I merely wish to emphasize that our freedoms of speech have been under constant and successful attack for quite some time not. Sorry if my wording irritated your inner pedant.
"We have laws against saying bad things about food, [wikipedia.org] for crying out loud."
No -- no we don't. We have laws against deliberately and knowingly spreading false negative information about food products. But I don't expect that to get past your Slashdot mental filter.
Hahaha, oh, that is rich. Try saying that rGBH is bad. Heck, try marketing milk that is rGBH free. By claiming that your milk does not have bovine growth hormone, you are saying that bovine growth hormone is bad. And you will be sued.
Did you know that the standards of proof are different when you are being sued for badmouthing food than when you are sued for badmouthing a person? When you badmouth a person, that person has to prove your guilt. When you badmouth food, you must prove your innocence.
I will repeat that. When you are sued for saying bad things about food, you are presumed guilty and must prove your innocence.
Which is unfortunate because historically we've had a much better record on freedom of speech than most other countries,
Historically, meaning what? thirty years ago? Now we have special places where you can go to protest and no one will have to hear you. We have laws against saying bad things about food, for crying out loud. Free speech is for the rich. If you own a media empire, you have some semblance of free speech. Otherwise, you only have freedom of speech until you say something that someone with money and/or power doesn't like.
Honestly, what are you trying to accomplish with the insults? Trying to hurt my feelings? Seriously, do you think that works? Your insults are just precious. I mean, calling someone a preschooler and a baby is just adorable and refreshing in these profanity laced modern times.
Trying to look the big man? I don't think anyone cares. Doing a little trolling? You get one response from me, just for fun. I like trolls. Especially adorable profanity avoiding trolls like you seem to be.
Carrying around that much anger can be really bad for your health. Anger management classes, meditation, or just some good old fashioned sex might help bring your blood pressure down before something important goes pop.
I do hope you enjoy the attention. Interacting with other human beings feels good, doesn't it? I know the type of interaction seems irrelevant, but you should try "friendly" interactions, they feel even better!
Taco has never claimed to be a journalist. Slashdot has never claimed to be impartial. It's still basically Taco's blog, if you want journalism, try AP, or Reuters, or something like that.
Anyone who wants to flay is a terrorist. The only way to stop terrorism is molesting people. They haven't found any bombs yet, but that's proves that it's working.
Doesn't that depend on what you want to flay? I mean, flaying a deer is okay. Flaying a TSA agent, not so much.
It doesn't sound that way to me, either, really, but as I mentioned, Sweden's laws in the matter are a bit odd, at best. But the law is the law, and according to the law, Assange needs to be tried. Perhaps this trial will shed some light on the ridiculousness of Swedish laws. Perhaps they will be changed back. But for now, they are what they are and Mr. Assange is being treated no differently than anyone else in Sweden.
At the very worst, it sounds like he was an opportunistic horn dog who doesn't like to use condoms and doesn't take no for an answer when he is in the middle of coitus. Which is illegal in Sweden.
Okay, let's forget this whole Assange thing for a moment and focus on things we can both believe in: Sarah Palin is a twat. The American public is dumber than a box of rocks. The US is heading for, at best, also-ran status.
However, I can not bring myself to believe that even a box of paint huffing, retarded rocks would vote for Sarah Palin.
I don't read Swedish, so I ran that through Google translate. Here is what it says:
Sjustegsmodell for legal revenge
January 19, 2010 a girl is about a guy who does not hold back on but that is another girl in his hand behind his back to the first, on a sofa
One reason for revenge
I've been thinking about some revenge over the last few days and came across a page which loosely translated is composed of the seven-point revenge instruction.
Step 1 Consider very carefully if you really must get revenge. It is almost always better to forgive than to revenge.
Step 2 Think about why you should take revenge. You do not just be clear about who to take revenge on, but also why. Revenge should never be directed against only one person, but also meet a certain action.
Step 3 The principle of proportionality. Remember that revenge will not only match the deed in size but also in nature. A good revenge is linked to what has been done against you. For example if you want revenge on someone who cheated or who dumped you, so should the punishment be something with the dating / sex / fidelity to do.
Step 4 Do a brainstorm on appropriate measures for the element of revenge you're after. To continue the example above, you can paja your victim's current relationship, fix so that his new partner is cheating or ensure that he gets a madman behind. Use your imagination!
Step 5 Figure out how you can get revenge systematically. Perhaps a series of letters and photographs that may be new to believe that you have seen more than just a big lie on a single occasion?
Step 6 Rank your systematic revenge schemes from low to high in terms of likely success of implementation, required input from you, and degree of satisfaction when you succeed. The ideal revenge is of course as high as possible in these bars, but can often be a greater effort of labor and capital provide safer output for the other two, much more important parameters.
