Slashdot Mirror
NYTimes On Dealings With Assange
kaapstorm found an NYT story on Assange saying "Assange slouched into The Guardian office, a day late. Schmitt took his first measure of the man who would be a large presence in our lives. 'He's tall — probably 6-foot-2 or 6-3 — and lanky, with pale skin, gray eyes and a shock of white hair that seizes your attention,' Schmitt wrote to me later. 'He was alert but disheveled, like a bag lady walking in off the street, wearing a dingy, light-colored sport coat and cargo pants, dirty white shirt, beat-up sneakers and filthy white socks that collapsed around his ankles. He smelled as if he hadn't bathed in days.'"
Real heroes also don't rape women!
You mean like the troops we're supposed to be supporting in flag-humping fervor?
NYT spent less than 0.5% of the text detailing Assange's transformation from the regular hacker attire to someone wearing formal clothes (thus making him also a human, a person, not just a source) on that and you think NYT considers that part the most important? The other 99.5% detailing the leak and relationship between NYT, Other Newspapers, Assange and The US Government are not considered important to you?
The Wikileaks-Assanage-Manning debacle could prove to he Obama's Watergate.
The intent of the "suicide" watch on Pfc Manning is to obtain his suicide; Gates+Obama+DOJ have broken copious laws and need Manning to kill himself in order to get them off the hook.
We need to know the secret Executive Orders Obama has issued regarding Assanage and Wikilieaks.
The next 25 months will be as intersting as the Tet Offinsive + the Plumbers + Nixon Impeachment and Resignation.
Great stuff like this does not come often enough.
-308
PS. An independent investigation has discovered that Wikileaks broke no Laws (Iceland at least) and no rules of Mastercard!
This asks the question, "Should Mastercard be sued by Wikileaks for breach of contract and libel (Assanage et al.) and defamation?".
Oh Boy! Here we go!
Will Obama be called as witness to defend his executive orders?
Let us hope so!
I figured you were making a snide quip which was cool, but now that your post has been modded "+5 Insightful" I feel the need to respond, not to your comment (I have no problems with it) but to the general attitude here that would see a joke not as a joke but as an elucidation of some conspiracy by the NYT author to smear Assange.
In an article about personal dealings with Assange and not about Wikileaks, describing the man through someone's eyes helps to ground the scene of the story, making it more vivid and engaging. Did he not appear disheveled, did he not look tired? If indeed, then it's a vivid way of describing a man who had prioritized his work above even his own hygiene and upkeep, which gives you a sense of how involved and single-minded Assange was in pursuing his ideals -- it gives you the sense that he truly believes Wikileaks is important, more so perhaps than even himself. The short description can say all that without being tiresomely explicit. This kind of story-telling is what makes an article a captivating read, a veiled attempt to make Assange look bad is really the last thing it could be.
Just throwing some sense out hoping to dilute the deep cynicism and paranoia I see here.
I kindly ask everyone to read the entire article first before judging it as an attempt to discredit. I think it's a captivating story worth reading.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Personally, I'm full up on all the black and white thinking.
Guess what? There is a middle ground where Assange is not a hero, he is a human being, who does good and bad things. We can decry the rush to smear Assange without assuming he is a hero. Nothing in the post you respond to indicates hero worship, and so it really appears as though you are trying to smear all of Assange's defenders as mere unthinking "hero worshipers." Is that your intention?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton