wikileaks

[ImpetuousVrouw]

I seem to have completely missed some briefing somewhere. Can someone explain what is gwanin?

[Dickensman]

Louisiana wrote:- Right, where's my Crabbies...

I think you may be unlucky louisiana, my guess is Hill Dweller quaffed the lot,

hence the sore head and the moaning.

[Hill Dweller]

Let's have it Lou ....

You dare, here, to claim the moral high ground in your sucky-uppy pseudo righteous appreciation of the discloser of info that its owners deem confidential .... no matter its sensitivity and who it might be exposing to danger.

So do you, in your professional capacity, claim the same right with your clients so they cannot trust you with the translations they ask you to do? I'm sure you don't, so where do the marks lie for you?

Let's be 'avin' you, else it's all hot air and you can just admit to being one of the EDF herd for the sake of it .... sweeeet xxx

[ImpetuousVrouw]

We all pay for the people who are being exposed by Wikileaks and are often otherwise unaccountable. We have a moral right, if not a legal right, to know what they are doing in our name, being paid with our taxes.

Louisiana's clients would expect to have access to the translation they pay for and would have a right to question her work if it appeared to be erroneous. Why you would expect someone who is completely unconnected with this process, to have access needs explanation Hilldweller.

[Huguenot]

Whilst I agree with the principle IV, there's a bit of a confusion between the means and the end.

Would you prefer to have the UK fail in its international strategy (for example regular supplies of resources such as oil and gas that keep everyine alive), but be principled in its behaviour?

It's easy to be 'principled' now, but you might not feel so good about it if you find yourself back in the stone age.

[ImpetuousVrouw]

I'm a greeny Hugo so not kenn on our dependence on oil and gas anyway. Not sure we'd end up in the stone age without these things either. You should check out how Cuba dealt with their 'peak' oil crisis.

http://www.powerofcommunity.org/cm/index.php

[Huguenot]

I understand the environmental perspective, I hope that we can also be pragmatic with that...

I'm not sure there's many Brits who would like to take on a Cuban standard of living just for the sake of diplomatic niceties.

As I've said before, most of Wikileaks output is either widely known, tittle tattle, or just part of the usual ebb and flow of intentational negotiation.

Exceptions like the coverage of US helicpoter forces indulging in homicidal chicken shoots on innocent civilians mean that's not always the case of course :-(

[Dickensman]

Huguenot wrote:-

Exceptions like the coverage of US helicpoter forces indulging in homicidal chicken shoots on innocent civilians.

I thought that type of behaviour was the myth of movie makers to sell tickets, I shall have to change my views on this subject now Huguenot.

Thanks for that.

[louisiana]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> Whilst I agree with the principle IV, there's a

> bit of a confusion between the means and the end.

>

> Would you prefer to have the UK fail in its

> international strategy (for example regular

> supplies of resources such as oil and gas that

> keep everyine alive), but be principled in its

> behaviour?

>

> It's easy to be 'principled' now, but you might

> not feel so good about it if you find yourself

> back in the stone age.

Perhaps an element of pragmatism is required.

Sometimes we do not appear to be acting in a principled way, even when the cost is nil or not great.

And perhaps our international strategy should be adjusted to better reflect present and future international realities?

What does it cost us to be principled with the Chagosians? Why feed our poodle status viz a viz the USA, when they don't even supply us with oil? :-S

The US seems to have a remarkable hold over many governments, and influence seems palpable in many situations. Yet the US is a declining world power. Readjustment required?

[Hill Dweller]

deleted duplicte

[Hill Dweller]

ImpetuousVrouw Wrote:

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

> We all pay for the people who are being exposed by

> Wikileaks and are often otherwise unaccountable.

> We have a moral right, if not a legal right, to

> know what they are doing in our name, being paid

> with our taxes.

>

> Louisiana's clients would expect to have access to

> the translation they pay for and would have a

> right to question her work if it appeared to be

> erroneous. Why you would expect someone who is

> completely unconnected with this process, to have

> access needs explanation Hilldweller.

Clearly you have not undeerstood the point.

Clearly you will claim the point wasn't clear enough.

We do not ALL have the time to see and read ALL that passes between people in their jobs, do you even keep on top of what IS your own little in-tray?

We are therefore ALways only aware of part of what we should be.

At any moment there are things we have read out of their proper order, emails or faxes that haven't reached us or stuff that's merely unopened as yet because there was a meeting, blah blah blahdy blah.

Can you really take on all the paperwork of the Home Sec, Foreign Sec, all the diplomats and all the managers and all the editors and all the other in-betweeners in adddition to your own workload?

Do we really all need to be doing everyone else's jobs as well as our own?

Are you super-human enough?

We have the right to expect efficiency from those we pay, if you make the same gormless assertion that ASSange has you might as well admit here and now that your bosses have the right to listen in to your every convo in any medium.

We also pay the wages of every cashier in the supermarket (as well as all the pensions of all the retirees) .... do we have access to their every thought and spout too ...... ? Or is there a snob-like judgement about what we do and what we don't have access to?

Don't be so doggawn gormless.

EVERY job entails the skill of editing properly and ASSange has not edited at all, he has merely spewed uncolloated unordered out of order out of chronology undated untitled misdescribed EVERY****ing thing.

To even pretend that he is in the right forces me to assume you're wannabe-teenaged-again, before nuance mattered.

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

You've also not understood my point about Lou's work.

Kinda proves my point doesn't it ....... that having some info not all info having access to all info but not having read all that info leaves one open to making stupid misjudgements.

Lou interprets for one side in a case.

S/he might in fact work for both, there'd be nothing wrong in that if translating is mere objectivity (but it isn't).

In seeing what s/he is given to translate s/he might get a hint of what that side's tactic is going to be.

As we know, in adversarial (as are most legal) situations, tactics are something one needs to keep close to one's chest.

If s/he were ASSange-like would s/he be right to spill dem beans to the other side?

[Hill Dweller]

Very interesting convo in the last ten minutes of this programme :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00wr9pr

It's not yet available for Listen Again though, probably not till the repeat has been broadcast.

.