PaulL

Assange maintains that transparency encourages untruthful, deceptive and conspiratorial organisations to reform so that they can be proud to display their achievements and activities to the world....but you seem to have a problem with that?

PaulL

I must confess I don't quite see how you know the content of some 230,000 cables that have not yet been released. Unless you are in a position to have read them already.

I did not point out that it isn't my job to "uncover" the cables, though it isn't. I said that it is not my task to do this research for people.

Again, I point out that you are not the determiner of what is and is not of vital interest to people other than yourself, especially on this forum.

You can be as bombastic as you like, the fact remains that people will make their own judgments as to the interest or otherwise of the Wikileaks story and they may or may not coincide with yours.

This is a forum where people express their opinions. Writers here write opinion pieces. Graeme Young publishes an enormously wide variety of opinion, and in this, OLO is quite unique and highly valued.It isn't a vehicle for one particular point of view.

If you find the cables and Wikleaks boring (though it doesn't sound as if boredom is your problem), then get on with your life and ignore it. Nobody here is telling you you have to find it exciting and interesting.

I'll remind you that some 3 million people already had access to these cables before they were given to Assange. Assange is a media player who was given material by a source. Just like any New York Times, Guardian or SMH editor.

The responsibility for the leaks rests with the US State Dept, whose security was apparently too inadequate to protect the material from those 3 million people, and from the lowly soldier who downloaded it at his desk.

I am now going to exercise the right you so kindly reminded me that I have, and ignore you.
Jennifer Wilson

briar rose, in her post of Sunday, 19 December 2010 at 12:22:48 PM, observes in relation to PaulL:

"I must confess I don't quite see how
you know the content of some 230,000
cables that have not yet been released.
Unless you are in a position to have read
them already."

ROFL

It is always a sheer and utter delight, briar rose, when one encounters true perceptiveness, a quality so sadly lacking amongst much of the Fourth Estate these days. It is good that you not only write for what, due to that enormous default, is fast becoming Australia's perhaps most significant journal of record, OLO, but engage as an author in the discussions your articles start.

For this post of yours I hereby nominate you, Jennifer Wilson, for the OLO Nobble Piece Prize for 2010, with Laurels. (The Nobble Piece Prize is awarded on OLO for the public unfrocking of suspected impostor posters by OLO Article authors. On rare occasions the Nobble Piece Prize with Laurels is awarded if, in the unfrocking, multiple OLO personae can be Stockholm tarred* with the same brush. There exists a Forum rule on OLO prohibiting the use of multiple userIDs.)

There is, sadly, presently no monetary component to the OLO Nobble Piece Prize, but perhaps, after all the dust settles and all stocks of condoms held in Sweden have been checked for servicability, the King of Sweden may endow OLO for this prize in recognition of its role in revealing the likely true nature of the first-ever terrorist attack upon Swedish soil.

As a recently-recalled-to-duty GELATO officer** on OLO, it is my pleasure to leak to you for your enjoyment this archived OLO post which I have titled 'Paul.L on PaulL': http://bit.ly/fW0Qh8

The context in which many of the posts in the composite posting history of this seeming OLO multiple personality, which you have unfrocked, have been made, is most interesting.

"Oh say, can you see ....."





*Stockholm Tar: An equine remedy for lacerations, particularly effective on American Quarterhorses.

**The GELATO: http://bit.ly/hLaUvl

Jennifer,

You say “I did not point out that it isn't my job to "uncover" the cables, though it isn't. I said that it is not my task to do this research for people. “

I’m wondering what you think is the essential difference?

My point has been simple and on topic.

I have defended the reaction of journalists who have been underwhelmed by Assange and his leaks. You have claimed vital importance for these leaks. I have attempted to get you to demonstrate how these cables have been vitally important, which you have studiously ignored. I’m sorry if you feel I have been bombastic but as you can see, I am beset by at least one moron who greatly amuses him/herself

Forrest,
Careful there mate or you’ll find yourself with blisters.

Poirot,
You say “Assange maintains that transparency encourages untruthful, deceptive and conspiratorial organisations to reform so that they can be proud to display their achievements and activities to the world....but you seem to have a problem with that?”

I dispute the premise that
1) The above is an accurate reflection of what he wants to achieve, regardless of what he says.
2) That the leaks will lead to that goal

In fact, i believe it is his intention to undermine the current political system. Furthermore, he knows that the results of these leaks will be a tightening of information security, which was his intention.

I’ve asked for cables which prove significant conspiratorial behaviour. They have not been forthcoming.

Do you have a problem with diplomats not telling foreign leaders exactly what they think of them? Do you think that Diplomats to North Korea, for example, should not be making assessments that Kim Jong Il would not be happy with?

Gotta say thanks FG, for linking me to that old thread.

It cleared up any doubt about your conspiratorial outlook. 9/11 was a failed coup de tat, was it?

I had a few laughs and in particular, brings to mind that old chestnut,

" Never argue with idiots, someone watching might not be able to tell the difference"

I owe an apology to viewers and our new OLO laureate.

I have been so busily basking in what I think is my newly accorded online status of 'idiot', that I have neglected to inform readers of this thread (and the King of Sweden) what may have been OLO's role in "revealing the likely true nature of the first-ever terrorist attack upon Swedish soil".

Its all derivable from the leaked cables, of course, when the relevant one is read in the light of events contemporary with the complaints laid in Sweden in relation to which Assange's extradition is sought: the defective Interpol warrant upon which Assange's arrest was initially sought, his detention with attempted denial of bail in the UK including the UK CPS claim as to there having been no record of Assange's entry into the UK from Sweden, and the terrorist attack in Stockholm on Saturday 11 December.

The relevant cable appears to be this one: http://213.251.145.96/cable/2008/11/08STOCKHOLM748.html

This cable is capable of being interpreted, when read in the light of the aforesaid contemporary events, as it has been in this post on the 'Sanctuary' thread: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4159#104883

Now if one is a non-believer in co-incidence, there are several obvious candidates deserving of the credit for this 'little demonstration' in downtown Stockholm: some agency of the Swedish government, some agency of the US government, or some agency of another national government having an interest (or wishing they didn't) in the matter, in possession of knowledge as to what this now-deceased Swedish citizen may have been up to.

If one is a true believer in co-incidence, of course, the attack was due to a radicalised islamic emigre unhappy with cartoons, who happened not to know very much about bombs. Very decent it was of him, too, not to have seriously injured any other of his fellow Swedish citizens in his protest.

Australia and Sweden: two constitutional monarchies with a condominium of interest, facilitated by OLO.