3 ms·
Because that's essentially what Manning did. No, that's not what she did. She gave the archive to a third party (Assange) who turned out to be unreliable. Bu
by kafkaesq 10y ago
Because that's essentially what Manning did.
No, that's not what she did. She gave the archive to a third party (Assange) who turned out to be unreliable. But that's not "the same" -- or even "essentially" the same -- as just outright posting it on Facebook.
Can we just end the discussion there, please? I'm not saying this issue is cut-and-dried, or that there's no validity in your arguments. But if we keep going back and forth about the basic event chronology, then there's really not much a of a point.
- gozur88 10y ago>No, that's not what she did. She gave the archive to a third party (Assange) who turned out to be unreliable. But that's not "the same" -- or even "essentially" the same -- as just outright posting it on Facebook. Yes it is. Once it's there on the internet, people are linking to it, and it's a topic of discussion, anything that gets you into any kind of trouble is out there for people to see. >Can we just end the discussion there, please? I'm not saying this issue is cut-and-dried, or that there's no validity in your arguments. But if we keep going back and forth about the basic event chronology, then there's really not much a of a point. If you're really intent on ending a conversation, try not attempting to slip in the last word.
- kafkaesq 10y agoIf you're really intent on ending a conversation, try not attempting to slip in the last word. Sounds eminently reasonable. It's all yours, then.