Julian Assange has had his connection to the internet severed

[Actarius]

The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy

The Misconception: You take randomness into account when determining cause and effect.
The Truth: You tend to ignore random chance when the results seem meaningful or when you want a random event to have a meaningful cause.

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/09...ooter-fallacy/

Going to hop in, off-topic, and say I just read that and it's really cool. It made a lot of sense, and looking back on my life I can definitely recall times I used that.

Thanks for sharing

[Felya]

Sorry but Hitler actually loosened gun regulations. After WWI Germans weren't allowed a piece of string, much less a firearm. Adolf gets in power, loosens the laws, people own guns, repeat, until the only people who can't own the guns are the Jews.

Does Wiki count? It has sources that aren't circle jerks in this article.

I like to link Homage to Catalonia to prove this point. It's harder to write off evidance of government arming of the populace, when it's George Orwell contradicting you.

- - - Updated - - -

you'll figure it out when you hit about 30.

I'm 37, check post history for consistency. Care to explain now?

- - - Updated - - -

kids who dont know what fraud looks like, see fraud, have opinions.

Do you need me to explain why this doesn't make sense? If someone drew a tree and you didn't know what a tree looks like, you wouldn't see a tree.

- - - Updated - - -

Going to hop in, off-topic, and say I just read that and it's really cool. It made a lot of sense, and looking back on my life I can definitely recall times I used that.

Thanks for sharing

It's worse when you consider things that are socially acceptable. Things like the number 7 and 13... it's related to the fallacy, but is accepted as colloquial.

- - - Updated - - -

Kids who don't understand journalism see what journalism look like, have opinions.

How much you want to bet that if he answers my questions, I'll have him assert the matrix theory? We are already in the realm of not knowing what fraud is, but knowing it when seen. We are just a step away from the defenition of existence, depending on global programming.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

kids who dont know what fraud looks like, see fraud, have opinions.

- - - Updated - - -

Kids who don't know what fraud look like, see fraud when it isn't there, have opinions

[Truculentt]

Talking to sources and relevant parties about your articles and giving them a chance to respond before publishing isn't "fraud" its due diligence.

Hi - I'm a marketing director.

First of all, if someone circulates a release prior to publication, that's grounds for immediate termination. Not only because it violates every ethic ever written about journalism, but also because it opens to publisher to liability in the event of civil action (and the email in question was, ironically, fundraising).

That's not due diligence. due diligence happens BEFORE the article is sent to editing.

So again, you refuse to actually say anything to back up your allegations. This seems to be a pattern.

yeah, there's a pattern - you want to subjectivity an objective allegation to justify your own ineptitude. It's tiresome to say the least.

- - - Updated - - -[/COLOR]


It's worse when you consider things that are socially acceptable. Things like the number 7 and 13... it's related to the fallacy, but is accepted as colloquial.

- - - Updated - - -


How much you want to bet that if he answers my questions, I'll have him assert the matrix theory? We are already in the realm of not knowing what fraud is, but knowing it when seen. We are just a step away from the defenition of existence, depending on global programming.

it doesnt make sense because you, have no fucking idea what youre talking about. which is ok - i wouldn't expect you to unless you have a career in a production environment. but the strength of your opinions? thats infuriating.... and based on what? cnbc nightly news? Does it dawn on you to think twice when your primary news sources are suspect in the allegation you're blindly defending? probably not.

[May90]

you'll figure it out when you hit about 30.

People saying "When you reach age X, you will get it" usually have no grasp on what they are talking about, in my experience.

[Orbitus]

Hi - I'm a marketing director.

First of all, if someone circulates a release prior to publication, that's grounds for immediate termination. Not only because it violates every ethic ever written about journalism, but also because it opens to publisher to liability in the event of civil action (and the email in question was, ironically, fundraising).

That's not due diligence. due diligence happens BEFORE the article is sent to editing.



yeah, there's a pattern - you want to subjectivity an objective allegation to justify your own ineptitude. It's tiresome to say the least.




it doesnt make sense because you, have no fucking idea what youre talking about. which is ok - i wouldn't expect you to unless you have a career in a production environment. but the strength of your opinions? thats infuriating.... and based on what? cnbc nightly news? Does it dawn on you to think twice when your primary news sources are suspect in the allegation you're blindly defending? probably not.

Your experience as a "marketing director" means absolute dick to what you responded to. Asking someone for a comment before you write or post a story about them, isn't fraud, it is common fucking practice.

[Wells]

Hi - I'm a marketing director.

First of all, if someone circulates a release prior to publication, that's grounds for immediate termination. Not only because it violates every ethic ever written about journalism, but also because it opens to publisher to liability in the event of civil action (and the email in question was, ironically, fundraising).

That's not due diligence. due diligence happens BEFORE the article is sent to editing.

Journalism and marketing aren't the same industry.

[Edge-]

Hi - I'm a marketing director.

Hi, I do PR. Nice to meet you!

First of all, if someone circulates a release prior to publication, that's grounds for immediate termination.

Do you not preseed trusted media under embargo? Because that's literally bog standard PR/marketing 101. You preseed trusted media for major announcements to give them time to prep news stories to go live the second the announcement is officially released. If you are not doing this, no offense, you're missing out on a huge amount of potential coverage for your announcement.

Not only because it violates every ethic ever written about journalism,

No it doesn't, media receive information under embargo/NDA all the time. The only violation is when they agree to an embargo/NDA and break it.

That's not due diligence. due diligence happens BEFORE the article is sent to editing.

From the media side? Actually, yes, it is. I regularly get contacted to fact check information about a news story/product/person from media ahead of their stories posting. That's literally part of their due diligence.

[Truculentt]

Hi, I do PR. Nice to meet you!



Do you not preseed trusted media under embargo? Because that's literally bog standard PR/marketing 101. You preseed trusted media for major announcements to give them time to prep news stories to go live the second the announcement is officially released. If you are not doing this, no offense, you're missing out on a huge amount of potential coverage for your announcement.



No it doesn't, media receive information under embargo/NDA all the time. The only violation is when they agree to an embargo/NDA and break it.

This is the presidential election, not a social media startup - and thats exactly the kind of information thats exhausting to explain to an amateur. Your audience is relevant, your relationship to the subject matter is relevant.

"media" is not a publication. It doesn't imply copyright. it doesn't imply publisher right. you can circulate all the media you want. no one gives a shit.

Publications on the other hand, have legal consequence. that consequence changes quite substantially depending on the field/subject matter.

The subject of you a publication is not a trusted source. That's a huge conflict of interests, and probably the craziest statement I've heard from a supposed PR person.

In many instances you have to DISCLOSE that relationship to your readers or you're subject to liability. Imagine what would happen if someone recommended stock to their readers as per the advise of the CFO, without disclosing that affiliation to the reader......

From the media side? Actually, yes, it is. I regularly get contacted to fact check information about a news story/product/person from media ahead of their stories posting. That's literally part of their due diligence.

On media?or on publications? In any event, they arent sending you copies of the drafted publication to fact check. Maybe media, but not on a publication. They would then become legally liable (unless you're a contractor, not a 3rd party PR rep).

- - - Updated - - -

Your experience as a "marketing director" means absolute dick to what you responded to. Asking someone for a comment before you write or post a story about them, isn't fraud, it is common fucking practice.

and youre an expert in what area? none? I thought so.

again, you have no idea what youre talking about.

[Fargus]

Maybe some evidence, for once? Rather than wacky conspiracy theories: "They have done this, and then she has done this - obviously there is connection here!!!"

That is not a wacky conspiracy theory, that is what investigators do all the time... connecting the dots. Whether there's anything to them relies on evidence, which wikileaks had a lot of.

- - - Updated - - -

I just find it funny that a pathetic excuse of a man, cries about Ecuador turning off the internet access to him, an outlaw that they're kind enough to keep in a hole in the first place.

Keep trying to rig our election though, Assange. That's just what we love, an Australian scumbag, hiding in Ecuador, accepting stolen information from the Russians, and slowly releasing it piece by piece over months, while not even reading through it, in attempts to try and influence our election in favor of the Russia's choice, while at the same time keeping that pompous, windbag relevant.

This garbage is the only thing "rigged" this election cycle. Wikileaks, years ago, became all about one tired boring old man who never was or will be a journalist trying to stoke his ego. Any good they ever did was over long ago.

Do you have any proof Assage is rigging the election with help from Russia?

Does anyone? Or is it just nonsense to cover up the contents of these emails?

[May90]

That is not a wacky conspiracy theory, that is what investigators do all the time... connecting the dots. Whether there's anything to them relies on evidence, which wikileaks had a lot of.

It's become classic nowadays to respond to everything with, "Wikileaks!". No, buddy, this isn't how it works. Simply saying, "Wikileaks has evidence!", is a void statement. I asked for evidence, not this.

[Fargus]

It's become classic nowadays to respond to everything with, "Wikileaks!". No, buddy, this isn't how it works. Simply saying, "Wikileaks has evidence!", is a void statement. I asked for evidence, not this.

Well, no, it isn't... because Wikileaks has a very good track record of revealing corruption. Corruption that governments will deny and try to obfuscate.

It was Wikileaks that revealed mass surveillance from the NSA, it was Wikileaks that revealed atrocities in Iraq, etc. You are only saying "it's void" and "it doesn't count as evidence" because it doesn't appeal to your own personal world view.

So really, you aren't anyone to say how something does or does not work. You do not have access to the kind of information that Wikileaks does, which has proven credible in the past. You don't know shit really.

[Deleted]

He just did. look at the email.

How is that proof of Hillary silencing Assange?

This only shows someone from Hillary's campaign had a friend in the press. Is this not a normal thing? Isn't Fox news completely in collusion with Republican interests aswell? This is a whole lot of nothing. Again!

[Deleted]

It's possible that the "dead man's switch" was holding back the biggest stuff he had. There may yet be something left. We'll see.

What champion of truth keep things secret? Particularly then it is done to benefiting himself.

[Actarius]

It's worse when you consider things that are socially acceptable. Things like the number 7 and 13... it's related to the fallacy, but is accepted as colloquial.

Sorry, what did that have to do with what I said?

[Mormolyce]

So you are upset that his 'reveal' wasn't big against the candidate that you support because [Republicans]?

For the record, I don't live in the US and if I did I wouldn't vote. I just think Assange is a piece of shit.

You mean the numerous 'diplomatic' cables of his administration playing kingmaker? You know, that 'meddling' that we aren't supposed to be doing but Clinton gladly supports?

How has the last 50 years of American foreign policy been anything other than playing kingmaker?

[Truculentt]

For the record, I don't live in the US and if I did I wouldn't vote. I just think Assange is a piece of shit.



How has the last 50 years of American foreign policy been anything other than playing kingmaker?

sadly, the refugee crisis is barely covered here in the states. Which, in and of itself, says a lot about the state of the country.

[May90]

Well, no, it isn't... because Wikileaks has a very good track record of revealing corruption. Corruption that governments will deny and try to obfuscate.

It was Wikileaks that revealed mass surveillance from the NSA, it was Wikileaks that revealed atrocities in Iraq, etc. You are only saying "it's void" and "it doesn't count as evidence" because it doesn't appeal to your own personal world view.

So really, you aren't anyone to say how something does or does not work. You do not have access to the kind of information that Wikileaks does, which has proven credible in the past. You don't know shit really.

The majority of documents Wikileaks publishes reveal selfish and morally questionable actions, but not corruption as such. Even that mass surveillance from the NSA part was massively overblown by the media, and if you actually spent time reading the documents published, you know that, for the most part, it was just overuse of lawfully legal acts, not illegal acts per se.

It doesn't matter what my world view is. I can't stand corruption, and if I see the proof of Hillary being corrupt, I will accept it and agree that she should be trialed and jailed. I've yet to see anything that constitutes as proof of her being corrupt though. So if you can point out a document proving it, I will be glad to read it. Or, you can just continue making void statements like, "It is all there, you just don't want to see it". Which, I bet, is exactly what you are going to do.

[Fargus]

The majority of documents Wikileaks publishes reveal selfish and morally questionable actions, but not corruption as such. Even that mass surveillance from the NSA part was massively overblown by the media, and if you actually spent time reading the documents published, you know that, for the most part, it was just overuse of lawfully legal acts, not illegal acts per se.

It doesn't matter what my world view is. I can't stand corruption, and if I see the proof of Hillary being corrupt, I will accept it and agree that she should be trialed and jailed. I've yet to see anything that constitutes as proof of her being corrupt though. So if you can point out a document proving it, I will be glad to read it. Or, you can just continue making void statements like, "It is all there, you just don't want to see it". Which, I bet, is exactly what you are going to do.

May I just say you sound exactly like a Trump fan right now. You are practically justifying and normalising two faced shapeshifting pandering (particularly one motivated by donations and money), you do realise how ridiculous you sound, right?

This sorta back scratching between wall street and her (which makes her rich and make them rich), which basically coerces her to favour them when legislating (just as it did to her husband which repealed Glass Steagal and in part played a big role in the GFC), at the expense of the common folk that voted her in, IS corrupt. It is the very essence of corruption. Legalised corruption is the worst kind of corruption. Segregation was legal at one stage, it doesn't make it any less wrong or racist.

You might do your little technicality of "look it's not corrupt coz it's legal" playaround here, but as I said, so was segregation. It doesn't make it any less wrong, or any less immoral. She and her family gets very rich personally from these paid speeches from these criminals, and when running for president she's now basically being exposed for being two faced about what she's gonna do with wall street, yet you don't think there is anything wrong. Amazing. That's exactly the kind of thing Wikileaks is exposing.

Actually people have been weighing it up and in part her unpopularity and history is a big part of why Trump is getting so much support, part of the reason for Trump's cluster**** rise is on her.

[Mormolyce]

I have yet to see anything released by wikileaks that didn't fit into the "no shit Sherlock" file. Sure some of it may have been important to come to light, but it's not like anything they published was much of a surprise.

Publishing leaks from whistleblowers is a fine goal. I'm dubious of the legitimacy of the wikileaks organisation though based on their recent activities which imply a strong ideological bias to the point of actively meddling in politics for their own personal gain.

And of course their connection to Assange, who is a straight up egotistical braggart and self-aggrandiser. And likely date rapist.