Step 7 Get to work. And remember that your goal is, while you are operating, ensure that your victim may suffer the same way he made you suffer.
I think the important point here is that this appears to have been written in January. The affair with Assange did not happen until August. So this writing has nothing to do with Assange, directly, although it does appear to paint a picture of a woman all to happy to use the legal system to exact revenge against a guy who is sleeping with another woman.
Do you not even read the stories you post as 'evidence?!?' That story DISPROVES your point. Allow me to quote the part that states the FIRST prosecutor decided to press charges:
The female interviewing officer, presumably because of allegations of a sabotaged condom in one case and a refusal to wear one in the second, concluded that both women were victims: that Jessica had been raped, and Sarah subject to sexual molestation.
It was Friday evening. A duty prosecuting attorney, Maria Kjellstrand, was called.
She agreed that Assange should be sought on suspicion of rape.
The following day, Sarah was questioned again, cementing the allegation of sexual misconduct against Assange. That evening, detectives tried to find him and searched Stockholm’s entertainment district — but to no avail.
I hope you have the good grace to admit you are wrong here, but I'm not holding my breath.
I'm not being a troll by asking for people who raise allegations to back up those allegations with documentation. "It's common knowledge!" is not proof.
Getting Assange declared an enemy combatant would be very, very difficult. It would make a whole lot of people question the government, and would be completely counterproductive to US interests.
I will be so bold as to make a prediction that Assange will never be charged with a crime in the US. Feel free to point and laugh at me if I am proved wrong.
No, I am asking people to provide proof to their allegations, and "Everyone knows" is not proof.
I've made a lot of posts because people like you keep fundamentally missing my point.
I don't know one way or the other whether Assange is guilty, and neither do you. That is why, under the rule of law, we have trials.
Why do you think I have made up my mind about Assange's guilt? Where do I state that I think he is guilty? All I am stating is that I believe a trial is called for to determine guilt. I've been pretty clear about that.
Finally, why do you think I am trolling, rather than stating an actual (if surprisingly controversial) belief?
Yes, I have read quite a few stories. You claimed that my posts indicated I hadn't read any stories, and that I had made up my mind. Show me where you see that, or shut up and stop making stupid accusations.
Spun, you claim you havent made your mind up, and to have read the stories...
Your posts in this forum indicate otherwise, do some research and stop being a troll.
Ellsberg later claimed that after his trial ended, Watergate prosecutor William H. Merrill informed him of an aborted plot by Liddy and the "plumbers" to have 12 Cuban-Americans who had previously worked for the CIA to "totally incapacitate" Ellsberg as he appeared at a public rally, though it is unclear whether that meant to assassinate Ellsberg or merely to hospitalize him.[24][25] In his autobiography, Liddy describes an "Ellsberg neutralization proposal" originating from Howard Hunt, which involved drugging Ellsberg with LSD, by dissolving it in his soup, at a fund-raising dinner in Washington in order to "have Ellsberg incoherent by the time he was to speak" and thus "make him appear a near burnt-out drug case" and "discredit him". The plot involved waiters from the Miami Cuban community. According to Liddy, when the plan was finally approved, "there was no longer enough lead time to get the Cuban waiters up from their Miami hotels and into place in the Washington Hotel where the dinner was to take place" and the plan was "put into abeyance pending another opportunity".
I'm guessing you got that mod because the Pentagon Papers were quite famous, and anyone posting on Slashdot should be able to look up something that famous themselves rather than asking us to explain it to them.
Oh, well, yeah. John totally sounds like he is exaggerating. And I believe Assange has laid out some very good philosophical and practical reasons for hyping the leaks.
No, I am not denying the possibility that Assange might be innocent. Please point out where you think I am doing that. I am saying, he might be innocent, he might not, and that is why there must be a trial.
No, my posts do not indicate that I have made up my mind, or that I have not read any stories. Please, if you think my posts do indicate those things, point out where. You can't, because you are imagining things.
No one is calling the guy a rapist. They are saying he has been accused of what is, under Swedish laws, technically rape or sexual harassment of some sort.
Why am I a dumbass for raising questions? Sweden's laws are pretty harsh in regards to rape allegations, I'm not saying the laws are fair, I'm saying that he is not being treated any differently than anyone else in Sweden.
Links to her blog post? You seem to be repeating the information given out by Assange's lawyers.
You misunderstand my point about extradition. He broke no US laws. In fact, his actions are specifically protected by US laws. And the constitution says you can't make up laws and charge people after the fact. We still have some semblance of rule of law here.
Slashdot Mirror
I merely wish to emphasize that our freedoms of speech have been under constant and successful attack for quite some time not. Sorry if my wording irritated your inner pedant.
"We have laws against saying bad things about food, [wikipedia.org] for crying out loud."
No -- no we don't. We have laws against deliberately and knowingly spreading false negative information about food products. But I don't expect that to get past your Slashdot mental filter.
Hahaha, oh, that is rich. Try saying that rGBH is bad. Heck, try marketing milk that is rGBH free. By claiming that your milk does not have bovine growth hormone, you are saying that bovine growth hormone is bad. And you will be sued.
Did you know that the standards of proof are different when you are being sued for badmouthing
food than when you are sued for badmouthing a person? When you badmouth a person, that person has to prove your guilt. When you badmouth food, you must prove your innocence.
I will repeat that. When you are sued for saying bad things about food, you are presumed guilty and must prove your innocence.
Which is unfortunate because historically we've had a much better record on freedom of speech than most other countries,
Historically, meaning what? thirty years ago? Now we have special places where you can go to protest and no one will have to hear you. We have laws against saying bad things about food, for crying out loud. Free speech is for the rich. If you own a media empire, you have some semblance of free speech. Otherwise, you only have freedom of speech until you say something that someone with money and/or power doesn't like.
Honestly, what are you trying to accomplish with the insults? Trying to hurt my feelings? Seriously, do you think that works? Your insults are just precious. I mean, calling someone a preschooler and a baby is just adorable and refreshing in these profanity laced modern times.
Trying to look the big man? I don't think anyone cares. Doing a little trolling? You get one response from me, just for fun. I like trolls. Especially adorable profanity avoiding trolls like you seem to be.
Carrying around that much anger can be really bad for your health. Anger management classes, meditation, or just some good old fashioned sex might help bring your blood pressure down before something important goes pop.
I do hope you enjoy the attention. Interacting with other human beings feels good, doesn't it? I know the type of interaction seems irrelevant, but you should try "friendly" interactions, they feel even better!
Taco has never claimed to be a journalist. Slashdot has never claimed to be impartial. It's still basically Taco's blog, if you want journalism, try AP, or Reuters, or something like that.
Anyone who wants to flay is a terrorist. The only way to stop terrorism is molesting people. They haven't found any bombs yet, but that's proves that it's working.
Doesn't that depend on what you want to flay? I mean, flaying a deer is okay. Flaying a TSA agent, not so much.
That is why, under the rule of law, we have trials.
And, under a sane democratic lawful state, at least in criminal cases, we have "innocent until proven guilty".
And so he is. No one is saying otherwise.
If she is elected, I will take that as absolute proof that there is no God in Heaven to help us.
It doesn't sound that way to me, either, really, but as I mentioned, Sweden's laws in the matter are a bit odd, at best. But the law is the law, and according to the law, Assange needs to be tried. Perhaps this trial will shed some light on the ridiculousness of Swedish laws. Perhaps they will be changed back. But for now, they are what they are and Mr. Assange is being treated no differently than anyone else in Sweden.
At the very worst, it sounds like he was an opportunistic horn dog who doesn't like to use condoms and doesn't take no for an answer when he is in the middle of coitus. Which is illegal in Sweden.
Okay, let's forget this whole Assange thing for a moment and focus on things we can both believe in: Sarah Palin is a twat. The American public is dumber than a box of rocks. The US is heading for, at best, also-ran status.
However, I can not bring myself to believe that even a box of paint huffing, retarded rocks would vote for Sarah Palin.
I don't read Swedish, so I ran that through Google translate. Here is what it says:
Sjustegsmodell for legal revenge
January 19, 2010
a girl is about a guy who does not hold back on but that is another girl in his hand behind his back to the first, on a sofa
One reason for revenge
I've been thinking about some revenge over the last few days and came across a page which loosely translated is composed of the seven-point revenge instruction.
Step 1
Consider very carefully if you really must get revenge. It is almost always better to forgive than to revenge.
Step 2
Think about why you should take revenge. You do not just be clear about who to take revenge on, but also why. Revenge should never be directed against only one person, but also meet a certain action.
Step 3
The principle of proportionality. Remember that revenge will not only match the deed in size but also in nature. A good revenge is linked to what has been done against you. For example if you want revenge on someone who cheated or who dumped you, so should the punishment be something with the dating / sex / fidelity to do.
Step 4
Do a brainstorm on appropriate measures for the element of revenge you're after. To continue the example above, you can paja your victim's current relationship, fix so that his new partner is cheating or ensure that he gets a madman behind. Use your imagination!
Step 5
Figure out how you can get revenge systematically. Perhaps a series of letters and photographs that may be new to believe that you have seen more than just a big lie on a single occasion?
Step 6
Rank your systematic revenge schemes from low to high in terms of likely success of implementation, required input from you, and degree of satisfaction when you succeed. The ideal revenge is of course as high as possible in these bars, but can often be a greater effort of labor and capital provide safer output for the other two, much more important parameters.
