DC Tom Posted December 20, 2010 Share Posted December 20, 2010 See, I can't win for losing. I was going to write a complete response to this, which would have induced crying about length. Instead, I wrote a short one, which I hoped would be taken in the proper context, and I have induced crying about content. I should have said "proved wrong/silly TO ME". And why? Because unlike Gene, you and I have the backgrounds as well as understanding of world events and history to know that nations need secrets. Not necessarily secrets for nefarious purposes, but because blabbing everything we know to every GeneFrenkle so we can say "see, it's TRANSPARENT" is not only worthless, it's pointless. The sheer amount of data alone is not something that is worth disseminating. Look at what Assange has released, what was so important? What did he accomplish? 87k pages of stuff....and we find out Karzei is a loon. I knew that by watching an interview wit the guy. So, again, most of this is worthless. Discretion, is, by definition, discrete. If we want to just blab everything we hear to everybody we meet, so that GeneFrenkle gets to transparently know that a Polish diplomat poops in a bag, awesome! Yeah, people won't want to tell us anything, because we can't keep private things to ourselves. If we can't be trusted to STFU, then we can't prevent war with diplomacy, it's a simple as that. It only takes on meaning once "intelligence" has been created. That is something we don't want getting out: because that tips people off as to "how" and "what" we are thinking, which is a whole other ballgame. Ultimately, I am laughing at Gene's attachment to, yet again, a platitude. In this case "transparency". I am beginning to think Gene goes through life saying "measure twice, cut once" every 5 minutes. You know that commercial where the tool keeps saying "this is gonna be a win/win"? I am starting to think that's Gene....and that makes me Good !@#$ing Lord. How long was the "complete" response, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 Good !@#$ing Lord. How long was the "complete" response, then? Three words short of "War and Peace." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 Good !@#$ing Lord. How long was the "complete" response, then? I am beginning to think that you are simply like crying. Can't argue with my content, so it's always about process. How much do you want to bet that none of these tools knew the proper definition of "intelligence" prior to that post? And, how much do you want to bet that most of them will forget this simple concept in 2 weeks? Still waiting for any of them to get the nuance here. They seem to think that attacking me = understanding the issue. Laughable. They Fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 They Fail. Using fail excessively = fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 (edited) Using fail excessively = fail. Using Fail to accurately and consistently define Fail = Win. Edited December 21, 2010 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted December 21, 2010 Author Share Posted December 21, 2010 Geeesh! I wish with you guys would have ignored my stupid post..now I have a headache try to follow the bickering going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted December 21, 2010 Author Share Posted December 21, 2010 and just maybe knee-jerk blanket statements of "Assmange is a terrorist" or "I 'heart' transparancy" are rather facile. In his first UK newspaper interview since releasing hundreds of secret diplomatic cables last month, Mr Assange told The Times he predicts the US will face reprisals if it attempts to extradite him on conspiracy charges. Read more: http://www.news.com.au/features/wikileaks/wikileaks-boss-julian-assange-turns-on-friends-and-foes/story-fn79cf6x-1225974366476#ixzz18ksFaczm Really he's not terrorist like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 I am beginning to think that you are simply like crying. Can't argue with my content, so it's always about process. I was going to make a more substantive reply, except 1) I was replying on my phone, and 2) although I didn't have much trouble understanding the Faulkernesque stream-of-consciousness post, crafting a response to it was another matter. And 3) your observation of its "brevity" was desperately crying out for a response on its own. Really he's not terrorist like? I predict the US will face reprisals if the prosecute him. Doesn't make me a terrorist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted December 21, 2010 Author Share Posted December 21, 2010 (edited) I predict the US will face reprisals if the prosecute him. Doesn't make me a terrorist. True, if we lived in a vacuum and that is the only bit of information we have to consider. You would have to agree that there is a big difference if you were to say it as opposed to if lets say for agreements sake Bin laden said it Edited December 21, 2010 by whateverdude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 (edited) Link "Assange said that Russians will soon find out a lot about their country, and he wasn't bluffing," Novaya Gazeta said, according to Bloomberg News. "Our collaboration will expose corruption at the top tiers of political power. No one is protected from the truth." Edit - Can I change my prediction from 24 hours after leaking the BoA stuff? A little light reading on the Russian mafia. Link The government in Moscow estimates the Russian mafia controls 40% of private business and 60% of state-owned companies. Unofficial sources say 80% of Russian banks are controlled either directly or indirectly by criminals. I throw in the latter stat because I find it remarkable that they are a full 19% behind us... Edited December 22, 2010 by Booster4324 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 Link Wait a minute, I thought they were just going after the US specifically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted December 22, 2010 Author Share Posted December 22, 2010 Link This further supports a dead pool because the Russians do not mess around. If he does release info about Russia and other closed governments then I may have to change opinion of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 Link Hope his life insurance has ricin and polonium poisoning riders. Man, when your choices are "rape conviction" or "Russian hit team", you are VSF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 Wait a minute, I thought they were just going after the US specifically? Who said that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 Who said that? RKFast...I know, I know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 I find the whole way wikileaks operates to be disingenuous and ironic. If the purpose of my “media” organization is to promote transparency in world governments, I’d first apply a 80/20 rule knowing that you cannot possible categorize and interpret all the data coming into wilkileaks. Make a list of governments that have closed societies and secrete governments and put them at the top of the list. Governments like North Korea, China, Iran, Russia etc.. and concentrate most of my efforts on them. It is quite clear what the true motivation of the wikileaks is and it’s not transparency in government but is to knock down the US and its cultural influences in the world. The whole ironic thing is that wikileaks would have never gotten such information from a government that was not as transparent as the US. Wait a minute, I thought they were just going after the US specifically? Who said that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 (edited) Oh I see, you're talking about our esteemed message board members..... Edited December 22, 2010 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 Google Assange Dead Pool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 Google Assange Dead Pool Nice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted December 22, 2010 Author Share Posted December 22, 2010 Oh I see, you're talking about our esteemed message board members..... um....should I feel insulted. BTW he has not done anything yet against Russia. US is maybe 1% of the problem and he's spent 95% of his effort on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts