You've already betrayed your own opinion by continuing to engage me after declaring me "unworthy of futher attention." You don't take your own opinion very seriously, so I'm sure not going to.[/url]
What I said, in essence, was that if you did not add something to the discussion then you were not worth my attention.
Funy, you said in the next post:
you have yet to present anything substantive to this conversation.
Yet I
still warranted your attention, as attested by your response -- and even your continued response here. Indeed I do warrant your attention, and no doubt will continue to.
I took your last post as an ill conceived attempt to be a constructive part of this conversation, but because you made an attempt I felt it was at least worth giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Apparently
not, considering this thing about "yet to present anything subtantive."
Back. Pedal.
Thomas Jefferson alone wasn't "the Founders." And even he fully understood the need for secrecy in war and diplomacy.[/url]
So in your opinion the founding fathers would have had to unanimously agree with what Wikileaks is doing in order to give credence to Michael Moore's statement? By that reasoning, even the U.S. Constitution would be an invalid example of what the founding fathers wanted, since it was the result of considerable debate and compromise.
More specious "reasoning." All I did was show a significant chunk who had different thoughts from what you're presenting.
Exceptionally specious "reasoning."[/url]
No, My reasoning was not specious
Oh, well, if you say so.
however I will go as far as to concede that my statement was more ambiguous than it could have been, it was not my intent to be misleading. I will restate it in a more clear form: Wikileaks released the cables and documents without editing them.
How do you know?
And how do you know they were ALL released, and in the proper context?
We have only Assange's word on that. But perhaps that's good enough for
you.
Whether the statements in the documents are true or false is not at issue here. Their veracity is out of Wikileaks' purview to control, nor is such expected. Any "falsity" that might be attributed to Wikileaks could only arise if they had edited the documents or else fabricated false documents.
You don't know that they didn't. You don't know anything other than what they want you to know.
The credibility of Wikileaks rests on their ability to insure that whatever they release is authentic
What makes you think "credibility" is a priority for Assange? His mission appears to be rather different.
and I have not yet observed any official charges that the documents have been tampered with.
That doesn't mean they weren't, and it doesn't mean they were released in full context. "Charging" same would require releasing even
more documents. Not hard to see why someone wouldn't want to do that.
So,
all you have is Assange's word.
Beyond that, the burden of veracity rests with the various authors of the documents, not with Wikileaks as an institution.
You would think a "responsible" journalist would have an interest in it.
Take Michael Moore himself -- he's whining because he says cables about him are false and others are saying journalists shouldn't have published the cable which makes him look bad because they had a duty to determine their truth.
Does not Assange, if he's to be understood as a "journalist"
lamo), have the same responsibility?
Or does that responsibility only apply when it makes the wrong people look bad?
I didn't mention it because it is not a valid distinction.
Oh, that's funny; I thought you "handled it." Yep, that's what you said:
Your 'bold distinction' is really nothing more than a red herring but I have indeed handled it readily
So, either you "handled it," or you didn't mention it. :lamo <------ (love that the text of this is "lamo")
We have a free press specifically to act as a check against a government that relies on 'State Secrets"
So what? That doesn't mean seeking and publishing state secrets wouldn't have been opposed by the Founders.
I am concerned with addressing the issue in a way that will allow everyone to understand it fully, and find ethical common ground. Michael Moore also made his statement "as an example of what a rather prominent group of Founders thought about things at the time" but that has led to this entire discussion, so apparently a truly thoughtful person should have told you that such a distinction is redundant at this point.
No, you're concerned with proppping up Wikileaks as a paragon of responsible journalism and defending what Moore said. If not, you'd recognize that what Moore said, "as an example of what a rather prominent group of Founders thought about things at the time," is exactly what I did with the Sedition Acts. Hmmm.
Bluster is aggressive and ineffectual, so no I don't think that.
Yet you engage in it anyway.
I have added to this conversation with at least one unique observation of my own. Your accusation that I don't distinguish between bluster and debate is patently malicious and false.
You simply don't like being called on it. But I'm sure you'll live through it.