Wikileaks: Heroes of free speech or dangerous subversives?

[belboid]

I think it's perfectly obvious what's being said there dickhead. If what's been reported in the media is true, St Jules has a case to answer.

Yes, it is obvious. It is obvious you are talking shit, and have an appaling memory. So your opinion of what you have read is totally worrthless, considering you cant even remember what you yourself wrote!

Why do you think these complaints should not be investigated?

I have said no such thing, ajnd have repeatedly said it is possible he committed the acts. So you are lying again.

This is a really appaling job you're doing here. Go and have a lie down or somethng.

 

[belboid]

But who cares about him? Why make him some kind of media martyr? Web scuttlebutt is that the guy is a narcissist.

Wikileaks isn't JA, and it'll go on without him. Focus on the attacks on Wikileaks donations, domain hosting, not on some muppet who may or may not be a dick.

eh? So everyone should ignore the whole thing, even if it is a set up? Dont be silly.

 

[xes]

Get it?

Yes, as i said in my post. But you're still just touting what the medai says. It's very clear what your view on wikileaks, and Assange is. You're against it, and you'll stoop to any depths to get that point accross. (including suckling on daily wail articles for sustinance)

 

[Spymaster]

who's focusing on what? I'm replying to muppet comments which are repeating media propaganda. If you look at the other thread, you'll see that i'm far from doing what you say I'm doing. I'm reporting what's in the cables, mainly, from non MSM sources. (why would that be, i wonder) It's the likes of you, who are posting daily fucking mail sources, and trying to say that this guy is guilty of sex offences, because a "balanced" article said so, from the daily cuntingt fail. Check your courses, and where the source of the sources comes from. You'll get a shock if you do. Would love to elaborate, but I've got a bit of work to do now. [/signs off for a couple of hours]

The other thread's about the cables, this one's about Wikileaks and the peoples motivations. Discussion about the founders sexual proclivities as reported in the media is perfectly in place here.

Instead of wailing about the sources why not post something that credibly contradicts what they say?

Because you can't. What you've pulled there is the oldest trick in the U75 book, "nothing to say attack the source".

It's a cunts trick and I'd have thought better of you, given your own propensity to support all kinds of fanciful conspirashite!

 

[kyser_soze]

I'm not saying he is or isn't guilty of the sex offences. Never have. That's a matter for the Swedish to sort out.

Which non-MSM sources are you using xes? What information have you uncovered that hasn't already been featured elsewhere?

 

[xes]

You're right, the daily mail is a great source, we should all read it, and not check where they get their information from.

 

[xes]

I'm not saying he is or isn't guilty of the sex offences. Never have. That's a matter for the Swedish to sort out.

Which non-MSM sources are you using xes? What information have you uncovered that hasn't already been featured elsewhere?

well, the american company helping stoned afghan coppers to get little boys was from a non msm source, as have many of my other posts on there.

 

[Spymaster]

Yes, as i said in my post. But you're still just touting what the medai says. It's very clear what your view on wikileaks, and Assange is. You're against it, and you'll stoop to any depths to get that point accross. (including suckling on daily wail articles for sustinance)

Don't be a knob. I've made clear on this thread my view on the leaks, all good fun but nothing of any substance.

I'm not against the leaks per se (so far). I'm against the fawning over Julian Assange and the hypocrisy being shown here regarding hispossible offences. For sure.

 

[Spymaster]

You're right, the daily mail is a great source, we should all read it, and not check where they get their information from.

Well come on, show us what you've got, change my mind.

Put up or shut up!

 

[belboid]

I'm not against the leaks per se (so far). I'm against the fawning over Julian Assange and the hypocrisy being shown here regarding hispossible offences. For sure.

yeah well, we've already shown you are a liar, so your opinion counts for nowt. Not to mention being a potential sex offender.

 

[smokedout]

he does look a bit pervy though

has anyone mentioned that

 

[Spymaster]

Not to mention being a potential sex offender.

Post reported.

 

[Citizen66]

The other thread's about the cables, this one's about Wikileaks and the peoples motivations. Discussion about the founders sexual proclivities as reported in the media is perfectly in place here.

Instead of wailing about the sources why not post something that credibly contradicts what they say?

Because you can't. What you've pulled there is the oldest trick in the U75 book, "nothing to say attack the source".

It's a cunts trick and I'd have thought better of you, given your own propensity to support all kinds of fanciful conspirashite!

So what suddenly makes these claims credible bearing in mind they were dropped in the summer?

 

[belboid]

Post reported.

Jolly good. Now what about an apology for your lies on this thread?

 

[audiotech]

The OP specifically mentions wikileaks in an organisational sense and also to point out; defending wikileaks is not the same as defending rape. If any moron was likely to do that of course.

 

[Spymaster]

Now what about an apology for your lies on this thread?

No lies whatsoever.

I'll admit to making a mistake regarding what you quoted, but that's an exceedingly hollow victory to you, given that you were attempting to misrepresent what I'd posted anyway.

 

[belboid]

I haven't misrepresented you at all, and you explicitly lied in post 176 (as well as in the one denying you said what you explicitly said)

 

[TopCat]

sorry, I dont care about the opinion of a possible sex offender like you.

Stops using cunts tricks belboid, its really shitty behaviour.

 

[xes]

Stops using cunts tricks belboid, its really shitty behaviour.

Gonna go with this, as I've taken that road, and had to make a groveling appology (well, I didn;t have to, but I did have to, because i was acting like a cunt and it was the right thing to do)

 

[belboid]

Valid in context. It is clear to everyone reading the thread why it is being used. And not an actual lie, which we cant say about Spymasters posts.

 

[xes]

still not very dignified though. Not the way to win an argument.

 

[Random]

Two words: Gerry Healey

 

[belboid]

Dignity? When on earth do you think I cared about my 'dignity'??!!

As soon as Spymaster accepts he lied and apolgises, I'll stop doing it.

 

[phildwyer]

The timing certainly looks a bit suspect.

Hahaha.

Our rulers have shown that they have the instincts of gangsters. Hardly surprising, since underneath the toothy grins that is precisely what they are.

 

[belboid]

Two words: Gerry Healey

no one is saying that lefties can't be nasty rapists bastards are they? It's just that these accusations are so convenient

 

[audiotech]

It's all fucking speculative.

I was picking up on just the one point speculated upon so far, in relation to Urban75 members.

 

[phildwyer]

So you believe that the State, in serving the people, cannot have any secret information.

No-one has said that, as you know.

Our present governments have been able to wage their illegal wars, costing hundreds of thousands of lives, because they supposed that the details of their plots would remain secret. Now they have been caught out.

We can gauge their guilt by their response.

 

[Spymaster]

I haven't misrepresented you at all, and you explicitly lied in post 176 (as well as in the one denying you said what you explicitly said)

As I've said, I made a mistake regarding the quote and will happily admit that.

Your misrepresentation was in the semantic argument that I said "given what I've read, JA has a case to answer", whereas your argument was that there have been conflicting reports about his behaviour so one couldn't draw the conclusion that I have.

 

[belboid]

I said you couldnt say what you said, I am not so stupid as to say you couldnt draw any conclusion. Given the crap you've come out with, you could add 2+2 and make 159.

And nothing to say about your other lie then?

 

[kyser_soze]

Anyway, given that my last two posts have dissappeared (no conspiracy, just a shitty internet link at work)...

Can't be arsed with the too&fro anymore. If anyone is intersted, apparently flattr have started accepting wikileaks donations.