rigorousintuition.ca

82_28 wrote:OK, I'll quit. Just tell all the other people who think the same thing to do the same.

Why? they're not pissing in our info stream the way you are.

who gives a DAMN what "they're" doing

all that should mater to me (or in your case, to you) is what I (or in your case, YOU) am (are) doing.

Let's try to be self-organizing and not selfclusterphucking.

Stop attacking wikileaks it serves no purpose... EVEN IF IT IS BULLSHIT.

The leaks are REAL cables. They're not top secret, but they contain lots of damaging truths, and reveal much else besides.

Dude, I wouldn't even be pissy or pissing in anything were it not for having the ideas I was presenting treated as though they were foolish as the fucking news was coming down the pike at the time. I'm fucking up nobody's or "our" infostream at all. You don't think that I am sitting watching it happen too? Jesus. I know that it must be set in stone that all people who think they're better than others must assert the fact that they are. I never gave anything any kind of an inkling of certitude as to this matter. I ain't pissing on jack shit. Some of you can be so crotchety about the fact that anybody brings up a slightly different angle. I wouldn't do it to you. If you were a racist, sexist POS I'd jump all over you in an instant. But as far as reading things and contributing, I have not disrupted anything. Want me to go away? Then just say so. Again, I have caused no harm to "our infostream" and I resent somebody I like to read saying so. WTF?

wintler2 wrote:
Why? they're not pissing in our info stream the way you are.

Why is 82 "pissing in your stream" b/c he doesn't agree with you?

Reminder:
Assange sez '9/11 Truth is a bore.'

FRAUD.
Cognitive infiltration....yup. See 'Cass Sunstein.'

But....the psyops is multilayered for multi-demographics.

CIA-Nickelodeon has been running negative framing of Assange as a kooky mean "King Julien" in 'Penguins of Madasgar.'

And they put the man on the mainsteam culture map in October 2008 with-

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:Reminder:
Assange sez '9/11 Truth is a bore.'

FRAUD.
Cognitive infiltration....yup.

Thanks for "pissing in the stream" Hugh.

And now the efforts to put a thought-crime crimp in the internet will suck-cede.

We been played.

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:And now the efforts to put a thought-crime crimp in the internet will suck-cede.

We been played.

And the peaceniks and the "lefties" and the conspiraphobes will have been played like a fiddle. Assange will probably be dead in a hole somewhere (a spider hole, haha), having served his meager function. Or perhaps live to tell his tales and be held as an Ellsberg til the next CIA/Mossad errand boy emerges from obscurity.

Montag wrote:

wintler2 wrote:
Why? they're not pissing in our info stream the way you are.

Why is 82 "pissing in your stream" b/c he doesn't agree with you?

No, because he is posting dozens of stream-of-conciousness speculations cloaking RightThink bogeymen and making no effort to substantiate or otherwise render them meaningful. If this board was called heyguesswhatjustoccurredtome.com or alexjonesreckons.com then i wouldn't complain, but its not, and his practise of 'post lots, ignore feedback & questions' makes a mockery of this places pretensions.

Montag wrote:And the peaceniks and the "lefties" and the conspiraphobes will have been played like a fiddle. Assange will probably be dead in a hole somewhere (a spider hole, haha), having served his meager function. Or perhaps live to tell his tales and be held as an Ellsberg til the next CIA/Mossad errand boy emerges from obscurity.

It is interesting how you, lupercal and 82_28 just keep coming out with the hate speech, but couldn't scrape a decent evidence trail or even coherent argument together between the lot of you. Supports my theory that RightThinkers actually can't do reasoned evidenced debate, because their Strict Fathers tell them what to think regardless.

wintler2 wrote:It is interesting how you, lupercal and 82_28 just keep coming out with the hate speech, but couldn't scrape a decent evidence trail or even coherent argument together between the lot of you. Supports my theory that RightThinkers actually can't do reasoned evidenced debate, because their Strict Fathers tell them what to think regardless.

