Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2010/12/17 14:11:07
Subject: The continuing story of Julian Assange...Wikileaks.
Is that what they are calling the US military now?
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2010/12/17 14:18:29
Subject: The continuing story of Julian Assange...Wikileaks.
Is that what they are calling the US military now?
No. The FLying Monkey Troops are a special unit, comprised of monkeys. MONKEYS THAT CAN FLY! FLY MY PRETTIES!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2010/12/17 15:54:56
Subject: Re:The continuing story of Julian Assange...Wikileaks.
Kanluwen wrote:
So using an example and asking a rhetorical question is "deflection"?
Huh. Interesting.
...Yes? Where did you study debate?
I didn't. I also didn't study being a prick quite as much as you have, apparently.
Kanluwen wrote:
Not really. It just seems you're purposely being obtuse and trying to find deflection where there is none.
Well, honestly, I'm being obtuse because my real criticism would extend beyond forum rules.
I don't have very much respect for anything that you have to say.
And this is why it took you how many days to reply to this? Interesting.
See, now that? That's deflection.
Kanluwen wrote:
It is when you're accepting money from private companies that are bidding for jobs.
That's a problem? Maybe those companies are the best contractors. Why not accept their money? To convince the idiot plebes?
...Of course that's a fething problem, fool.
A politician who is in a position where he can give away jobs that contractors are bidding for should not ever be receiving money from companies that are bidding for that job.
Is it too complicated for you? Do I need to draw you a picture in crayon, maybe put some sparkles on it so your eye is drawn to it?
Kanluwen wrote:
I'm not. I'm saying that corruption is corruption, and it's actually not that hard to find it when you're looking.
No, that's exactly what you're saying. You just said it again. Equating corruption in politics to corruption in police is to equate police and politics.
No, I'm equating investigative procedures in exposing corruption in police forces to investigative procedures in exposing corruption in politics.
It's not that complicated to understand.
Kanluwen wrote:
I've answered three different times. There's no hesitation. It didn't weaken my position either.
No, you think that you've answered it, but you haven't. This is an example of why I have no respect for you.
Oh no, I've answered it. It's not the answer you wanted, apparently so you continue to try to browbeat me with thinly veiled insults about this sbuject.
2010/12/17 16:01:19
Subject: Re:The continuing story of Julian Assange...Wikileaks.
UN mulls internet regulation options
By John Hilvert on Dec 17, 2010 9:51 AM (17 hours ago)
Filed under Security
WikiLeaks sparks push for tighter controls.
The United Nations is considering whether to set up an inter-governmental working group to harmonise global efforts by policy makers to regulate the internet.
Establishment of such a group has the backing of several countries, spearheaded by Brazil.
At a meeting in New York on Wednesday, representatives from Brazil called for an international body made up of Government representatives that would to attempt to create global standards for policing the internet - specifically in reaction to challenges such as WikiLeaks.
The Brazilian delegate stressed, however, that this should not be seen as a call for an "takeover" of the internet.
India, South Africa, China and Saudi Arabia appeared to favour a new possible over-arching inter-government body.
However, Australia, US, UK, Belgium and Canada and attending business and community representatives argued there were risks in forming yet another working group that might isolate itself from the industry, community users and the general public.
"My concern is that if we were to make a move to form a governmental-only body then that would send a very strong signal to civil society that their valuable contribution was not required or was not being looked for," an un-named Australian representative told the meeting.
Debate on the creation of a new inter-governmental body stemmed from a UN Economic and Social Council resolution 2010/2 of 19 July.
The resolution invited the UN Secretary-General "to convene open and inclusive consultations involving all Member States and all other stakeholders with a view to assisting the process towards enhanced cooperation in order to enable Governments on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities in respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet but not of the day-to-day technical and operational matters that do not impact upon those issues."
Much debate concerned the meaning of "enhanced cooperation" and whether a new inter-governmental body was required. Participants also debated the roles of existing organisations - such as the Internet Governance Forum, ICANN and the ITU.
The IGF - an organisation that informs the UN but makes no decisions - is running close to the end of a five-year mandate, due to expire at ?the end of the year.
The likes of ISOC, ICANN and more recently the World Information Technology and Services Alliance (WITSA) have recently expressed concerns [PDF]? that a working panel to decide on the future of the IGF has been limited to representatives from member-states.
"Australia is a very strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum," the unidentified Australian UN representative said at the New York meeting this week. "That is very much due to the multi-stake-holder approach of the IGF. It is an inclusive process."
Australia's Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy said that Australian Government welcomed the resolution of the Second Committee of the United Nation General Assembly (UNGA) to extend the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) for a further five years.
The DBCDE said it would like to see the organisation retain an open and participatory membership.
"Australia has always supported the participation of civil society and the private sector in the IGF and regards their participation as being integral to the IGF's success," a spokesman told iTnews.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2010/12/17 16:20:59
Subject: Re:The continuing story of Julian Assange...Wikileaks.
Kanluwen wrote:
And this is why it took you how many days to reply to this? Interesting.
I was bored, and decided to read through old threads. Honestly, I had forgotten our little exchange until I saw your reply.
Kanluwen wrote:
See, now that? That's deflection.
You already said you never studied debate, so why are you trying to argue with me as regards what constitutes deflection?
Kanluwen wrote:
...Of course that's a fething problem, fool.
A politician who is in a position where he can give away jobs that contractors are bidding for should not ever be receiving money from companies that are bidding for that job.
Is it too complicated for you? Do I need to draw you a picture in crayon, maybe put some sparkles on it so your eye is drawn to it?
No, you need to explain why that's a problem instead of merely saying that it is.
Note, simply taking money from company X does not indicate that company X is not the most competitive bidder. In fact, one could argue that the willingness to grease wheels makes company X the most competitive bidder.
Kanluwen wrote:
No, I'm equating investigative procedures in exposing corruption in police forces to investigative procedures in exposing corruption in politics.
It's not that complicated to understand.
I understand exactly what you're doing, and I'm basically explaining that to you. For example, you just, again, equated police and politics.
Now, you could argue that doing so was your intention, and that police and politics are comparable, but that would first require accepting that you're equating two different things for the purposes of comparison. You seem unwilling to do this for what I can only conclude are reasons of masculine net-pride.
Kanluwen wrote:
Oh no, I've answered it. It's not the answer you wanted, apparently so you continue to try to browbeat me with thinly veiled insults about this sbuject.
Well, you've answered in the sense that you've responded to a question that I've asked. You haven't answered in the sense that your response had any material implications with respect to the matter at hand.
Incidentally, I'm not insulting you, I'm merely explaining my demeanor with respect to you. Insulting someone would require some sort of derisive comparison, which I haven't entered into.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hemingway wrote:
obviously the correct response was to take a rhetorical comment literally and respond with a sarcastic link. C- for effort, D for originality, but your pedantry scores are off the charts!
Bro, that is always the correct response to a rhetorical comment.
Rhetoric is for the plebes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/12/17 16:23:37
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2010/12/17 17:23:57
Subject: Re:The continuing story of Julian Assange...Wikileaks.
Kanluwen wrote:
...Of course that's a fething problem, fool.
A politician who is in a position where he can give away jobs that contractors are bidding for should not ever be receiving money from companies that are bidding for that job.
Is it too complicated for you? Do I need to draw you a picture in crayon, maybe put some sparkles on it so your eye is drawn to it?
No, you need to explain why that's a problem instead of merely saying that it is.
Note, simply taking money from company X does not indicate that company X is not the most competitive bidder. In fact, one could argue that the willingness to grease wheels makes company X the most competitive bidder.
It's a conflicted interest, I'd figure that would be clear to someone of your mind-blowing intellect .
Politicians are not supposed to be awarding contracts based on who "greases the wheel". They're supposed to be awarding contracts based on who is able to provide the best product/service for the most acceptable price.
dogma wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
No, I'm equating investigative procedures in exposing corruption in police forces to investigative procedures in exposing corruption in politics.
It's not that complicated to understand.
I understand exactly what you're doing, and I'm basically explaining that to you. For example, you just, again, equated police and politics.
Now, you could argue that doing so was your intention, and that police and politics are comparable, but that would first require accepting that you're equating two different things for the purposes of comparison. You seem unwilling to do this for what I can only conclude are reasons of masculine net-pride.
What in the feth are you talking about?
equating investigative procedures in exposing corruption in police forces to investigative procedures in exposing corruption in politics.
How is this complicated to understand?
If an Internal Affairs investigation looks at your financial reports, tracking how much money is being spent based on how much you legitimately have at your disposal and it doesn't add up--then something's up.
If a diplomat is being investigated for corruption, an agency looks at their finances and sees irregularities like said diplomat being listed and paid for their services as a "consultant" to a company that they claim to have no ties to--then something's up.
Now, if only I had some crayons and glitter to help this sink in...
Kanluwen wrote:
Oh no, I've answered it. It's not the answer you wanted, apparently so you continue to try to browbeat me with thinly veiled insults about this sbuject.
Well, you've answered in the sense that you've responded to a question that I've asked. You haven't answered in the sense that your response had any material implications with respect to the matter at hand.
And you've ignored the fact that it was a perfectly acceptable answer explaining what the "means available to a person" is.
2010/12/17 18:12:29
Subject: The continuing story of Julian Assange...Wikileaks.
Kanluwen wrote:
It's a conflicted interest, I'd figure that would be clear to someone of your mind-blowing intellect .
