Comments on: A Word from Wikileaks

By: logic

logic — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 02:13:09 +0000

Regarding the first version of the Cryptome article which has been
the base for previous postings – only Domscheit-Berg as a former
WL member and writer of the book excerpts was in a position
to “reveal” something about Lim’s identity. And Domscheit-Berg said
in the same excerpts he does not know if Lim is Assange – and
therefore no relevation.

Now we can start to make guesses and John’s addendum on the
Cryptome page argues some points to show why it is likely for him
that Lim is Assange. But that is an opinion, no proof.

Blog comments are nowadays full of shills who lie to suck up for
some government/corporate money.
Thankfully John has documented cases like http://bit.ly/gkO8Pw
on his page. I think there is no need for being careless with the
truth because there are more than enough people trying to bend
it as hard as they can.

By: Steven Aftergood

Steven Aftergood — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 23:24:34 +0000

Hi John. Thanks for the clarification.

By: John Young

John Young — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 23:19:53 +0000

Not to duck culpability for the Lim = Assange claim, it was the source of the excerpts who made that claim, not Cryptome. Below the DDB book excerpts Cryptome provide comments on messages by Jay Lim on the WL-Volunteers mail list. None of the 400 or so messages specifically stated Lim was Assange or vice versa. However Assange has stated he uses pseudonyms as a common practice as do many if not all experienced security practitioners — and do scoundrels of all stripes such as me. Look, pseudonymous sock puppets are loose upon the Internet, social media, chat rooms, BBs, email, forums like this one, as they have always been in RL. To boost ad revenue, hits, followers, fans, enemies, mayhem, law and order, braggardy, shameless accusations, and all the ancient devices for wedding malice and goodwill. The Wikileaks furor is a cathartic, a purgative, a welcome diversion from the same old shit, oh, sorry, I forgot this is Secrecy News where nothing ill-tempered is permitted. Hello, Steven or whoever runs this joint, nice haircut.

By: logic

logic — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 05:45:14 +0000

mtex: Stop lying by twisting the facts.

As I wrote, Cryptome says on the linked page that Lim is Assange.
The provided excerpts from Domscheit-Berg’s book provided as proof
for this allegation on the same page clearly do not support this.

With the repetition of the allegation of your first post you are now
showing you did not erroneously misreading the Cryptome posting
but use it for propaganda against the provided facts.
That is called lying in by book.

By: mtex

mtex — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 20:42:34 +0000

about logic’s posting above:
In the webpage I linked to it is John Young from Cryptome who points out that Jay Lim is one of Assange’s pseudonyms, not DDB. John Young, not DDB, writes:

“On page 2 “Jay Lim” is a pseudonym for Assange. Here is “Lim” corresponding with Steven Aftergood, Secrecy News (link) and commenting on a post in Wired (link)”.

I wish people would stick to the facts instead of wasting their time cherry-picking information so as to mislead everybody.

By: logic

logic — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:20:43 +0000

About mtex’s posting above:
The website Cryptome alleges “Jay Lim” is a pseudonym for Julian
Assange but the provided proof does not say so.
The cited proof is a book excerpt from former WL member Daniel
Domscheit-Berg. The excerpt says:

“I don’t know wether some of the names are real people or alter
egos of Julian Assange. ‘Jay Lim’ for instance, is responsible for
legal questions. Jay Lim? Someone Chinese, maybe? I’ve never met
him. Nor did I ever have any contact with Chinese dissidents who,
as rumour had it, were involved in setting up Wikileaks.”

I wish people would stick to the facts instead of misleading
reporting that wastes everybodies time.

By: mtex

mtex — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 01:14:16 +0000

Sir, it was today revealed that the above person, “Jay Lim”, is merely a pseudonym for Julian Assange himself:

http://cryptome.org/0003/ddb-book/ddb-book.htm

By: M

Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:53:04 +0000

Wikileaks is irresponsible, dangerous and bad!
The Company should take them out and shut them down for endangering Americans and the lives of those who help the Americans in Afghanistan against the evil Taliban.
What a bunch of spinless gutless troublemakers who deserve to be sent behind Taliban line swithout any weapons.
Schweinhund und Dummkopf!
Let us all email Wikileaks to complain and see how we can shut them down asap!!!!

By: JKAllen

JKAllen — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:24:11 +0000

Wikileaks likes to endanger me and my co-workers on a daily basis. I’m all for the 1st amendment, but some information needs to remain out of the hands of our government’s enemies.

By: Saki

Saki — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 05:33:49 +0000

“You are the number one public enemy of this project. On top of everything else, your quote is the only critical entry on our Wikipedia page. Some friend of openness!””

Ok Wikileaks, in the name of openness, what do you need $600,000 a year for? Becasue it sure as hell isn’t server costs all of it, so what is it you spend all that money on? Traveling the world on business class staying in luxury suits @ 5 star hotels?

If you are all about openness, I suggest you tell the world why you need such a huge amount of money!