.
Yes Assange is a danger. He is a danger to dishonest and corrupt governments and corporations.
log out and log back in as gumby lol
Has he ever denied his hacking exploits? No.
If he was as untruthful as both your persona's claim he would never have admitted his guilt. Fact is, when Assange was arrested, there was not very much evidence against him for the simple reason the Police here did not have the expertise to collect it. He was charged based on his admission of guilt. Evidence was later obtained from US authorities, but it wasn't actually required because of he's admission. Someone who habitually lies (as you and Gumby suggest) would have held out until they knew the jig was up lol.
Many hackers from that period are now working within the security IT sector in extremely sensitive positions of high trust. Are they considered untrustworthy with a history of dishonesty? No
Stealing is not prove of telling lies, it is theft. They are different. I can't believe I had to explain that to you.
Scorchio!! or is it Gumby
"requiring him to show which of his posts were true, while the onus is upon you to show him the error of his ways."
Gee silly me, I always thought the onus of proving a statement claiming to be fact was on the party making the statement.
"Then you will have no difficulty at all with quoting appropriate passages and demonstrating absolutely why they are untrue."
Gumby tries to pass of hotly disputed claims as fact. I have never tried to claim I know the truth of all the different claims and counter claims that are being made in this saga. To prove one way or the other is impossible. But there is no doubt that Gumby is cherry picking a few known facts that support his opinion (rather than fact as he claims) and ignoring other known facts that cast doubt on that opinion being correct. Now with your posts you are doing exactly the same thing.
It's obvious that both of you have an opinion you want everyone else to agree with. In your case Scorchio, if anyone disagrees with you, you turn to attacking their positions using infantile methods;
"Tsk, silly child"
"You are not even a weak second to the sock puppets"
"Your powers of reason are feeble"
"Be brave, be grown up"
"How old are you? What educational attainments have you"
Like they say, a bloke who can't play football plays the man rather than the ball.
Sorry but as I and Scorchoi have said, we're two different people.
Its hard to deny one's hacking exploits when you've got a criminal record, and of course its part of his 'celeb persona' which is part of his mythos.
And yes, hackers and former hackers, even those working in IT Security are considered untrustworthy.
Just ask Kevin Mitnick ?sp?.
Perhaps you didn't understand the analogy.
The point I was trying to make is that if Assange assisted the police, so what. Convicted felons are used as snitches. And in prisons even other prisoners also look down on pedophiles.
I suggest you read the editorial made by the NYT editor. It will shed light on your best bud Assange and how Assange made his own rules and violated their agreements.
There are two sides to every story and you're not paying attention to half of the story.
As pointed out by Scorchio!!, comments made by Assange's own best buds discredit what Assange is claiming. Assange's own mythos is unraveling before our eyes.
"And yes, hackers and former hackers, even those working in IT Security are considered untrustworthy."
So what your saying is that banks, governments , corporations everywhere can not be trusted, because many of the people in the highest positions of trust within these organisations (or contracted to), with the "keys to the kingdom", with access to our most personal data (along with a multitude of other reasons including national security implications), are ex-hackers.
If your statement was even remotely correct as a general rule rather than the odd exception, then kaos would be reigning supreme in our banking systems, governments, and corporations.
First off, congratulations on writing an entire post without accusing someone of an ad hominem attack. Well done. It would have been a little hypocritical though wouldn't it, to follow your standard template reply with an attack all of your own?
Regarding your other points though, please rest assured that I am not going divulge any personal information to some sweaty ranting fool on an internet message board. A fool who is clearly just a little bit on the wobbly side of unstable.
Yes, yes, I know - ad hominem blather blather.
"Convicted felons are used as snitches. And in prisons even other prisoners also look down on pedophiles."
What you are attempting to do is to paint those events from Assange's life in a misleading and dishonest fashion. Police use snitch's yes, and for snitching the police turn a blind eye to the snitch's crimes. This was not even remotely the situation that lead to Assange helping police to break a pedophile ring. Assange was not a "prisoner[s]" when he helped police in that matter, he was a free man. He was not given a custodial sentence. So again by the use of association, you are trying to paint the events in a misleading and dishonest way.
"comments made by Assange's own best buds discredit what Assange is claiming"
As mentioned previously, comments made by people must be weighed against many factors and can not be taken at face value. There are books to sell, competing websites to launch, commercial interests to protect. In the case of Birgitta Jonsdottir yes she was critical of Assange over one incident, but she continues to be a supporter of Assange and Wikileaks. One can be critical of a person over an event or issue, without discrediting that person. If she didn't think Assange and Wikileaks had credibility she would no longer be supporting either, she is a politician after all. As for "best buds discredit", do you or Scorchio know enough about Assange's personal relationships to know who his best friends are? You have never heard of friends'falling out?
I just noticed how loosely you use the term "best buds".
"It will shed light on your best bud Assange"
'comments made by Assange's own best buds discredit"
I'm Assange's best bud, they're Assanges best bud.......It seems anyone who disagrees with your biased opinions are Assange's best buds, as are conveniently, anyone willing to dispute he's version of events.
Wow Assange must have a hell of a lot of "best buds". He can't be all that bad to have so many friends lol
You can't have it both ways, using the tag "best buds to call into question peoples impartiality regarding their comments and then using the same tag to provide veracity to other peoples comments.......
New unit of measurement
...the Google hits count.
That's a far more accurate measurement than reality.
For fuck sake...
Will you numpties stop whining like a couple of schoolgirls arguing over Justin Trousersnake vs. Justin Bieber.
I´m trying to enjoy a beer, work on my tan and plan tomorrows trekking here in the Sierra Nevada and the pair of you are simply spoiling what WAS a fun afternoon, reading some of the canny banter on dearest El Reg.
Shame on you both. Go stand in the corner and woe betide you if I hear another peep out of either of you...
Re: For fuck sake...
You realise an easier solution to this would have been to simply turn off your computer, or just close the relevant window. But then I suppose you wouldn't have had the opportunity to get all huffy and boast about your totally awesome beer/tan/plan.