| samivel
|
| 793779. Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:05 pm |
 |
|
| bobwilson wrote: | | 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. |
Now why doesn't that surprise me? |
|
|
|
 |
| bobwilson
|
| 793780. Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:11 pm |
|
|
Ok, so
"Neither A nor B is equivalent to C (nor, as x says, are they equivalent to each other)"
can be read to mean
"A = B"
No, sorry, I still don't get it. |
|
|
|
|
| samivel
|
| 793783. Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:26 pm |
|
|
I'm saying that the part in parentheses can be read to be saying that X thinks A=B. Change the word after X to 'claims' instead of 'says'.
Do you get it yet? Or shall I get Dermot Murnaghan to explain it all to you several times? |
|
|
|
|
| bobwilson
|
| 793784. Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:41 pm |
|
|
Ah - lightbulb goes on. I get what you're saying now - you're saying it could be read as
"nor, despite what Samivel says, are they equivalent to each other"
I should have put "as Samivel rightly says" to avoid any misinterpretation.
(I'd be staggered if Dermot McDickhead could explain it - it'd be an interesting exercise to present him with the posts preceding your most recent and have him explain what you're saying on your behalf if you believe that he's capable of this feat).
Can you clear up the other one
| Quote: | | the Sun isn't 93 million miles from the Earth; the Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun |
which I also didn't understand. |
|
|
|
|
| samivel
|
| 793803. Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:18 am |
|
|
| It was just a better example of what you were arguing than the one you used. |
|
|
|
|
| Neotenic
|
| 793871. Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:07 am |
|
|
Well, it seems that real life is almost as bizarre as this thread.
Ian Hislop has apparently come forward to disclose that during a conversation, Mr Assange accused him of being a part of a 'Jewish conspiracy'.
If you're looking for an indicator that your intellectual position may be in trouble, then it's hard to find a better one than blaming the Jews for your ills.
Of course, Julian has come out to say that Ian was talking out of his posterior, which puts us in an interesting situation - one of the pair has to be telling porky pies, so who are we to believe?
I've just tried to access the website of this Israel Shamir fellow, and it's been blocked by the office web-filters on grounds of 'racism and hate', which isn't a good start.
David Leigh, a Grauniad journo, is one of those supposedly singled out by Julian as being part of the cabal, and I expect that it's entirely coincidental that this piece, penned by David about Israel Shamir appeared a month or so ago.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I think it's particularly interesting that the Grauniad seem now to be leading the charge against Julian, considering they were one of his five sainted 'media partners' - I suppose this does go to show that even sitting on purportedly the most amazing journalistic resource in history on the internal machinations of the US won't save you if you act like a thundering cockmonkey once too often.
So, who has more to gain? what could Ian gain from fabricating the story that the phone call went as he says, and what could Julian gain from fabricating the story that the phone call didn't pan out as reported? |
|
|
|
|
| Neotenic
|
| 793874. Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:13 am |
|
|
| Oooh, and in case anyone is interested, here is the full judicial ruling on Julian's extradition. |
|
|
|
|
| CB27
|
| 793927. Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:08 pm |
|
|
With regards the Ian Hislop bit, I read through the quotes, and I get the feeling he read something into Assange's remarks that weren't there. As I understood it, from the quotes given, Assange was talking about a conspiracy to dissuade Jewish support, not a "Jewish conspiracy", so I think IH is being very mischevious there, and it's not the first time.
As for the ruling, it makes a devastating read as to the the honesty and/or capability of the Swedish defence lawyer, as well as the ready acceptance of former professionals to ignore years of practice and agree with evidence they either hadn't seen or didn't understand.
The bit about the text messages is like something out of Benny Hill... |
|
|
|
|
| bobwilson
|
| 793978. Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:40 pm |
|
|
| Quote: | | I've just tried to access the website of this Israel Shamir fellow, and it's been blocked by the office web-filters on grounds of 'racism and hate', which isn't a good start. |
I wouldn’t take your office filters as definitive – they probably use a standardised watch list, and those tend to be overcautious. I’ve spent some time today looking into Shamir, the portrayal of Shamir, and whether it’s fair to call him anti-semite / anti-jewish / holocaust denier.
First of all, I had a look at his own website http://www.israelshamir.net/ - and buried away on the page http://www.israelshamir.net/English/BBC-Smear-Short3.htm I found this
| Quote: | Naturally, as a son of Jewish parents and a man living in the Jewish state and deeply and intimately involved with Jewish culture, I harbour no hate to a Jew because he is a Jew. I doubt many people do. However I did and do criticise various aspects of Jewish Weltanschauung like so many Jewish and Christian thinkers before me, or even more so for I witnessed crimes of the Jewish state that originated in this worldview.
As for the accusation of “Holocaust denial”, my family lost too many of its sons and daughters for me to deny the facts of Jewish tragedy, but I do deny its religious salvific significance implied in the very term ‘Holocaust’; I do deny its metaphysical uniqueness, I do deny the morbid cult of Holocaust and I think every God-fearing man, a Jew, a Christian or a Muslim should reject it as Abraham rejected and smashed idols. I deny that it is good to remember or immortalise such traumatic events, and I wrote many articles against modern obsession with massacres, be it Jewish holocaust of 1940s, Armenian massacre of 1915, Ukrainian “holodomor”, Polish Katyn, Khmer Rouge etc. Poles, Armenians, Ukrainians understood me, so did Jews – otherwise I would be charged with the crime of factual denial which is known to the Israeli law. |
I think it’s reasonable to take that as “the case for the defence” of Israel Shamir (if he wants a better defence he can post here himself).
I’ve had a look through the “case for the prosecution” too – it seems to be pretty weak. What it appears to amount to is that “everybody says” that Shamir is a racist, anti-semitic, holocaust denier – but nobody seems able to provide any actual evidence. (There are a couple of articles in Swedish that I couldn’t read that might be definitive – but apart from those everything else seems to be quoting other writers claiming that Shamir is a holocaust denier, taking selectively short quotes – as little as two words in some cases – which are meaningless, or using quotations out of context). |
|
|
|
|
| Neotenic
|
| 794023. Tue Mar 08, 2011 5:59 am |
|
|
| Quote: | | I think IH is being very mischevious there, and it's not the first time. |
Yeah, I think that's possible. Although branding someone an anti-semite without good cause does seem like a rather odd type of mischief to me.
And I can't really say that I take IH particularly seriously most of the time - certainly with the stuff I've seen him say about matters economic, if there's a choice between the truth and a gag, he'll pick the latter.
But, nevertheless, I think it's a twist in this story that none of us were expecting.
| Quote: | As for the ruling, it makes a devastating read as to the the honesty and/or capability of the Swedish defence lawyer, as well as the ready acceptance of former professionals to ignore years of practice and agree with evidence they either hadn't seen or didn't understand.
|
Yup, it most certainly doesn't paint Assange's legal team in a particularly favourable light - although how much of that is down to the direction of the client remains to be seen.
The thing that has me grimly smirking about the whole thing is that Assange was seemingly motivated by abuses of power - and now that he has obtained a certain degree of power for himself, he does rather appear to be abusing it in much the same way. |
|
|
|
|
| samivel
|
| 794027. Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:15 am |
|
|
That happens quite often - people seem to want either less corruption/abuse of power/what have you, or more chance to benefit from it.
I know I do, which is why I handle all the cash at work. Mwahhahaha. |
|
|
|
|
| CB27
|
| 794066. Tue Mar 08, 2011 9:21 am |
|
|
| All 72 pence of it??? |
|
|
|
|
| samivel
|
| 794106. Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:02 am |
|
|
Yeah, but it was 74 pence.
Shhh. |
|
|
|
|
| Neotenic
|
| 794107. Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:10 am |
|
|
| Bernie Madoff, eat your knob off. |
|
|
|
|
| samivel
|
| 794110. Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:12 am |
|
|
Quite.
All right, so I'm just a beginner, but even Bernie would have had to start somewhere. |
|
|
|
|
