| bobwilson
|
| 792315. Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:13 am |
 |
|
| Neo wrote: | | Bob's rather bizarre assertation was that the truth and 'hidden information that should be revealed in the public interest' were not always synonymous |
Actually, that's not what I asserted (or assertated) at all.
As I said before - do you need me to expand on this? I thought it was clear - if you need me to explain it to you then I'll gladly do so. |
|
|
|
 |
| samivel
|
| 792321. Wed Mar 02, 2011 2:05 am |
|
|
Well, here's what you asserted:
| bobwilson wrote: | | Quote: | | Considering Wikileaks is supposed to be about revealing truths |
No - wikileaks is "supposed" to be about revealing hidden information of public interest. The two are not synonymous. |
I'm not surprised at Neo's reading of what you said, as it's how I read it as well. What's clear about this is that what you think is clear and what others think is clear is clearly different. So yes, you probably do need to expand on how revealing hidden information of public interest does not necessarily equate to revealing truth.
Although do try to expand in a way that is clear and to the point, and without dragging in a load of irrelevant guff. |
|
|
|
|
| bobwilson
|
| 793072. Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:24 pm |
|
|
Fair enough Samivel
Here's a truth - the bloke who lives two doors away from me is bonking the wife of our mutual neighbour. (I know this because she told me about it).
Now - if you can tell me how revealing that truth equates to revealing hidden information of public interest I'll be glad to entertain your equality.
Is that clear and absent irrelevant guff enough for your purposes? |
|
|
|
|
| Neotenic
|
| 793091. Fri Mar 04, 2011 5:40 am |
|
|
Oh, I see now.
In order to squeeze out a point upon which you can object, you are interpreting wikileak's existence as a site through which hidden truths can be revealed as a sit through which all hidden truths must be revealed.
I think I would also argue that the public interest in the hidden truth that Mr Smith is doing the nasty with Mrs Jones only extends as far as Mr Jones.
So, I think you're post is clear, but it has unfortunately exposed your entire point to be irrelevant guff. |
|
|
|
|
| samivel
|
| 793138. Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:15 am |
|
|
| Neotenic wrote: | | I think I would also argue that the public interest in the hidden truth that Mr Smith is doing the nasty with Mrs Jones only extends as far as Mr Jones. |
And Mrs Smith, should there be one. Still, a bit of a stretch to call two people a public. |
|
|
|
|
| CB27
|
| 793151. Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:41 am |
|
|
| This is beginning to sound like one of Donald Rumsfeld's "known unknowns" theories... |
|
|
|
|
| bobwilson
|
| 793309. Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:39 pm |
|
|
Hang on a second. Neo and Samivel are apparently agreeing with me and simultaneously telling me I’m wrong.
I’m not interpreting Wikileaks existence as a site “through which all hidden truths must be revealed” – exactly the opposite. I initially said (reordered slightly and with emphasis added) | Quote: | | wikileaks is "supposed" to be about revealing hidden information of public interest – not about revealing truths |
Samivel asked me
| Quote: | | to expand on how revealing hidden information of public interest does not necessarily equate to revealing truth. |
which I did.
In the example I gave I said
| Quote: | | if you can tell me how revealing that (private) truth equates to revealing hidden information of public interest (I’d be glad to accept that “revealing information of public interest” is equivalent to revealing truths). |
I know Neo and Samivel often disagree with me, but it’s getting ridiculous if they’re going to start saying “I disagree with you that the Sun is 93 million miles from the Earth – it’s actually 93 million miles from the Earth”. |
|
|
|
|
| samivel
|
| 793327. Sat Mar 05, 2011 2:56 am |
|
|
| bobwilson wrote: | Samivel asked me
| Quote: | | to expand on how revealing hidden information of public interest does not necessarily equate to revealing truth. |
which I did. |
Well, no you didn't. You expanded on how revealing hidden information of no public interest does not necessarily equate to revealing hidden information of public interest. |
|
|
|
|
| samivel
|
| 793329. Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:00 am |
|
|
| bobwilson wrote: | | I know Neo and Samivel often disagree with me, but it’s getting ridiculous if they’re going to start saying “I disagree with you that the Sun is 93 million miles from the Earth – it’s actually 93 million miles from the Earth”. |
And that's clearly bollocks - the Sun isn't 93 million miles from the Earth; the Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun.
What you're saying is like expecting me to treat those two statements as fundamentally different in content. Which I can do, if you want, but I doubt it'll make any difference. |
|
|
|
|
| PDR
|
| 793365. Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:14 am |
|
|
| samivel wrote: | And that's clearly bollocks - the Sun isn't 93 million miles from the Earth; the Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun.
|
Well it would be possible for both those statements to be true, depending on the relative velocity of the observer making the statement with respect to the sun and the earth...
PDR |
|
|
|
|
| bobwilson
|
| 793504. Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:13 pm |
|
|
OK – let’s try one last time.
Hidden information of public interest plus hidden information of no public interest equals the totality of hidden information.
Neither “Hidden information of public interest” nor “hidden information of no public interest” is equivalent to “all hidden information” (nor, as Samivel says, are they equivalent to each other).
| Quote: | | the Sun isn't 93 million miles from the Earth; the Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun |
I’m afraid you’re going to have to explain that to me.
| Quote: | | What you're saying is like expecting me to treat those two statements as fundamentally different in content. Which I can do, if you want, but I doubt it'll make any difference. |
I don’t know what this means.
I don’t understand why this has all become such a big issue – all I said was that Wikileaks remit was to reveal hidden information of public interest – not, as CB’s original statement seemed to imply, to reveal all hidden information (whether of public interest or not).
Ironically, looking back at it now, I don’t think CB’s original statement did imply that after all – I think what he meant was that the underlying Wikileaks philosophy was to disseminate information of public interest (whether hidden or not), and that by providing false information (about the way the Swedish legal system works for instance) Assange and his “lawyer” were doing much the same thing as any civil servant who buries awkward information in a drawer marked “beware of the Rottweiler”. |
|
|
|
|
| samivel
|
| 793523. Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:46 pm |
|
|
| bobwilson wrote: | | I don’t understand why this has all become such a big issue – all I said was that Wikileaks remit was to reveal hidden information of public interest – not, as CB’s original statement seemed to imply, to reveal all hidden information (whether of public interest or not). |
Probably because the way you actually said what you're claiming to have said sounded an awful lot like you thought revealing hidden information of public interest would sometimes include revealing information which was not true.
And because your subsequent clarifications have a habit of muddying things further. |
|
|
|
|
| samivel
|
| 793524. Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:51 pm |
|
|
| bobwilson wrote: | | Neither “Hidden information of public interest” nor “hidden information of no public interest” is equivalent to “all hidden information” (nor, as Samivel says, are they equivalent to each other). |
This could be a very good example of where your postings are causing problems - I'm hoping that the bit in parentheses is you agreeing that I've pointed out a difference between hidden information of public interest and hidden information of no public interest, but it could equally easily be read as you claiming that I've said hidden information of public interest and hidden information of no public interest amount to the same thing. |
|
|
|
|
| PDR
|
| 793568. Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:47 am |
|
|
| samivel wrote: | | ...but it could equally easily be read as you claiming that I've said hidden information of public interest and hidden information of no public interest amount to the same thing. |
Yes, but I'm not sure whether the accuracy of that claim is something whose disclosure is in the public interest.
PDR |
|
|
|
|
| bobwilson
|
| 793775. Sun Mar 06, 2011 7:27 pm |
|
|
| Quote: | | I'm hoping that the bit in parentheses is you agreeing that I've pointed out a difference between hidden information of public interest and hidden information of no public interest |
Absolutely – which is what I said initially.
| Quote: | Considering Wikileaks is supposed to be about revealing truths
No – wikileaks is "supposed" to be about revealing hidden information of public interest. |
| Quote: | | it could equally easily be read as you claiming that I've said hidden information of public interest and hidden information of no public interest amount to the same thing |
I don’t see how it could be read to mean that.
| Quote: | | Probably because the way you actually said what you're claiming to have said sounded an awful lot like you thought revealing hidden information of public interest would sometimes include revealing information which was not true. |
Now I see what your problem was – I was drawing a distinction between revealing information of public interest (wikileaks job) and revealing all information, whether of public interest or not (not wikileaks job). I don’t really understand why that was misunderstood – particularly after my “clarification” in post 793072 – but there you have it. |
|
|
|
|