So? You still haven't addressed the fact that a bribe does not negate the quality of work being done.
Kanluwen wrote:
Politicians are not supposed to be awarding contracts based on who "greases the wheel". They're supposed to be awarding contracts based on who is able to provide the best product/service for the most acceptable price.
So, as I said, the bribe isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not the service provided is acceptable.
Kanluwen wrote:
What in the feth are you talking about?
I'm explaining to you why your argument is bad, and how you could improve; plus a little bit of speculation as to why you refuse to do so.
Kanluwen wrote:
How is this complicated to understand?
If an Internal Affairs investigation looks at your financial reports, tracking how much money is being spent based on how much you legitimately have at your disposal and it doesn't add up--then something's up.
If a diplomat is being investigated for corruption, an agency looks at their finances and sees irregularities like said diplomat being listed and paid for their services as a "consultant" to a company that they claim to have no ties to--then something's up.
Now, if only I had some crayons and glitter to help this sink in...
What constitutes a diplomat's legitimate earnings? It certainly isn't merely his salary, and his stock holding are obviously questionable given the potential for foreign investment. So what constitutes "legitimacy" in such a context? Political will?
Dude, you've just restated the point that I previously said was crap.
Try to move past bad arguments.
Kanluwen wrote:
And you've ignored the fact that it was a perfectly acceptable answer explaining what the "means available to a person" is.
No, that's not what that comment was about, go back and read the thread.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/12/17 18:41:41
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2010/12/17 18:34:16
Subject: The continuing story of Julian Assange...Wikileaks.
I'm not accustomed to agreeing more with Kanluwen than Dogma. It feels weird.
Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++ A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.
My friend in high school had a great saying "England, cant live with em, cant defeat third world countries without them"
It makes sense to me, England is a small nation, but it has people serving in it's Royal Marines like me, individuals who are Tommy Rockers. And as such the US military is smart to seek our aid because I am a steely eyed dealer of death and I count as 10 men.... and... and... balls like watermelons have I.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/12/18 08:28:56
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
2010/12/18 17:58:15
Subject: The continuing story of Julian Assange...Wikileaks.
I really liked hanging out with Royal Marines, both in Iraq and back in 29 Palms. At the E-Club I was shown what a "Rugby Shot" is, which was an experience I'll never forget.
A good bunch of guys, as far as I'm concerned.
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
2010/12/18 20:03:30
Subject: The continuing story of Julian Assange...Wikileaks.
dogma wrote:Bro, that is always the correct response to a rhetorical comment.
Rhetoric is for the plebes.
are you calling frazzled a plebe?
dogma wrote:I have fairly controversial ideas regarding "corruption", so that's to be expected.
what dogma is saying here is that he bribes politicians for a living =P
kidding aside, though, your suggestion that a bribe doesn't negate the quality of the work also works the other way: it's not necessarily a guarantor of a high standard of work. the reason that a politician taking a bribe to award a contract is a problem is that he is awarding public moneys based on his own pecuniary interest, when he has a fiduciary responsibility for those moneys and an ethical responsibility to use them in the public interest.
2010/12/19 14:15:12
Subject: Re:The continuing story of Julian Assange...Wikileaks.
hemingway wrote:
are you calling frazzled a plebe?
No, I'm saying he often makes statements that are designed to be emotionally manipulative, rather than substantive.
hemingway wrote:
kidding aside, though, your suggestion that a bribe doesn't negate the quality of the work also works the other way: it's not necessarily a guarantor of a high standard of work. the reason that a politician taking a bribe to award a contract is a problem is that he is awarding public moneys based on his own pecuniary interest, when he has a fiduciary responsibility for those moneys and an ethical responsibility to use them in the public interest.
Sure, but those aren't mutually exclusive ideas. My point is that the system is structured such that it is in the self-interest of politicians to act with the public interest in mind, as well as their own. Taking bribes, or otherwise benefiting from the award of a contract, is not intrinsically bad. If it were, then everyone that ends up being reelected following a strong performance in office would be engaging in morally reprehensible behavior.
This is made all the more complicated by the nebulous nature of legitimate income. In the world of politics "taking a bribe" isn't always about getting some money slipped under the table. Sometimes its simply a matter of professional courtesy that might be extended due to having a contract awarded, or perhaps hiring a certain individual for the same reason.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2010/12/19 22:01:47
Subject: Re:The continuing story of Julian Assange...Wikileaks.
Peter Wiggin wrote:I heard today that Wikileaks is supposed to release information on aliens. I am not kidding.
I've received a secret sneak peak:
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2010/12/20 17:19:09
Subject: Re:The continuing story of Julian Assange...Wikileaks.
Seriously? Grow up please.
tard
The Undying Spawn of Shub-Niggurath 
