WikiLeaks - irresponsible journalism

Discussion in 'Wikileaks' started by derrick drew, Jan 15, 2011.

  1. derrick drew Member

    If one must use vulgarity just to make a point, then most likely my comment I apologized for about moronically boasting from behind a podium for self glorification should stand openly lose to allow a few the definition, not including yourself in that grouping though.. Your "sane revelation" makes a person ponder...what purpose the willfully constant use of vulgarity serves other than to emphasize a point one is lost to making well. Using explicative language is usually a sign of intolerant failure. I guess if you can feel free to decide I am one guilty of squeamish modesty, then I should feel welcome to make that assessment, thank you. I just refuse to lower what low amount of intellect others propose I have to casting shitty words back and forth at each other in the guise of holding a sane conversation...

    I'm glad there are some here smart enough to realize that its worth answering some of my questions rather than to merely lolly gag around without anything better to do than compromise their standpoint by doing nothing other than being derogatory. Its such actions from the little ones that doesn't lend your forum much weight in scruples.

    If an outsider were to look in on the conversation, they may find "some" fault with my concepts or the way I might even handle thing, but I am sure they would find a "childishness" to allot of the people who replied foolishly here.

    I have learned some things, but definitely not from more than two thirds of the posters that chose lower levels of decorum to make their point or failed to make a viable point....

    may we go on?


    are you thoroughly hopelessly exasperated as to educating me a bit more on the issues
  2. freedpatriots Member

    derrick drew a pretty post
    and tied it up in bows
    sure that everyone would see
    he was honest to his toes

    but the more his mouth flew open
    it was obvious to see
    Information, for him, was a game to play
    depending on who you may be.
  3. derrick drew Member

    Goofy? Perhaps, usually aloof, but usually not a pedant.

    I am well aware what comprises a straw man. Too, I read Don Quixote, probably, before you were born(1975)

    Now, back to lurking.[/quote]

    Nerd you lie (promised you were merely going to lurk off somewhere), alas....(sighs in boredom) and offer no input on the subject other than playing some highly intelligently gifted personage....and to others....I'm 53 years old and served in the Regular I am no spring fool....

    Zak seems to hold a persona also of higher intellectual gifts with words and guys buddy up together somewhere (hypothetically speaking)

    because you have surely given up lending any viable input, and are pretty much aiding in none other than worthless word lessons

    how intelligent is that (LOL)
  4. derrick drew Member

    You guys are ripping me up with entertainment,


    you and Zak and Nerd ought to open your own thread together

    I bet you guys would have hours of silly fun
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Zak McKracken Member

    I'd never seen it before, but you're right:
    Google: "tilting at straw"
    About 5,680 results (0.53 seconds)

    Google: "tilting at windmills"
    About 239,000 results (0.53 seconds)

    Not "oft" enough for me, but I concede :)

    I was reading nurd books in 1975.
    And making S/360s crash, and old people like Derrick Drew pull their hair out in frustration.
  6. Zak McKracken Member

    Untitled Poem

    derrick: fuck
    you fuck you fuck you
    fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck
  7. Consensus Member

    It does a disservice to yourself and your interlocutors to allow tone to undermine a conversation. The validity of arguments, the quality of ideas is ALL THAT MATTERS in determining which ideas have the most merit - tone simply doesn't enter into it. To distract the conversation with conversations about 'tone' and 'vulgarity' undermines the aim of reaching a consensus.

    The solution is to foster a community where vulgarity is openly tolerated, but where the quality of ideas is the largest determining factor in which posts receive endorsement and which receive rebuke. Anyone who then comes to the community demanding an end to the vulgarity is told to GTFO and nothing of value is lost.
  8. derrick drew Member

    you have a nice day too Zak, don't ferget them thar meds Doc McValium left for you at the bedside before bedtime okay....ROFL

    you allllllll amaze me

    this is better than TV I guess
  9. derrick drew Member


    I guess you have the right to your opinion, but a mod you are not...and your "consensus" is narrow minded and lame for your concept of "tone" simply is an excuse to lower the value of a point sought for

    I thought, well maybe this sight DOES have rather lenient word usage protocols and everyone more or less allows open usage of cuss words to explain a point..and enjoys that basis as a fun but forum wide misuse in such childish ways of verbalizations

    but then I researched it, looked through other threads, and guess what

    your lame!

    I wonder if this site has the function to look up a members past posts....I wanted to reference some user's and compare them to others that don't hide behind proposed higher educational learning levels and simply sit around heckling a post for past time?

    Carry on, as I am sure I can overlook your value of insight or lack thereof and gain more by focusing on the other more viable posts that wish to deal with the issues I sought to learn more about.

    If they feel burdened and decide not to post, then I will be glad to leave of my own accord...I came freely and will leave freely...and I guess you can smile and enjoy your spurts of wisdom for entertainment as assholes are a dime a dozen

    I would wish you a nice evening of course, but not, of course laughingly posted
  10. Consensus Member

    I strongly advise you to abandon the word 'opinion.'

    See, there are two sorts of statements that we might disagree upon - belief about some truth-evaluable claim, and subjective preferences. You might prefer mushroom pizza, while I prefer sausage, and we can disagree on that point without either of us being 'right.' If, on the other hand, you believe that god exists, and I insist he does not, we are disagreeing on a truth-evaluable proposition. Whether we have sufficient evidence and reasoning to reach a consensus or not, the fact remains that one must be wrong and one must be right. The discussion from there should then become a collection of arguments and evidence, with evaluations of each argument and each bit of data.

    When you use the word 'opinion', you allow for equivocation between 'beliefs' and 'preferences.' This muddies the dialog.

    Furthermore, you owe it to yourself to research and understand the is/ought gap. Basically, truth-evaluable claims are all 'is' statements. And oughts? Claims about the ethical actions and moral duties? They're all ultimately subjective. You conflate this in your argument.

    (no, I am definitely not a mod. Thank christ.)
  11. Anonymous Member

    It's always nice to see two titans of intellect in fruitless debate.
    I hope you don't consider my jpg infelicitous.

    Uploaded with
  12. Consensus Member

    Alright Mr. Drew, here's the deal:

    Suppose there's Person A and Person B. Person A is just some guy on the internet. Person B is some government employee with top secret access. Person B, upset at what his government is doing, hands off all the top secret information to Person A, whom he barely knows. Person A then publishes those documents unredacted.

    If we do not insert any additional stipulations - Person A never 'conspired' to help Person B 'extract' this information, and did not rape anybody or anything like that - Person A has committed NO crime. The first amendment of our constitution guarantees this - any law that would make Person A's actions illegal would itself be unconstitutional. Keep in mind it's the fuckin' FIRST amendment for a reason. And that the 'freedom of the press' applies to ANYBODY WHO CLAIMS IT - the government does not and CANNOT issue 'press licenses.'

    Now, that's a legal argument. That doesn't mean that it's 'responsible' or 'pragmatic' for Person A to release this information. If you want to start a discussion on how hypothetical Person A can ensure that his actions are 'responsible' and 'pragmatic', that's a discussion I'd love to participate in. But the conversation MUST begin with the understanding that any person has a legal right to publish what they please, regardless of how responsible or practical it is to publish it. This right can only be rescinded by accepting a job with a 'special obligation.' Neither Assange nor our hypothetical 'Person A' has done so.

    The question of how much 'harm' is done by publishing these works is relevant to the question of how Person A can behave most responsibly. In such a discussion, the harm must be weighed against the good. Any evaluation that considers only the harm (or only the good) is disingenuous and useless. It must be a cost/benefit evaluation. And it must begin with the concession that we do not have access to all information, and are unable to anticipate all possible outcomes. If you wish to make a case for passing a new law that would forbid a particular action, you should begin with this same cost/benefit evaluation - but if the law you are proposing would be unconstitutional, it doesn't matter what your cost/benefit analysis reveals. That is, if you understand and believe in the constitution. And it's your right not to - but if that's your position, make it explicitly clear.
    • Like Like x 3
  13. derrick drew Member

    Why do my statements give you an initiative to subject my "argument" to an evaluation of the basic "mapping" of my conversation?

    Maybe I am NOT as intellectual as some here, so what? My questions hold worth...

    I agree that there shouldn't be any oppressive act by government to quarantine at their discretion, public information that proposes a purpose to the common good. Who's to judge what is or isn't? Who can answer that objectively? Does that mean that freedom of information should include what not just myself but even what others call irresponsible acts? I provided a link or two there on that, but then most here are aware of other's opinions on that matter. What I wished to find out is why they felt totally supporting Wikileak's Ammand no matter what seemed worthy of the cause to support open information acts, no matter what the cost is to the general public.

    If the government were more willing to make public classified records, it may very well show a horrified picture of the harm those leaks have already caused or may cause in the future. Are their hands tied in disclosing such information because it will cause further embarrassment to the government? Is there resources out there where someone like myself can view more of these purposed videos and articles that pertain to the questions I asked.

    I downloaded 7zip and tried to download the files from WikiLeaks alternative site for archives and couldn't get 7zip to open anything.

    I felt the points offered by others were viable and said as much...

    I have clarified some of my earlier statements and asked questions, not to chop those replies apart, but to ask reasonable questions...

    if this site is merely for the purpose of fellow believers to correlate information between a locked and tight nit group, then why offer open membership without being recommended or supported by another member?

    If members aren't willing to discuss openly their beliefs and bash anyone for having an alternative viewpoint, then why label it under the site statement for it surely isn't out to protect freedom.

    I have come to feel in viewing the mentality and statements here by some, and I repeat “only some”, that the truth isn't what they are after really, or rather they surely make you tend to feel that way. They throw high dollar words around as loosely as old women having tea in England, while they lash you with a total lack of wisdom.

    I found a simple search on WikiPedia that held information of the damage done by Wikileaks Afghan leaks

    and the reviews mentioned and commented on were by the actual sources WikiLeaks handed the leaked information over too as viable sources.

    The leak reportedly names hundreds of Afghan informants. The Times offered as examples[52]
    a 2008 report that includes a detailed interview with a Taliban fighter considering defection and ends with "[t]he meeting ended with [named person] agreeing to meet intel personnel." Both his father's name and village are also included in the report;
    a report that read "[named person] said he would be killed if he got caught interacting with any coalition forces, which is why he hides when we go into [named location]". The paper also found that a man killed by the Taliban two years ago after being suspected of spying for American forces was named in the logs and described as "highly pro-Government of Afghanistan and Coalition Forces. He should be taken seriously in his claims of insurgent knowledge." Another report gave the names, father's names, tribe, village and GPS co-ordinates for homes of individual villagers while stating that "[named person] wanted to help us as much as possible... [but] they were afraid that the people in the next village would see them talking to Americans."[53][clarification needed]
    Ahmad Nader Nadery, a commissioner at the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, said that revealing the names and villages of people who interacted with U.S. troops was an "irresponsibility".[
    People wanted proof of the harm done, there is only a couple of instances. But then of course there is always the radical view, "its worth a few lives lost to save the many lives of others"...that sounds like a military reply to me.

    55] Julian Assange answered the question on whether the release might cost lives: "We can't guarantee it. But our understanding of the material is that it's vastly more likely to save lives than cost lives."

    Yet just after that there were reports from the Pentagon even that there was no proof that actual informants were harmed....
    I am not sure if they are saying that to try to keep future informants from going tight lipped or if it’s a true statement….who are you to believe…
    People said they wanted me to post links as to where anyone at all has been harmed
    I ask in reply, what person with common sense can say or guarantee that anyone won’t be hurt…Assange himself hasn’t even found the will to make that statement
    so I am about as confused as when I started...
    so where can I find information supporting Assanges RIGHT to post harmful information under the call of freedom of information…
    whether people get hurt or not…
    that would give him leave from any responsibility of any of the claims against him
  14. derrick drew Member

    That I can swallow...that my "lower intellect" can adsorb

    I posted my last comment prior to getting your message here

    Thanks so very much for the perspective, and the patience to explain it

    and please read my last post objectively and see where its easy for a person to get confused
  15. Robert S Member

    this old classic comes to mind...
    SomeoneIsWrong.jpg [IMG][IMG]
  16. Mark Cabian Member

    • Like Like x 1
  17. Anonymous Member

    Please take this as a sincere answer to your query...

    Answer: Somewhere else.
  18. Anonymous Member

    I have Typing Tourettes Syndrome (TTS), so I can't help but FUCK BOOBS lace my comments with profanity.
    This is a very SHIT serious condition that has haunted and traumatized me since childhood.

