The very strange, and vindictive, case of Julian Assange

DaManBugs

LE
Book Reviewer
Hi Bugsy - waiting to be afforded the courtesy of an answer to my question of a few days/pages ago. I wont be offended if you tell me that you dont want to answer it - but I would appreciate some kind of response, if only out of politeness.
Jaisus! You are annoying! It's not as if I'm obligated to answer your question, but of course that doesn't chime with your overawing sense of self-importance, does it? OK. What was your facile and totally irrelevant question again? I'll answer it but only because I hope it'll stop you constantly chogging up the thread with your egotistical, conceited arrogance.

MsG
 
Jaisus! You are annoying! It's not as if I'm obligated to answer your question, but of course that doesn't chime with your overawing sense of self-importance, does it? OK. What was your facile and totally irrelevant question again? I'll answer it but only because I hope it'll stop you constantly chogging up the thread with your egotistical, conceited arrogance.

MsG
I realise that there's no obligation on your part, hence my polite requests. For ease of reference, it's the post HERE

It might stop DeltaDog from being all AlphaMale aggressive too! Win win :)
 
I realise that there's no obligation on your part, hence my polite requests. For ease of reference, it's the post HERE

It might stop DeltaDog from being all AlphaMale aggressive too! Win win :)
Lay into an easy target to satisfy your insecurities by all means - but don't drag yet another thread off topic in the process.
 

DaManBugs

LE
Book Reviewer
I realise that there's no obligation on your part, hence my polite requests. For ease of reference, it's the post HERE

It might stop DeltaDog from being all AlphaMale aggressive too! Win win
It might also stop you from being a conceited "testa di cazzo" all the time. You posted this:
Cast your mind back to Nov 2014 when you engaged in the following exchange of views, resulting in your statement. My proposal to you - I can get your personal details published on wikileaks. Are you still ideologically-minded to provide them to me? Name, DOB, Current Address and a recent colour photo (passport style) would be the maximum that I would ask of you.
You may not realise it, but it’s very clear that your “question” was put with a view to “backing me into a corner” and thus enhancing your (rather dubious) ARRSE reputation. A sort of: “Ooh, lookamee, fellas, ain’t I clever!”

If you read my answer to the original question from Yokel, it should be clear what I meant. So, in answer to your request: I won’t be providing you with any details whatsoever! The reason? You’re a slimy little gobshite who’s always at the very forefront when it comes to slagging me off. And suddenly you want my details, complete with piccie even. And just what would you do with them? After all the gratuitous Bugsy-bashing you’ve done to enhance your ARRSE reputation, do you really think I trust you? Not as far as I can throw a double-mattress up a spiral staircase, fella! Wikileaks would have no interest at all in publishing the details of a complete nobody like me, so you have an ulterior motive. Therefore, request denied. Now stay on-thread.

MsG
 
It might also stop you from being a conceited "testa di cazzo" all the time. You posted this:

You may not realise it, but it’s very clear that your “question” was put with a view to “backing me into a corner” and thus enhancing your (rather dubious) ARRSE reputation. A sort of: “Ooh, lookamee, fellas, ain’t I clever!”

If you read my answer to the original question from Yokel, it should be clear what I meant. So, in answer to your request: I won’t be providing you with any details whatsoever! The reason? You’re a slimy little gobshite who’s always at the very forefront when it comes to slagging me off. And suddenly you want my details, complete with piccie even. And just what would you do with them? After all the gratuitous Bugsy-bashing you’ve done to enhance your ARRSE reputation, do you really think I trust you? Not as far as I can throw a double-mattress up a spiral staircase, fella! Wikileaks would have no interest at all in publishing the details of a complete nobody like me, so you have an ulterior motive. Therefore, request denied. Now stay on-thread.

MsG
No, my question was intended to determine and expose whether you would step up to the mark and expose yourself in the way that you claim you would.

Clearly you are not prepared to so do. That speaks volumes about your personal commitment to the causes that you claim to be central to your politique.

I'm not condemning you for it, just exposing the dichomity of what you post vs what you you are prepared to do. Talk is cheap, eh?
 
Lay into an easy target to satisfy your insecurities by all means - but don't drag yet another thread off topic in the process.
My question is central to this thread. The point being that people are prepared to say one thing but not back it up: When it gets personal, policies change. That's what fear is all about.

Assange was quite happy to expose people to public scrutiny but his supporters seem less ready to expose themselves when put under scrutiny.

I'm asking Bugsy, and you if willing, to publicly accept broadcast of your personal details. He, and probably you, are unwilling to so do. That rather weakens your moral position.
 
My question is central to this thread. The point being that people are prepared to say one thing but not back it up: When it gets personal, policies change. That's what fear is all about.

Assange was quite happy to expose people to public scrutiny but his supporters seem less ready to expose themselves when put under scrutiny.

I'm asking Bugsy, and you if willing, to publicly accept broadcast of your personal details. He, and probably you, are unwilling to so do. That rather weakens your moral position.
What is my moral position?
 
What is my moral position?
I have asked you to publish yr personal details if you believe that your cause is just. The same as I have asked of zBugsy, given his stated position. I don't mind if you do or dont, but will judge you on yr response. Not difficult, is it? Do you believe that you have a right to do/say/publish opinion in anonymity (when the consequences of yr actions are to deny anonymity to others) or not?. Either publish yr details in support of yr position, or retract. Its quite simple.
 
UN committee preaching to the UK about human rights? This article from the Indy says it all:

What does not seem to have been metioned is that the judgement of the UN panel was NOT unanimous with only 3 of the 5 panel members actually saying that the Narcissistic Skippylander was "arbitrarily detained" (One who disagreed also released his own statement with his reasons against the "decision", the other one was an Aussie who refused to take part!!) so it is not so clear cut as some make out.

Also of note is the number of such requests which are decided in favour of the applicant, with in excess of 99% of cases beind decided in favour of the applicant (FOUR out of 1325 claims were found to be BS by the panel in the 5 years between 2009 and 2014), and although many of these will have been justifiable decisions, such a proportion does bring the neutrality of the panel into question, especially when they declare that someone who VOLUNTARILY broke UK law by jumping bail and evaded arrest by making what could only be described as one of the most dubious asylum claims in history has been "detained" by any authority in any way, shape or form. He could have walked out at any moment of his choosing, instead he is trying to evade punishment for the very crime he HAS committed (jumping bail in the UK, before the mouth breathers decide to start hammering their keyboards like chimpanzees on hallucinogenics).

Also of note is how the likes of the Guardian and the apologists here (Bugsy, DeltaDog, I'm looking at you) have refused to acknowledge, have ignored, and will continue to ignore and acknowledge the above whilst dribbling about non-existant extradition requests and charges against the Narcisstic Skippylander.

Plus ça change.......
 
It might also stop you from being a conceited "testa di cazzo" all the time. You posted this:

You may not realise it, but it’s very clear that your “question” was put with a view to “backing me into a corner” and thus enhancing your (rather dubious) ARRSE reputation. A sort of: “Ooh, lookamee, fellas, ain’t I clever!”

If you read my answer to the original question from Yokel, it should be clear what I meant. So, in answer to your request: I won’t be providing you with any details whatsoever! The reason? You’re a slimy little gobshite who’s always at the very forefront when it comes to slagging me off. And suddenly you want my details, complete with piccie even. And just what would you do with them? After all the gratuitous Bugsy-bashing you’ve done to enhance your ARRSE reputation, do you really think I trust you? Not as far as I can throw a double-mattress up a spiral staircase, fella! Wikileaks would have no interest at all in publishing the details of a complete nobody like me, so you have an ulterior motive. Therefore, request denied. Now stay on-thread.

MsG
So you won't practice the "openness" you preach about?

What a shock, pinko leftie says "Do what I say, even though I won't reciprocate".

YFM
 
Proving that he's done great damage to the US government shouldn't be hard - proving that he's actually broken any laws would be the difficult bit.
Yes I think you're right. I just really don't see them actually trying to prosecute him now and dredging up all this stuff again. Then again you never know I suppose.
 

DaManBugs

LE
Book Reviewer
My question is central to this thread. The point being that people are prepared to say one thing but not back it up: When it gets personal, policies change. That's what fear is all about.

Assange was quite happy to expose people to public scrutiny but his supporters seem less ready to expose themselves when put under scrutiny.

I'm asking Bugsy, and you if willing, to publicly accept broadcast of your personal details. He, and probably you, are unwilling to so do. That rather weakens your moral position.
I made two points which you conveniently decided to skim over to support your pointless argument.
1. There's no mileage whatsoever in publishing my personal details on Wikileaks. No-one's in the slightest bit interested in me.
2. I wouldn't do it through YOU. Because I don't trust you.

MsG
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top