wikileaks

[louisiana]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> BRASICAS?

>

> Which no-good low-down dirty fiend was reavealed

> to be a broccoli fan????

I think the dangerous Brussels sprouts lovers will be emerging over the next few days, but shockingly that will be in the privacy of their own kitchens, so we will be reliant on first-hand reports and webcams.

They will, of course, be the first against the wall.

I am, of course, on the lookout for any Wikileaks cables throwing light on the adoption of a foreign brasica (Brussels! Europe!) by the good ol' UK of GB and NI.

[mockney piers]

Oi, I quite like Brussels sprouts.

Don't over boil/steam them, then toss them in some good olive oil where you've fried some garlic to a light gold.

Perfect.

But then I'm a dirty pro-European, I would wouldn't I.

[Huguenot]

There's a restaurant here in Singers that serves nothing but brussels sprouts in a huge array of flavors. Nothing on wikileaks about it yet.

And to think people say we're not 'edgy' enough over here!

[mockney piers]

Lol

[Dickensman]

Assange was interviewed by Frost the other day, my goodness I hadn't seen Frost for a year or more and he is a relic of the man he once was.

Frost gave Assange the easiest of interviews but he (Frost) sort of dribbles when he speaks, which is a trifle distracting, and he should in my opinion retire from the screen.

Frost asked if Assange ever paid for information, Assange said he wasn't against buying it in but had no need to as he had a mountain of stuff waiting to be leaked, the main problem was sifting through the mountain.

[Hill Dweller]

This was a very interesting listen, downloading the Beeb's iPlayer software to hear it on 'Listen Again' is safe, it should be available till 30th evening.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00wqfng

Assange really isn't better than those that disagree with him, thinking he is is more than a little like believing what the bloke who assumed the name Christ described himself as.

[Hill Dweller]

Ohhhh I love how the hyperlinks edit themselves >:D<

Is that a property of the forum hosts or does the forum have an IT Wiz ?

[Tarot]

Power without control is a dangerous thing.

[Hill Dweller]

Hill Dweller Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> >:D

>

I've just realised that's middle fingers (!)

[Hill Dweller]

I heard the replay yesterday of Assange being interviewed by John Humphrys, which got a bit yukky during the conversation about the sex crime allegations.

I must say that the little I've heard about them does sound strange, would women really voluntarily describe such stuff as crime?

Anyway, Assange still made me cringe with his 'women have been kind to me' comment. WTH does he think he is? Leonard Cohen said something similar but much better ;-)

.

[BrandNewGuy]

Hill Dweller: "vain"... "wannabe messiah"... "really isn't better than those that disagree with him"... "made me cringe"... "WTH does he think he is?"

Wikipedia:

Ad hominem abuse: Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

[Hill Dweller]

How else should one respond to an interview with a person about what motivates him (as in his very self)?

Try to catch the interview, it'll be available on iPlayer if you're interested.

Had you listened to the link I'd placed yesterday?

Had you missed my middle para in the above? LOL

PS: The Latin by itself would have sufficed btw ;-)

Wiki (with any suffix) is only as reliable as its contributors/amateur editors.

[BrandNewGuy]

It wasn't just the interview - which I've seen. You've been making ad hominem remarks throughout this thread. And wikipedia happens to be right in this case. And you can't assume that everyone knows what ad hominem means.

[????]

What does ad hominem mean?

[Keef]

It means someone is trying to come across as clever.

[Hill Dweller]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It wasn't just the interview - which I've seen.

> You've been making ad hominem remarks throughout

> this thread. And wikipedia happens to be right in

> this case. And you can't assume that everyone

> knows what ad hominem means.

I'll not be making apology for criticising the man.

He IS messianic.

He IS a mess.

You have your own opinion to which you're welcome but hey, where does ad hominem cease to apply?

AFTER your opining about me?

Tee hee.

[Hill Dweller]

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It means someone is trying to come across as

> clever.

It actually means attacking the person (which inlcudes their motivation) not their 'work'.

Hey, has the messiah expressed ANY concern for the imprisoned mole that his crass careless 'work' exposed?

[BrandNewGuy]

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It means someone is trying to come across as

> clever.

I put the meaning in my post, and I can't help it if someone hasn't read it.

[Hill Dweller]

If you are disagreeing with his/her misrepresentation why not say so?

.

[BrandNewGuy]

Hill Dweller Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Hey, has the messiah expressed ANY concern for the

> imprisoned mole that his crass careless 'work'

> exposed?

Any answer to that is utterly irrelevant to the rights and wrongs of what Wikileaks has done: is there a public interest in publishing these cables? Have any laws been broken by doing so? Has anyone's life been put at risk because of it?

Question of Assange's sexual conduct and his manner seem to me to have nothing to do with answering these questions.

[Dickensman]

I agree Brandnewguy but the Americans are desperate to "get him" for any half reason or pretext it seems.

[Hill Dweller]

Oh diddums BNG, if you have a hero-worship syndrome that I don't share, you will simply HAVE to put it down to our differing objectivities.

I think I did make 'allowance' for your messiah and his right to privacy when I expressed what I did in my 2.49pm post. Be that as it may I still felt like throwing up when he made the comment he lifted from Cohen. He doesn't share Cohen's TiC SoH.

I think SOME harm will come to be seen as having been done by his careless exposition of what he hadn't even read himself to know whom he was exposing and to what by it.

I think in SOME cases NO harm will have been done.

I don't think ASSange has the right to claim other people's material.

I could apply 'thought theft' to it.

I own what I say and choose where to say it. Doesn't everyone?

It's nobody else's to make a decision about, especially not a spoiled brat with a Mummy that led the way among those 'women have been kind' .....

He's a megalomaniac that has some (not all) of the Press around his finger AND as I asked in my first post on the topic ....... how well was his plan drawn up, how will he compensate for any damage (if any) that follows .... even if only hurt feelings?

[Hill Dweller]

Dickensman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree Brandnewguy but the Americans are

> desperate to "get him" for any half reason or

> pretext it seems.

Why would they need to get him to Sweden to achieve 'getting him'?

He is wanted in Sweden for so-called crimes committed in Sweden.

We do co-operate with US on extraditions .... are you confusing us with them, given that they never have, not throughout the IRA troubles nor do they with so many other nations.

[Hill Dweller]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It wasn't just the interview - which I've seen.

> You've been making ad hominem remarks throughout

> this thread. And wikipedia happens to be right in

> this case. And you can't assume that everyone

> knows what ad hominem means.

Oh accept my apologies ;-)

Your post was addressed to me ao I took your obsequious quoting from Wiki to have been for my assistance.

[BrandNewGuy]

Hill Dweller Wrote:

> Oh accept my apologies ;-)

> Your post was addressed to me ao I took your

> obsequious quoting from Wiki to have been for my

> assistance.

Enough with the annoying emoticons. And I suggest you look up the word 'obsequious'. Oh, and I don't have a messiah. And now I see you've added "megalomaniac" and "spoiled brat" to your ad hominem list. Yawn.