5 ms·

He is, however, violating the conditions of his bail in the UK and I don't really see why we should offer any special dispensation just because he's been "hidin

by Ntrails 11y ago

He is, however, violating the conditions of his bail in the UK and I don't really see why we should offer any special dispensation just because he's been "hiding out" for a long time[1]. Anyone violating bail should expect to spend the rest of their life under threat of arrest and not assume they can make it go away by hiding out for a few years. [1] it'd be nice if we put some political pressure on Sweden to resolve the issue remotely but that's neither here nor there.

proactivesvcs 11y ago
And be on the receiving end of any fees incurred as a result of their bail violation.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  Nonsense. A gov't can foolishly decide to waste inordinate resources as a punitive measure.
ryanlol 11y ago
>He is, however, violating the conditions of his bail in the UK and I don't really see why we should offer any special dispensation just because he's been "hiding out" for a long time. He is violating his bail conditions in the UK but I don't see how that's relevant here. Assanges goal isn't avoiding arrest, but extradition. >Anyone violating bail should expect to spend the rest of their life under threat of arrest and not assume they can make it go away by hiding out for a few years. I'm not entirely sure about the UK system on this but in most countries crimes expire.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- pvg 11y ago
  Damage to a forum from users running around insinuating others are 'shills' is much greater than from any supposed shills. And you keep doing it - adding links doesn't make it any less baseless or icky.
- ryanlol 11y ago
  I'm not sure why this comment is getting downvoted, his previous comment was obviously tongue in cheek and sarciszewski doesn't actually believe that the GP is a JTRIG operative. Nevertheless he does make a valid point, NSA and GCHQ actively run campaigns to manipulate public opinion and this would probably be one of the prime topics for that.
  - dang 11y ago
    It isn't valid when it's directed at a specific other user without evidence. That's a personal attack. We can't have a functioning community if people are allowed to do that, so they're not allowed to do that.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- dang 11y ago
  Your other comment was flagkilled because it said something like "Fuck off, JTRIG shills", which as you know is completely unacceptable on HN, regardless of how correct your cause may be. So please don't do that again. More generally, accusing other users of being astroturfers or shills—when you have no evidence for this other than that their opinion disagrees with yours—is a serious breach of civility that is not allowed here. You can and should and must make your point without stooping to that, if you comment here.
  - sarciszewski 11y ago
    > Your other comment was flagkilled because it said something like "Fuck off, JTRIG shills", which as you know is completely unacceptable on HN, regardless of how correct your cause may be. So please don't do that again. Fine. > More generally, accusing other users of being astroturfers or shills—when you have no evidence for this other than that their opinion disagrees with yours—is a serious breach of civility that is not allowed here. Wasn't trying to direct an accusation at any specific individual, but rather to speak in general that their presence should be anticipated. As I cannot obtain evidence for this claim without, say, compromising a protected government computer, I don't see what the standard for evidence for cautionary comments should be. I've moved my comment to not reply to anyone else's. Is that acceptable instead? > You can and should and must make your point without stooping to that, if you comment here. My point is simple: Beware of NSA/GCHQ employees and sympathizers that want to sling mud at Assange.
    - kafkaesq 11y ago
      Beware of NSA/GCHQ employees and sympathizers ... But slinging accusations that people who disagree with you (or who are perhaps grossly uninformed) are NSA/GCHQ trolls doesn't help either. Not only that -- to the extent that they may be monitoring (or actively participating) in this very discussion -- it plays into their hands. Historically, it's always been a core part of their strategy (and that of their spiritual brothers -- the KGB, Stasi, etc) to sew discord and suspicion among activist communities -- through the very technique of getting people to suspect each other as collaborators. In addition to fomenting a hostile atmosphere generally, and causing well-meaning (but less strident and radicalized) participants to burn out early, or to shy away from participation altogether. So in terms of furthering their agenda (under the purely hypothetical assumption that they even care about what goes on HN, and/or view this community as a threat) -- you're actually doing precisely what they want you to do.

by Ntrails 11y ago

proactivesvcs 11y ago

And be on the receiving end of any fees incurred as a result of their bail violation.

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
Nonsense. A gov't can foolishly decide to waste inordinate resources as a punitive measure.

ryanlol 11y ago

>He is, however, violating the conditions of his bail in the UK and I don't really see why we should offer any special dispensation just because he's been "hiding out" for a long time. He is violating his bail conditions in the UK but I don't see how that's relevant here. Assanges goal isn't avoiding arrest, but extradition. >Anyone violating bail should expect to spend the rest of their life under threat of arrest and not assume they can make it go away by hiding out for a few years. I'm not entirely sure about the UK system on this but in most countries crimes expire.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

pvg 11y ago
Damage to a forum from users running around insinuating others are 'shills' is much greater than from any supposed shills. And you keep doing it - adding links doesn't make it any less baseless or icky.
ryanlol 11y ago
I'm not sure why this comment is getting downvoted, his previous comment was obviously tongue in cheek and sarciszewski doesn't actually believe that the GP is a JTRIG operative. Nevertheless he does make a valid point, NSA and GCHQ actively run campaigns to manipulate public opinion and this would probably be one of the prime topics for that.
- dang 11y ago
  It isn't valid when it's directed at a specific other user without evidence. That's a personal attack. We can't have a functioning community if people are allowed to do that, so they're not allowed to do that.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
dang 11y ago
Your other comment was flagkilled because it said something like "Fuck off, JTRIG shills", which as you know is completely unacceptable on HN, regardless of how correct your cause may be. So please don't do that again. More generally, accusing other users of being astroturfers or shills—when you have no evidence for this other than that their opinion disagrees with yours—is a serious breach of civility that is not allowed here. You can and should and must make your point without stooping to that, if you comment here.
- sarciszewski 11y ago
  > Your other comment was flagkilled because it said something like "Fuck off, JTRIG shills", which as you know is completely unacceptable on HN, regardless of how correct your cause may be. So please don't do that again. Fine. > More generally, accusing other users of being astroturfers or shills—when you have no evidence for this other than that their opinion disagrees with yours—is a serious breach of civility that is not allowed here. Wasn't trying to direct an accusation at any specific individual, but rather to speak in general that their presence should be anticipated. As I cannot obtain evidence for this claim without, say, compromising a protected government computer, I don't see what the standard for evidence for cautionary comments should be. I've moved my comment to not reply to anyone else's. Is that acceptable instead? > You can and should and must make your point without stooping to that, if you comment here. My point is simple: Beware of NSA/GCHQ employees and sympathizers that want to sling mud at Assange.
  - kafkaesq 11y ago
    Beware of NSA/GCHQ employees and sympathizers ... But slinging accusations that people who disagree with you (or who are perhaps grossly uninformed) are NSA/GCHQ trolls doesn't help either. Not only that -- to the extent that they may be monitoring (or actively participating) in this very discussion -- it plays into their hands. Historically, it's always been a core part of their strategy (and that of their spiritual brothers -- the KGB, Stasi, etc) to sew discord and suspicion among activist communities -- through the very technique of getting people to suspect each other as collaborators. In addition to fomenting a hostile atmosphere generally, and causing well-meaning (but less strident and radicalized) participants to burn out early, or to shy away from participation altogether. So in terms of furthering their agenda (under the purely hypothetical assumption that they even care about what goes on HN, and/or view this community as a threat) -- you're actually doing precisely what they want you to do.