Haha, skimmed that and most of it is right, although I personally strongly disagree with the "Fact: Women love long hair! It's an instant chick magnet." - to each their own! Got a number of my own comments that aren't in there, too. But in general, looks pretty solid.
And lol, I'm currently in the middle of playing the Reykjavík circuit, so unless you live in the 101...;) Oh, and there should be a extra addendum to that guide, just for Icelandic guys: Stop talking about your penis! I get it, it's really impressive...
Oh, and another thing about that guide - it focuses on evolution too much. For example, they stress the confidence, boldness stuff, which is really good. But then they mention it as if it's *only* a side effect of evolution, when it can have some... um... practical applications.;)
Oh, and at risk of going too far off tangent, my favorite thing (in the context of "amusing") that a guy I was dating said to me.... Context: we were driving home to my place, and he had previously been talking about how much he wanted to sleep with me, what he planned to do to me... then it was suddenly derailed by an offhand comment I made on a side tangent of conversation. Him: “Wait, you've never seen Dr. Who!?!" (beat) "Okay, we're going to get to your place, download and watch the first episode of Dr. Who, and *THEN* we're going to have sex!”
What I'm wondering is, what is the concept here, that you wear the same bra every day? Or do you have a dozen separate anti-cancer bras, and if so, how expensive are these things expected to be? And how do you wash them? And when they wear out, does the data transfer to the next bra? Does it have to be recalibrated? Does it come in different types (for example, some people prefer underwire, some hate them)? Will I have to plug in and charge my bra every day?
Just seeing some potential real-life challenges here...
A woman knows within five minutes of meeting you if she'll have sex with you or not. Your personality determines her reaction to your checking out her assets
That statement seems contradictory. Either she's made the decision and the personality is irrelevant, or she hasn't and it is. Or are you describing the "meeting" as when conversation begins, rather than when you see the other person?
I can only speak for myself, but a guy seems a lot more attractive if he has a good personality, and vice versa. The difference can be quite significant. A good personality can't make an ugly person look good, but it definitely can make a more marginal person look good (and a personality bad can make me question a person who I previously found attractive).
BTW, am I the only person here who ever made a User's Guide to yourself for potential dating partners?;) I really should add some technical diagrams after the first "This page intentionally left blank"...
That article was published on 11 october 5:44 PM. The paywall went right back up and here's what Anonymous posted on their website just a few hours later. I'm especially interested in seeing what's in their dossier on Wikileaks. It's about time WikiLeaksLeaks turned from a joke into reality;)
So danged scummy. People went to jail to give them that information. And they didn't go to jail so Assange could raise money to run from rape charges.
So damned ironic given that Assange was just a couple weeks ago saying that a vendor in Tunisia didn't set himself on fire so Obama could win an election after Obama mentioned the Arab spring in a speech.
To anyone who hasn't realized Assange's ego, they clearly haven't read anything he's ever written or said;) His old blog at IQ.org is one of the biggest collections of naval gazing I've ever seen in one place, and that was back in 2006, before his self-aggregandizing hit new levels. Complete with such great hits as his "women's brains can't do math" and "I am a god to women" posts.
Oh, and on that subject, just for any women who happen to meet him: his standard tactic (which women have over and over mentioned he's tried (and/or succeeded with)) is the "little lost boy" approach. That is, in his initial and/or remote dealings, he plays himself up, usually describing the danger he lives in and plots against him, generally with some fictional storybook-style accounts of his past. When he's there in person, however, he acts sick, lost, confused, etc to try to get you to take care of him in your home (he only does this with women). "Take care of" ends up running the mundane from doing his laundry up to and including sleeping with him, depending on what his needs are at a given point in time.
Lol, now even Anonymous has a conspiracy against Assange?
Get over the guy... he's a self-aggregandizing narcisist and self-described "chauvinist" who lives his life like he's a character in a fiction book, complete with "retconning" his past. It's a real pity that he ended up the central figure in such an important cause as transparency instead of someone more stable.
I read an article with an interview with an Anonymous spokesman on this issue who took the time to drive home the fact this statement doesn't speak for all members of Anonymous because Anonymous does not have a single voice or opinion on anything; however, he stated that this has become the predominant view in the organization as of late and there's been a lot of anger over it, and that this has been brewing for a while as Wikileaks increasingly turns away from leaks and more toward lionizing and defending Assange.
Personally, the only way I'd ever lionize Assange would be in an arena, and it'd involve real lions.
