The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Click Here
"A judge at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court refused bail because of the risk of the 39-year-old fleeing."
"Julian Assange surrendered himself to police in London"
Thoughts?
"A judge at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court refused bail because of the risk of the 39-year-old fleeing."
"Julian Assange surrendered himself to police in London"
Thoughts?
Page:
I think Wikileaks should return the files like they were asked to.
Just attach them in an email and press send. Simple!
Just attach them in an email and press send. Simple!
Warhunt wrote:
>Bottom lime
Off topic.
>Bottom lime
Off topic.
@Garin: Supposedly I am anyway. It's what my spin doctor/mother says anyway ;)
On a serious note, one liners intended to be witty/whatever don't really do it for me. You may have to explain why you said that if you were making a point :P
@general: I think you missed the point of my post. I wasn't comparing the situation to WIkileaks specifically, but rather the whole idea of free speech/journalism. Infact I tend to agree with everythin Nin has said (at which I shudder about).
Maybe Wikileaks are in the right, and have given the government the chance to take the info back, but it still doesn't exclude them from moral obligations. And that's where the line is....
The only dubious thing they have released is the details of civilians aiding the armed forces in the war torn countries. And I don't know all the details to that.
Bottom lime unless you are one of the people involved, you really don't know what is true and what isn't. Or what's going to harm anyone.
On a serious note, one liners intended to be witty/whatever don't really do it for me. You may have to explain why you said that if you were making a point :P
@general: I think you missed the point of my post. I wasn't comparing the situation to WIkileaks specifically, but rather the whole idea of free speech/journalism. Infact I tend to agree with everythin Nin has said (at which I shudder about).
Maybe Wikileaks are in the right, and have given the government the chance to take the info back, but it still doesn't exclude them from moral obligations. And that's where the line is....
The only dubious thing they have released is the details of civilians aiding the armed forces in the war torn countries. And I don't know all the details to that.
Bottom lime unless you are one of the people involved, you really don't know what is true and what isn't. Or what's going to harm anyone.
You poor deluded soul Warhunt. :-)
Warhunt wrote:
Imagine someone walked around your town giving all your secrets away?
It's fine if the people need to know (if you are a murderer or something)
I really liked that above all the other possible words you could have chosen, you went with murderer. It's perfect
but what if the info effects your families welfare/security (pssst.... warhunt has no back door lock and is out between 10-11??).
Well firstly question what is a private issue and what's in the public interest.
Secondly it's Warhunts fault for not locking his back door.
Thirdly, if someone steals from Warhunt and then calls him from the carboot sale asking if he wants his stuff back and he says no...
Fourth, Wikileaks didn't actually steal anything anyway, they were given it.
Fith, there's been absolutely no cause and effect proven yet.
Sixth, Wikileaks has actually helped world security by pointing out the flaws in the current system.
What increasingly sickens me about this whole thing is we have to sit through endless amounts of crap from the papers, stuff that isn't news and has no business being public knowledge but when something actually newsworthy happens, it's clamped down on through extremely questionable means. The whole fricking point of the press is to keep governments in line by reporting this stuff and if they can't do that, there's no point in their existance.
Enjoy your celebrity news and forget all about the bad man saying bad things. Yes, yes that's it! Dance puppets, dance!
Imagine someone walked around your town giving all your secrets away?
It's fine if the people need to know (if you are a murderer or something)
I really liked that above all the other possible words you could have chosen, you went with murderer. It's perfect
but what if the info effects your families welfare/security (pssst.... warhunt has no back door lock and is out between 10-11??).
Well firstly question what is a private issue and what's in the public interest.
Secondly it's Warhunts fault for not locking his back door.
Thirdly, if someone steals from Warhunt and then calls him from the carboot sale asking if he wants his stuff back and he says no...
Fourth, Wikileaks didn't actually steal anything anyway, they were given it.
Fith, there's been absolutely no cause and effect proven yet.
Sixth, Wikileaks has actually helped world security by pointing out the flaws in the current system.
What increasingly sickens me about this whole thing is we have to sit through endless amounts of crap from the papers, stuff that isn't news and has no business being public knowledge but when something actually newsworthy happens, it's clamped down on through extremely questionable means. The whole fricking point of the press is to keep governments in line by reporting this stuff and if they can't do that, there's no point in their existance.
Enjoy your celebrity news and forget all about the bad man saying bad things. Yes, yes that's it! Dance puppets, dance!
Couldn't agree more. But I'll wade in anyway, just because...
I think I said before about WikiLeaks, i's not really about the site/source, it's the general quetion of when is journalism/free speech (believe it or not they are not the same thing) morally right?
Imagine someone walked around your town giving all your secrets away? It's fine if the people need to know (if you are a murderer or something), but what if the info effects your families welfare/security (pssst.... warhunt has no back door lock and is out between 10-11??).
I think I said before about WikiLeaks, i's not really about the site/source, it's the general quetion of when is journalism/free speech (believe it or not they are not the same thing) morally right?
Imagine someone walked around your town giving all your secrets away? It's fine if the people need to know (if you are a murderer or something), but what if the info effects your families welfare/security (pssst.... warhunt has no back door lock and is out between 10-11??).
To roll out a cliche, with power comes responsibility. Wikileaks continually demonstrate an inability to do that. A pity considering the good things they have released.
As Hmmm.... said though, totally bored with the whole thing.
As Hmmm.... said though, totally bored with the whole thing.
Numnut wrote:
Alfonse wrote:
[i]Some would think otherwise.
Click Here
It's just what the lawyer said when asked a similar question on responsibility and national security - surely a lawyer wouldn't lie to help their client would they?[/i]
Did anyone find merit in the newly released information, or do you guys think this was merely a retaliatory response to the perceived harrassment of Julian Assange?
Alfonse wrote:
[i]Some would think otherwise.
Click Here
It's just what the lawyer said when asked a similar question on responsibility and national security - surely a lawyer wouldn't lie to help their client would they?[/i]
Did anyone find merit in the newly released information, or do you guys think this was merely a retaliatory response to the perceived harrassment of Julian Assange?
Alfonse wrote:
Some would think otherwise.
Click Here
It's just what the lawyer said when asked a similar question on responsibility and national security - surely a lawyer wouldn't lie to help their client would they?
Some would think otherwise.
Click Here
It's just what the lawyer said when asked a similar question on responsibility and national security - surely a lawyer wouldn't lie to help their client would they?
Page: