Comments on: A Word from Wikileaks http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/02/a_word_from_wikileaks.html Secrecy News from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:23:26 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Stephen http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/02/a_word_from_wikileaks.html/comment-page-1#comment-1133 Stephen Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:22:17 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/02/a_word_from_wikileaks.html#comment-1133 <p>"Constant Harping," spelled HAARP...I am sure we are all aware of the program...a lot of coincidences going around these days...then again, I do not believe in coincidences...</p> “Constant Harping,” spelled HAARP…I am sure we are all aware of the program…a lot of coincidences going around these days…then again, I do not believe in coincidences…

]]> By: KC http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/02/a_word_from_wikileaks.html/comment-page-1#comment-1083 KC Thu, 28 Feb 2008 01:07:18 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/02/a_word_from_wikileaks.html#comment-1083 If the site search is working correctly, there have been two prior posts about Wikileaks here. How can that be construed to be "constant harping"? If the site search is working correctly, there have been two prior posts about Wikileaks here. How can that be construed to be “constant harping”?

]]> By: Tlaloc http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/02/a_word_from_wikileaks.html/comment-page-1#comment-1072 Tlaloc Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:27:37 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/02/a_word_from_wikileaks.html#comment-1072 Personally I though Mr. Aftergoode's take on the wikileaks issue was quite fair. His conclusion seemed reasonable. I don't take his lack of partisan cheerleading to be a bad thing. Wikileaks is an interesting concept but should not expect people to feign total support when they have reasonable reservations. That said I tend to agree with the commentor above that this email is probably a product of stress. It might have been best simply to ignore it. Personally I though Mr. Aftergoode’s take on the wikileaks issue was quite fair. His conclusion seemed reasonable. I don’t take his lack of partisan cheerleading to be a bad thing. Wikileaks is an interesting concept but should not expect people to feign total support when they have reasonable reservations.

That said I tend to agree with the commentor above that this email is probably a product of stress. It might have been best simply to ignore it.

]]> By: Nemo http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/02/a_word_from_wikileaks.html/comment-page-1#comment-1065 Nemo Sun, 24 Feb 2008 04:26:23 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/02/a_word_from_wikileaks.html#comment-1065 Angry email != court ordered censorship. Doesn't it say "On top of everything else, your quote is the only critical entry on our Wikipedia page." Irony would be if they attempted to edit that entry. Which they certainly could do. Yet the comment remains. Just because information is free and open doesn't mean it isn't supposed to piss you off. Angry email != court ordered censorship. Doesn’t it say

“On top of everything else, your quote is the only critical entry on our Wikipedia page.”

Irony would be if they attempted to edit that entry. Which they certainly could do. Yet the comment remains. Just because information is free and open doesn’t mean it isn’t supposed to piss you off.

]]> By: Chris http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/02/a_word_from_wikileaks.html/comment-page-1#comment-1059 Chris Sat, 23 Feb 2008 02:19:27 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/02/a_word_from_wikileaks.html#comment-1059 Sending a pissy email to the owner of a website that has been consistently critical of what you do, and on top of it you place a veiled threat at the end, and you would expect that to remain private? It is apparent that the owners of wikileaks are not interested in improving their website, but instead only want the love and adoration of gushing sychophants. Sending a pissy email to the owner of a website that has been consistently critical of what you do, and on top of it you place a veiled threat at the end, and you would expect that to remain private?

It is apparent that the owners of wikileaks are not interested in improving their website, but instead only want the love and adoration of gushing sychophants.

]]> By: Randy http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/02/a_word_from_wikileaks.html/comment-page-1#comment-1058 Randy Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:53:04 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/02/a_word_from_wikileaks.html#comment-1058 This is a petty thing to do - for you folks to publish an e-mail that is clearly intended to be private. Now you can make the idiotic argument that Wiki does the same thing, but this is not a life or death situation, or a government or company trying to cover up misdeeds, etc. It sounds like Steven has some personal vendetta against this group at Wikileaks, which is his and their business, but evidently this Stephen wants some help from his "peeps"! I would give it some thought and think about why you folks would even publish this, and then hope that someone does not do some digging on your activities and personal e-mails. Then it would be "different", right Steven? This is a petty thing to do – for you folks to publish an e-mail that is clearly intended to be private. Now you can make the idiotic argument that Wiki does the same thing, but this is not a life or death situation, or a government or company trying to cover up misdeeds, etc.
It sounds like Steven has some personal vendetta against this group at Wikileaks, which is his and their business, but evidently this Stephen wants some help from his “peeps”!
I would give it some thought and think about why you folks would even publish this, and then hope that someone does not do some digging on your activities and personal e-mails. Then it would be “different”, right Steven?

]]> By: Paul http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/02/a_word_from_wikileaks.html/comment-page-1#comment-1055 Paul Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:58:03 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/02/a_word_from_wikileaks.html#comment-1055 It's nice that this guy doesn't have anything to worry about greater than what Steven thinks. What's the bug up his tuchus? It’s nice that this guy doesn’t have anything to worry about greater than what Steven thinks. What’s the bug up his tuchus?

]]> By: Glen Ropella http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/02/a_word_from_wikileaks.html/comment-page-1#comment-1052 Glen Ropella Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:26:46 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/02/a_word_from_wikileaks.html#comment-1052 Though Jay Lim's e-mail is off base, you have to consider that WikiLeaks is under a pretty severe amount of stress these days. So, I'd take that e-mail as the kind of outburst we're all susceptible to in stressful times. We're all on the same team, here. Though Jay Lim’s e-mail is off base, you have to consider that WikiLeaks is under a pretty severe amount of stress these days. So, I’d take that e-mail as the kind of outburst we’re all susceptible to in stressful times. We’re all on the same team, here.

]]> By: dan tynan http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/02/a_word_from_wikileaks.html/comment-page-1#comment-1051 dan tynan Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:17:34 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/02/a_word_from_wikileaks.html#comment-1051 let me get this straight. wikileaks reveals documents that present corporations, governments, and other authorities in a bad light, under the guise of free and open speech. BUT... they don't want you exercising the same rights to reveal opinions that cast wikileaks in a bad light. do these guys not understand the definition of irony? because they certainly seem to be the living embodiment of it. what I really want to know is, what do they really mean by "we will.... be forced to respond." what are they gonna do, get a judge to pull your DNS listings? - dan tynan www.dantynan.com let me get this straight.

wikileaks reveals documents that present corporations, governments, and other authorities in a bad light, under the guise of free and open speech.

BUT… they don’t want you exercising the same rights to reveal opinions that cast wikileaks in a bad light.

do these guys not understand the definition of irony? because they certainly seem to be the living embodiment of it.

what I really want to know is, what do they really mean by “we will…. be forced to respond.” what are they gonna do, get a judge to pull your DNS listings?

- dan tynan
http://www.dantynan.com

]]>