Also, 8 weeks? Um.... why? It took my ship under 2 weeks to go from the US (Virginia, I think) to Iceland. A couple days for domestic travel on the US end and a fraction of a day on the Iceland end and a couple days in port on each end.
First off, I'm one of the few people commenting on this thread who's actually moved overseas and sent a computer in their personal belongings crate.
This whole question and most of the answers is a whole lot of hullaballoo over nothing. First, as to carrying the computer onboard carryon or checked baggage: the person will have so much airplane baggage when moving that they're not going to have room to be hauling all their electronics in it, and it'd *definitely* be safer in the shipping crate than in checked baggage.
You know the most dangerous time for shipped goods? Going to and from the port. *Not* while on the ship, not even when being loaded. It's no more dangerous to move by ship than by moving company. Just make sure everything is strapped down *WELL*. It helps if your shipping container is as small as you can possibly get all of your stuff into. Are you using palettes and a partial load or getting a whole crate? Remember that if you get a whole crate you may not be able to have it lowered all the way to the ground, so if you're loading it yourself, you should rent a forklift to help get your stuff in, whether you use palettes or not.
Neither heat nor cold nor static will be a problem. Oceans are temperature moderators and you don't get much more grounded than being surrounded by a giant steel box. Of course your ink will survive; why wouldn't it? And I should reiterate, buy as much of whatever you consume regularly *before* the move because your life will be hectic after it and it takes time to learn where you can buy everything (if it's even available in your new location), esp. if there's a language barrier.
You're thinking of the wrong stuff. When it comes to packing, the primary thing you need to be thinking about is, "how tightly can I wedge all this in and how tightly can I strap it all down?" Whether computer parts or not. And if you're moving to a place with different power, Buy Way More Inverters Than You Think You Need. Get big heavy duty ones and lots of them, not "just enough", because they will break eventually.
Best of luck with your move. I bet you'll be watching the port for your ship like I was!;)
Which makes the whole conspiracy absurd then - why go through this whole mess if they just wanted to kill him and make it look like an accident? Heck, at this point in time the *easiest* way to do that would be to let him go to Ecuador, where crime is rampant.
In Sweden, charges are the last thing that happens before a trial, and there's a time limit between laying them and the trial. Sweden has lots of those pesky "protections for the accused" - how dare they, right?
No charges can be laid in absentia from Sweden, get a clue.
There is testimony is the leaked transcript that the second woman explicitly said she was raped, get a clue. To pick on example, after the event, she phoned her ex bf and told him she'd just been raped by Assange. Its in his testimony, read it yourself - Seth Bensen, last interview.
Why are we still in the "correcting basic misinformation about the case" phase? I'd think we'd be long past that by now.
And this level of ignorance, ladies and gentlemen, it why getting your information from an echo chamber is a Bad Thing(TM). Its like a giant game of "telephone". Next up, we'll hear about how the victims are on the steps of the embassy pleading for Assange to be free.
Rather than, you know, the pesky reality that they're in hiding from Assange fans like you while their lawyer works to bring him to justice.
Wait, no, how "myscogynistic" of me to think that they know what their own lawyer is doing.
Riiight. The women disagree with the charges. That's why they hired a lawyer to get the case reopened and who is since pushing forward the charges for them. Clearly they're ignorant of what their own attorney is doing, those ignorant little damsels!
The ruling of the high court does not match your description of it. The nature of the crimes (my quote: "All four charges were judged by the three British courts hearing the case to all be crimes in Britain as well") is readdressed in "Issue 2". It represents nearly half the ruling so I'm amazed that you could have missed it.. unless, obviously, you never read it.
There's so much misinformation going around about the case from Assange fans. Here's the four actual charges from the European Arrest Warrant, as reported in the lower court ruling:
1. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
2. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
3. On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
4. On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.
Charges 1-3 are concerning one woman, and charge 4 is concerning a different woman. Charge 1 is unlawful sexual coersion, 2 and 3 are molestation, and 4 is rape. Charge 4 is also the most clear-cut and has the most absurd defense by Assange's legal team. SW (the second woman) had already been freaking out in conversations with friends (who also testified under oath, and there's also texting records) over what Assange had done to her when she talked with AA (the first woman). This didn't come out of that conversation; all that came out of that conversation was the realization that what happened wasn't an isolated incident.
All four charges were judged by the three British courts hearing the case to all be crimes in Britain as well. F'ing a sleeping person to work around their refusal to consent to unprotected sex is not "being a dick". It's 100% unambiguously rape.
Great. Rape is only natural, and the charge of waiting until someone was asleep to F' them in ways they wouldn't let you do while awake isn't rape anyway. Gotcha.
Great crowd we've got here on Slashdot these days.
Riiiiight. Because Abu Hamza has only one country which has to approve his extradition (instead of two in the case of Assange), has few fans (compared to Assange, who according to polls has on the order of hundreds of millions), was trying to *set up terrorist training camps inside the US* (instead of leaking videos and cables), has no "get out of extradition free" card from being charged with an intelligence-related crime (Swedish law bans extradition for intelligence matters), and on and on... and he's *still* in the UK. He was arrested in 2004, and he's *still* not extradited. And the US has already not only promised no death penalty, no abuse, no guantanamo, they even had to promise not to send him to a Supermax prison. And he's still not sent. And we're supposed to worry about Julian F'ing Assange and his paranoid fantasyland? Especially after this?
Anyway, hey, remember way back when Ghandi was charged with raping someone, and he went and hid in an embassy? Oh, that's right, he went to f'ing jail for actual political charges. Well, remember when Mandela was charged with raping someone, and he went and hid in an embassy? Oh, that's right, he went to f'ing jail for actual political charges. But no, Assange walks around like he's a hero, bragging about how much of a hero he is, when the actual felony he's facing is that he waited until a girl (SW) was asleep in order to F' her unprotected because she wouldn't let him do it while awake. And the crazy thing is he hardly even denies the charges. His legal team admits that she had been refusing unprotected sex the night before (it'd be hard not to, they have a condom with DNA matching the DNA sample from inside her, and she talked with friends that night talking about how he kept trying to F' her without protection and how she was getting really frustrated with it). Even the guy's own legal team was not challenging the fact that they "found Mr Assange's sexual behaviour in these encounters disreputable, discourteous, disturbing or even pushing towards the boundaries of what they were comfortable with" His team claims only that she woke up, was fully conscious, and then consented to sex. Which is just patently absurd, given that she had been just telling people about how upset she was about him trying to have unprotected sex with her, and she has a "paper trail" a mile long of being afraid of pregnancy and STDs, to the point where her previous boyfriend of 2 1/2 years testified that not only did she not once allow unprotected sex (it was "unthinkable" to her), but she even had him get STD tested before *protected* sex. So she woke up in the middle of the night, after complaining repeatedly about him trying to violate a lifelong principle, was fully conscious, and decided to change her views on unprotected sex? *Really*?
Assange has appealed the case in five separate courts and lost all of them: three in the UK, including the UK supreme court, and two in Sweden (the Svea court hearings), the latter two specifically focusing on the forensic evidence and interviews. But no, a random assange-fan echo chamber sourcing most of its info from Assange's admitted liar lawyer is justice, while five separate actual courts in first-world nations are railroading, right?
Just pathetic. Assange is dodging some serious F'ing charges here, and it's horrible to see so many people cheering on the majorly
22 November 2010 Julian Assange appeals the issue of the District Court arrest warrant to Svea Court of Appeal.
24 November 2010 Svea Court of Appeal refuses the appeal and takes a decision that the arrest warrant is to remain in place, with probable cause, on suspicion of rape (less serious crime), unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation.
The international request and the European Arrest Warrant are confirmed in accordance with the decision of the District Court.
30 November 2010 Julian Assange appeals the arrest warrant issued by Svea Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.
2 December 2010 The Supreme Court takes a decision not to grant Julian Assange leave to appeal. The decision of the Svea Court of Appeal stands.
Until you accept this and accept your ignorance on the topic, and agree to actually read primary sources instead of the echo chamber, I won't even address the rest of your post.
Perhaps, mhenriday, you might want to do a smidgeon of research before claiming that someone else is wrong: straight from the Swedish Prosecution Authority website. The Svea court decisions are also cited in the UK trial transcripts, which you've also never read.
Since you've made it so blatantly obvious that you're just listening to an echo chamber and are so grossly ignorant on the case that you don't even know what trials there have been, why should I even bother going into the rest of your post? How about YOU inform yourself and then let me know when you're actually ready to have a serious discussion on the matter. Step 1: read that timeline. Step 2: read the three British court decisions. Step 3: read the police report: .
3) Who's paying you, Rei? Is it the State Department? CIA?
Good to see we're in the world of reality here.
And since you're so curious, it's the Lizards who are paying me. But it's for a good cause, because if it wasn't the Lizards, it'd be The Grays, and you don't *want* to know what they'd do if they were in charge...
Slashdot Mirror
Haha, skimmed that and most of it is right, although I personally strongly disagree with the "Fact: Women love long hair! It's an instant chick magnet." - to each their own! Got a number of my own comments that aren't in there, too. But in general, looks pretty solid.
And lol, I'm currently in the middle of playing the Reykjavík circuit, so unless you live in the 101... ;) Oh, and there should be a extra addendum to that guide, just for Icelandic guys: Stop talking about your penis! I get it, it's really impressive...
Oh, and another thing about that guide - it focuses on evolution too much. For example, they stress the confidence, boldness stuff, which is really good. But then they mention it as if it's *only* a side effect of evolution, when it can have some... um... practical applications. ;)
Oh, and at risk of going too far off tangent, my favorite thing (in the context of "amusing") that a guy I was dating said to me.... Context: we were driving home to my place, and he had previously been talking about how much he wanted to sleep with me, what he planned to do to me... then it was suddenly derailed by an offhand comment I made on a side tangent of conversation. Him: “Wait, you've never seen Dr. Who!?!" (beat) "Okay, we're going to get to your place, download and watch the first episode of Dr. Who, and *THEN* we're going to have sex!”
Nerd priorities - so endearing. ;)
I'd personally say it's more comfortable, although I sleep without one.
What I'm wondering is, what is the concept here, that you wear the same bra every day? Or do you have a dozen separate anti-cancer bras, and if so, how expensive are these things expected to be? And how do you wash them? And when they wear out, does the data transfer to the next bra? Does it have to be recalibrated? Does it come in different types (for example, some people prefer underwire, some hate them)? Will I have to plug in and charge my bra every day?
Just seeing some potential real-life challenges here...
That statement seems contradictory. Either she's made the decision and the personality is irrelevant, or she hasn't and it is. Or are you describing the "meeting" as when conversation begins, rather than when you see the other person?
I can only speak for myself, but a guy seems a lot more attractive if he has a good personality, and vice versa. The difference can be quite significant. A good personality can't make an ugly person look good, but it definitely can make a more marginal person look good (and a personality bad can make me question a person who I previously found attractive).
BTW, am I the only person here who ever made a User's Guide to yourself for potential dating partners? ;) I really should add some technical diagrams after the first "This page intentionally left blank"...
That article was published on 11 october 5:44 PM. The paywall went right back up and here's what Anonymous posted on their website just a few hours later. I'm especially interested in seeing what's in their dossier on Wikileaks. It's about time WikiLeaksLeaks turned from a joke into reality ;)
So danged scummy. People went to jail to give them that information. And they didn't go to jail so Assange could raise money to run from rape charges.
So damned ironic given that Assange was just a couple weeks ago saying that a vendor in Tunisia didn't set himself on fire so Obama could win an election after Obama mentioned the Arab spring in a speech.
To anyone who hasn't realized Assange's ego, they clearly haven't read anything he's ever written or said ;) His old blog at IQ.org is one of the biggest collections of naval gazing I've ever seen in one place, and that was back in 2006, before his self-aggregandizing hit new levels. Complete with such great hits as his "women's brains can't do math" and "I am a god to women" posts.
Oh, and on that subject, just for any women who happen to meet him: his standard tactic (which women have over and over mentioned he's tried (and/or succeeded with)) is the "little lost boy" approach. That is, in his initial and/or remote dealings, he plays himself up, usually describing the danger he lives in and plots against him, generally with some fictional storybook-style accounts of his past. When he's there in person, however, he acts sick, lost, confused, etc to try to get you to take care of him in your home (he only does this with women). "Take care of" ends up running the mundane from doing his laundry up to and including sleeping with him, depending on what his needs are at a given point in time.
Lol, now even Anonymous has a conspiracy against Assange?
Get over the guy... he's a self-aggregandizing narcisist and self-described "chauvinist" who lives his life like he's a character in a fiction book, complete with "retconning" his past. It's a real pity that he ended up the central figure in such an important cause as transparency instead of someone more stable.
I read an article with an interview with an Anonymous spokesman on this issue who took the time to drive home the fact this statement doesn't speak for all members of Anonymous because Anonymous does not have a single voice or opinion on anything; however, he stated that this has become the predominant view in the organization as of late and there's been a lot of anger over it, and that this has been brewing for a while as Wikileaks increasingly turns away from leaks and more toward lionizing and defending Assange.