Step 7
Get to work. And remember that your goal is, while you are operating, ensure that your victim may suffer the same way he made you suffer.
I think the important point here is that this appears to have been written in January. The affair with Assange did not happen until August. So this writing has nothing to do with Assange, directly, although it does appear to paint a picture of a woman all to happy to use the legal system to exact revenge against a guy who is sleeping with another woman.
Do you not even read the stories you post as 'evidence?!?' That story DISPROVES your point. Allow me to quote the part that states the FIRST prosecutor decided to press charges:
The female interviewing officer, presumably because of allegations of a sabotaged condom in one case and a refusal to wear one in the second, concluded that both women were victims: that Jessica had been raped, and Sarah subject to sexual molestation.
It was Friday evening. A duty prosecuting attorney, Maria Kjellstrand, was called.
She agreed that Assange should be sought on suspicion of rape.
The following day, Sarah was questioned again, cementing the allegation of sexual misconduct against Assange. That evening, detectives tried to find him and searched Stockholm’s entertainment district — but to no avail.
I hope you have the good grace to admit you are wrong here, but I'm not holding my breath.
I'm not being a troll by asking for people who raise allegations to back up those allegations with documentation. "It's common knowledge!" is not proof.
Getting Assange declared an enemy combatant would be very, very difficult. It would make a whole lot of people question the government, and would be completely counterproductive to US interests.
I will be so bold as to make a prediction that Assange will never be charged with a crime in the US. Feel free to point and laugh at me if I am proved wrong.
No, I am asking people to provide proof to their allegations, and "Everyone knows" is not proof.
I've made a lot of posts because people like you keep fundamentally missing my point.
I don't know one way or the other whether Assange is guilty, and neither do you. That is why, under the rule of law, we have trials.
Why do you think I have made up my mind about Assange's guilt? Where do I state that I think he is guilty? All I am stating is that I believe a trial is called for to determine guilt. I've been pretty clear about that.
Finally, why do you think I am trolling, rather than stating an actual (if surprisingly controversial) belief?
Yes, I have read quite a few stories. You claimed that my posts indicated I hadn't read any stories, and that I had made up my mind. Show me where you see that, or shut up and stop making stupid accusations.
Spun, you claim you havent made your mind up, and to have read the stories...
Your posts in this forum indicate otherwise, do some research and stop being a troll.
No, but there was this:
Ellsberg later claimed that after his trial ended, Watergate prosecutor William H. Merrill informed him of an aborted plot by Liddy and the "plumbers" to have 12 Cuban-Americans who had previously worked for the CIA to "totally incapacitate" Ellsberg as he appeared at a public rally, though it is unclear whether that meant to assassinate Ellsberg or merely to hospitalize him.[24][25] In his autobiography, Liddy describes an "Ellsberg neutralization proposal" originating from Howard Hunt, which involved drugging Ellsberg with LSD, by dissolving it in his soup, at a fund-raising dinner in Washington in order to "have Ellsberg incoherent by the time he was to speak" and thus "make him appear a near burnt-out drug case" and "discredit him". The plot involved waiters from the Miami Cuban community. According to Liddy, when the plan was finally approved, "there was no longer enough lead time to get the Cuban waiters up from their Miami hotels and into place in the Washington Hotel where the dinner was to take place" and the plan was "put into abeyance pending another opportunity".
No, in other words, she worked directly with a group funded by the CIA.
I'm guessing you got that mod because the Pentagon Papers were quite famous, and anyone posting on Slashdot should be able to look up something that famous themselves rather than asking us to explain it to them.
Oh, well, yeah. John totally sounds like he is exaggerating. And I believe Assange has laid out some very good philosophical and practical reasons for hyping the leaks.
No, I am not denying the possibility that Assange might be innocent. Please point out where you think I am doing that. I am saying, he might be innocent, he might not, and that is why there must be a trial.
That is not what I have read. Maybe you could point to a news source backing up your claims?
No, my posts do not indicate that I have made up my mind, or that I have not read any stories. Please, if you think my posts do indicate those things, point out where. You can't, because you are imagining things.
No one is calling the guy a rapist. They are saying he has been accused of what is, under Swedish laws, technically rape or sexual harassment of some sort.
Where in those articles does it say the women blogged about doing it with a celebrity?
Why am I a dumbass for raising questions? Sweden's laws are pretty harsh in regards to rape allegations, I'm not saying the laws are fair, I'm saying that he is not being treated any differently than anyone else in Sweden.
Links to her blog post? You seem to be repeating the information given out by Assange's lawyers.
You misunderstand my point about extradition. He broke no US laws. In fact, his actions are specifically protected by US laws. And the constitution says you can't make up laws and charge people after the fact. We still have some semblance of rule of law here.