Links posted by lupercal on page 1 of this thread:

In OP:

1) To CNET: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20011106-281.html (with lengthy quotation, annotated);

2) To Cryptome.org: http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak.htm (with lengthy quotation, annotated);

Elsewhere:

3) To RI archive: http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/ ... =8&t=28960 ;

4) To RI archive: http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/ ... =8&t=27779 (rather dubious author, I'll give you that );

5) To WaPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 06613.html (with lengthy quotation, annotated);

6) To NY Daily News: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... s/national (with lengthy quotation, annotated).


Links posted by wintler2 in this thread: 0.
............................

You were saying?

Whats to say in this thread - barracuda did the work on pg2 showing that the OP you launched the thread with was nonsense, and no anti-wikileaks poster has attempted to contest it - you lose by no-show.

I'm also not insisting twenty times a day that wikileaks is definately X, and so i have less to substantiate. Your revolting texts claim all sorts of things but provide no substantiation .. much like the 'rape' allegations against assange plastered across MSM now i think of it - thats shitty.

Because some here are not convinced that Wikileaks is the real deal does not mean they are anti-Wikleaks. I for one see the pro-Wikileaks crowd on the same level as the anti-Wikileak crowd,,,,, for myself, I just allow my intuitive faculty to guide my present understanding without taking sides.

I guess some people are impatient and like to take a final position before all the data is in and processed.

wintler2 wrote:

Montag wrote:

wintler2 wrote:
Why? they're not pissing in our info stream the way you are.

Why is 82 "pissing in your stream" b/c he doesn't agree with you?

No, because he is posting dozens of stream-of-conciousness speculations cloaking RightThink bogeymen and making no effort to substantiate or otherwise render them meaningful. If this board was called heyguesswhatjustoccurredtome.com or alexjonesreckons.com then i wouldn't complain, but its not, and his practise of 'post lots, ignore feedback & questions' makes a mockery of this places pretensions.

Montag wrote:And the peaceniks and the "lefties" and the conspiraphobes will have been played like a fiddle. Assange will probably be dead in a hole somewhere (a spider hole, haha), having served his meager function. Or perhaps live to tell his tales and be held as an Ellsberg til the next CIA/Mossad errand boy emerges from obscurity.

It is interesting how you, lupercal and 82_28 just keep coming out with the hate speech, but couldn't scrape a decent evidence trail or even coherent argument together between the lot of you. Supports my theory that RightThinkers actually can't do reasoned evidenced debate, because their Strict Fathers tell them what to think regardless.

What in the living fuck are you talking about wintler? You think, you seriously think, I or any other valued and trusted member here is coming at you with "hate speech"? Fuck, how insulting. Who and what the fuck is a "RightThinker". Jesus dood. It doesn't need to come to that or this. Don't fucking accuse anybody of anything if you don't wanna be a "RightThinker" yourself holmes. The way it seems you're playing this all out in your head or whatever is like someone playing poker that demands that his awesome straight is somehow better than the opponent's flush.

But, but, but wait! I had a straight! "Hate speech", my ass dude. All you gotta do is let the conversation develop. Now, I understand that you got it goin' on with your grasp of shit, but some of us don't. Some here, including myself aren't fit to piss next to wintler1 let alone the improved model wintler2. Jesus brother, give up the attitude and allow the conversation to develop. You were perfectly fine in my eyes until you had to feel the need to be a fucking dick about all this. I'll let you know when I complete my course in Hate Speech 101 and then we can go from there. Until then, I got nuthin' as far as hate speech.

Ben D wrote:Because some here are not convinced that Wikileaks is the real deal does not mean they are anti-Wikleaks. I for one see the pro-Wikileaks crowd on the same level as the anti-Wikileak crowd,,,,, for myself, I just allow my intuitive faculty to guide my present understanding without taking sides.

I guess some people are impatient and like to take a final position before all the data is in and processed.

Meta-positions are the same as regular old positions.

Also please refrain from conflating anti-anti-WikiLeaks with pro-WikiLeaks.