Personally, the only way I'd ever lionize Assange would be in an arena, and it'd involve real lions.
Also, 8 weeks? Um.... why? It took my ship under 2 weeks to go from the US (Virginia, I think) to Iceland. A couple days for domestic travel on the US end and a fraction of a day on the Iceland end and a couple days in port on each end.
First off, I'm one of the few people commenting on this thread who's actually moved overseas and sent a computer in their personal belongings crate.
This whole question and most of the answers is a whole lot of hullaballoo over nothing. First, as to carrying the computer onboard carryon or checked baggage: the person will have so much airplane baggage when moving that they're not going to have room to be hauling all their electronics in it, and it'd *definitely* be safer in the shipping crate than in checked baggage.
You know the most dangerous time for shipped goods? Going to and from the port. *Not* while on the ship, not even when being loaded. It's no more dangerous to move by ship than by moving company. Just make sure everything is strapped down *WELL*. It helps if your shipping container is as small as you can possibly get all of your stuff into. Are you using palettes and a partial load or getting a whole crate? Remember that if you get a whole crate you may not be able to have it lowered all the way to the ground, so if you're loading it yourself, you should rent a forklift to help get your stuff in, whether you use palettes or not.
Neither heat nor cold nor static will be a problem. Oceans are temperature moderators and you don't get much more grounded than being surrounded by a giant steel box. Of course your ink will survive; why wouldn't it? And I should reiterate, buy as much of whatever you consume regularly *before* the move because your life will be hectic after it and it takes time to learn where you can buy everything (if it's even available in your new location), esp. if there's a language barrier.
You're thinking of the wrong stuff. When it comes to packing, the primary thing you need to be thinking about is, "how tightly can I wedge all this in and how tightly can I strap it all down?" Whether computer parts or not. And if you're moving to a place with different power, Buy Way More Inverters Than You Think You Need. Get big heavy duty ones and lots of them, not "just enough", because they will break eventually.
Best of luck with your move. I bet you'll be watching the port for your ship like I was! ;)
Which makes the whole conspiracy absurd then - why go through this whole mess if they just wanted to kill him and make it look like an accident? Heck, at this point in time the *easiest* way to do that would be to let him go to Ecuador, where crime is rampant.
Nor can charges be filed in absentia. Your point?
In Sweden, charges are the last thing that happens before a trial, and there's a time limit between laying them and the trial. Sweden has lots of those pesky "protections for the accused" - how dare they, right?
No charges can be laid in absentia from Sweden, get a clue.
There is testimony is the leaked transcript that the second woman explicitly said she was raped, get a clue. To pick on example, after the event, she phoned her ex bf and told him she'd just been raped by Assange. Its in his testimony, read it yourself - Seth Bensen, last interview.
Why are we still in the "correcting basic misinformation about the case" phase? I'd think we'd be long past that by now.
And this level of ignorance, ladies and gentlemen, it why getting your information from an echo chamber is a Bad Thing(TM). Its like a giant game of "telephone". Next up, we'll hear about how the victims are on the steps of the embassy pleading for Assange to be free.
Rather than, you know, the pesky reality that they're in hiding from Assange fans like you while their lawyer works to bring him to justice.
Wait, no, how "myscogynistic" of me to think that they know what their own lawyer is doing.
Is your confusion over the difference between the words "consumate" and "complete"?
Riiight. The women disagree with the charges. That's why they hired a lawyer to get the case reopened and who is since pushing forward the charges for them. Clearly they're ignorant of what their own attorney is doing, those ignorant little damsels!
The ruling of the high court does not match your description of it. The nature of the crimes (my quote: "All four charges were judged by the three British courts hearing the case to all be crimes in Britain as well") is readdressed in "Issue 2". It represents nearly half the ruling so I'm amazed that you could have missed it.. unless, obviously, you never read it.
There's so much misinformation going around about the case from Assange fans. Here's the four actual charges from the European Arrest Warrant, as reported in the lower court ruling:
Charges 1-3 are concerning one woman, and charge 4 is concerning a different woman. Charge 1 is unlawful sexual coersion, 2 and 3 are molestation, and 4 is rape. Charge 4 is also the most clear-cut and has the most absurd defense by Assange's legal team. SW (the second woman) had already been freaking out in conversations with friends (who also testified under oath, and there's also texting records) over what Assange had done to her when she talked with AA (the first woman). This didn't come out of that conversation; all that came out of that conversation was the realization that what happened wasn't an isolated incident.
All four charges were judged by the three British courts hearing the case to all be crimes in Britain as well. F'ing a sleeping person to work around their refusal to consent to unprotected sex is not "being a dick". It's 100% unambiguously rape.
Great. Rape is only natural, and the charge of waiting until someone was asleep to F' them in ways they wouldn't let you do while awake isn't rape anyway. Gotcha.
Great crowd we've got here on Slashdot these days.
Riiiiight. Because Abu Hamza has only one country which has to approve his extradition (instead of two in the case of Assange), has few fans (compared to Assange, who according to polls has on the order of hundreds of millions), was trying to *set up terrorist training camps inside the US* (instead of leaking videos and cables), has no "get out of extradition free" card from being charged with an intelligence-related crime (Swedish law bans extradition for intelligence matters), and on and on... and he's *still* in the UK. He was arrested in 2004, and he's *still* not extradited. And the US has already not only promised no death penalty, no abuse, no guantanamo, they even had to promise not to send him to a Supermax prison. And he's still not sent. And we're supposed to worry about Julian F'ing Assange and his paranoid fantasyland? Especially after this?
Anyway, hey, remember way back when Ghandi was charged with raping someone, and he went and hid in an embassy? Oh, that's right, he went to f'ing jail for actual political charges. Well, remember when Mandela was charged with raping someone, and he went and hid in an embassy? Oh, that's right, he went to f'ing jail for actual political charges. But no, Assange walks around like he's a hero, bragging about how much of a hero he is, when the actual felony he's facing is that he waited until a girl (SW) was asleep in order to F' her unprotected because she wouldn't let him do it while awake. And the crazy thing is he hardly even denies the charges. His legal team admits that she had been refusing unprotected sex the night before (it'd be hard not to, they have a condom with DNA matching the DNA sample from inside her, and she talked with friends that night talking about how he kept trying to F' her without protection and how she was getting really frustrated with it). Even the guy's own legal team was not challenging the fact that they "found Mr Assange's sexual behaviour in these encounters disreputable, discourteous, disturbing or even pushing towards the boundaries of what they were comfortable with" His team claims only that she woke up, was fully conscious, and then consented to sex. Which is just patently absurd, given that she had been just telling people about how upset she was about him trying to have unprotected sex with her, and she has a "paper trail" a mile long of being afraid of pregnancy and STDs, to the point where her previous boyfriend of 2 1/2 years testified that not only did she not once allow unprotected sex (it was "unthinkable" to her), but she even had him get STD tested before *protected* sex. So she woke up in the middle of the night, after complaining repeatedly about him trying to violate a lifelong principle, was fully conscious, and decided to change her views on unprotected sex? *Really*?
Assange has appealed the case in five separate courts and lost all of them: three in the UK, including the UK supreme court, and two in Sweden (the Svea court hearings), the latter two specifically focusing on the forensic evidence and interviews. But no, a random assange-fan echo chamber sourcing most of its info from Assange's admitted liar lawyer is justice, while five separate actual courts in first-world nations are railroading, right?
Just pathetic. Assange is dodging some serious F'ing charges here, and it's horrible to see so many people cheering on the majorly
Until you accept this and accept your ignorance on the topic, and agree to actually read primary sources instead of the echo chamber, I won't even address the rest of your post.
Messed up the link: here. Lower UK court link is here, I don't have time to dig up the rest for you.
Perhaps, mhenriday, you might want to do a smidgeon of research before claiming that someone else is wrong: straight from the Swedish Prosecution Authority website. The Svea court decisions are also cited in the UK trial transcripts, which you've also never read.
Since you've made it so blatantly obvious that you're just listening to an echo chamber and are so grossly ignorant on the case that you don't even know what trials there have been, why should I even bother going into the rest of your post? How about YOU inform yourself and then let me know when you're actually ready to have a serious discussion on the matter. Step 1: read that timeline. Step 2: read the three British court decisions. Step 3: read the police report: .
THEN we can have a serious talk.
Good to see we're in the world of reality here.
And since you're so curious, it's the Lizards who are paying me. But it's for a good cause, because if it wasn't the Lizards, it'd be The Grays, and you don't *want* to know what they'd do if they were in charge...
Since when is Polanski in the news lately? If he was you'd hear me complaining just as vigorously.