    DONKEY COCK For you to demand that I stop swearing, just to meet your criteria of a "civilized" discussion is BALLS both insensitive, callous, and a violation of my right to live free of persecution.

    I demand an immediate fucking apology TURD.
  19. Rockyj Member

    "All I can say to this is that the closer someone might get to making valid and provable statements that may oppose your's, the more literally insulting you will simply get in guise of intelligent input."
    The only comment I agree with in regard to some members here & trolls but you must realize by now you're not exactly preaching to the choir.
  20. Kilia Member

    So THIS is why your here! You're fuckin BORED!!
  21. Anonymous Member

    The more I see words like "foolish" and "virtuous" in OPs posts, the more convinced I am that it's some Chinese guy furiously using Google translate to spew out these multi-paragraph crimes against the English language.
  22. Anonymous Member

    Bored troll is bored.
    • Like Like x 1
  23. Anonymous Member

    Can't find pancake bunny, but this will work
  24. Fantôme Member

    Gentlemen, you can't fight here. This is the War room!!

    Seriously, most of us outside the US sort of knew what your Gov was cooking 'round the world for it's own interests, which let me tell you, are not yours. Anyways, we welcome the confirmation of our suspicions through wikileaks. It´s a sort of "I knew it!" feeling.
    But for you Americans, this should have been a major shock. Instead of discussing whether it is safe or not for your interests and safety that this things have been revealed, you should be outraged 'bout what "your" government has been doing lately with your tax money while thousands are homeless, jobeless and without healthcare in the land of the free.
    • Like Like x 4
  25. Fantôme Member

    Looks like Igor got an A.B.Normal's brain for this guy and prof Frank didn´t notice 'til after he implanted it :S
  26. Anonymous Member

    I am outraged that you foreigners have access to our secrets.
    Our military and spies are clearly failing to assassinate those dangerous terrorists around the world
    who spread vicious lies about alleged "corruption" and "abuses" in the United States.

    God gave us a free country, and we're proud of it! Sucks that He didn't give you guys one....
    • Like Like x 1
  27. Fantôme Member

    Oh my Gosh, how wrong I have been! I though the US was something like this:
    • Like Like x 1
  28. themadhair Member

    I miss the dome even moar nao. How much crap-flinging could I get away with given how retarded this thread is?
  29. freedpatriots Member

  30. freedpatriots Member

    I wonder if this site has the function to look up a members past posts...I wonder if this site has the function to look up a members past posts...I wonder if this site has the function to look up a members past posts...I function look up a members past posts...Bingo.....DOJ ? I wanted to reference some user's ...I want to reference some user's, hmmm
  31. al-angel Member

    Somepeople hera are writing against what wilileaks has published, well I just want to say that goverments are living on our money so we have rights to know what they do and if they are doing what they are saying to us, so for me, what wikileak is doing is the best thing to improve our world and respect the human rights. The power people must realise that they are not the owners of our lives and our planet. I can´t undestand normal people who don´t support what wikileaks is doing and give reasons about the right to have secret and things like "not hurt people". I think that kind of people don´t believe in the freedom expresion.
  32. Herro Member

    Derrik don't get caught up on the whole "intellectual" thing. Nobody here is smarter than you because everyone here is pretty fucking stupid. Except for me of course. You morons are lucky that I see fit to bestow my brilliance upon you.
  33. Ersatz Global Moderator

    /r/ Herro faggotry trophy plz.
  34. Herro Member

    That would be my second trophy nomination from the community. Earlier some bitch named "Zonker" nominated me for "hottest beefcake on wwp."
  35. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  36. Ann O'Nymous Member

    OP and Herro are the best trolls in this thread, IMHO.

    The former seems to be unaware of it; the latter forgot to mention its title.
  37. Herro Member

    That's three nominations.

    Give me a sec to pull some IPs and I'll blow your mind.
  38. Anonymous Member

    Anonymous is a cult of cyber-anarchists and information-terrorists and Julian ASSange is its prophet and leader.
    • Like Like x 1
  39. pepo Member

    I think that Wikileaks had to do as we made anonymous so i would save that if reports of problems here that if threats over there i do not need to stand up for this
  40. Ersatz Global Moderator

    You realize mods can still see who posts anonymously, right?

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins