5 ms·

Greenwald doesn't seem to think that Lamos is a credible witness because statements he has made in the press aren't corroborated in the released sections of the

Greenwald doesn't seem to think that Lamos is a credible witness because statements he has made in the press aren't corroborated in the released sections of the chat log. But, (1) isn't it likely that the chat logs aren't the full extent of the communication between Manning and Lamos during this period, and (2) if Lamos is suspect, the chat logs are meaningless anyways, as they can easily be doctored. How does the release of the full transcript solve either of these problems?

pmorici 16y ago
They don't, his argument revolves more around the fact that not releasing them is exceedingly suspicious not that their release would be the savior of iron clad truth.
- mikedouglas 16y ago
  Suspicious, but if you don't trust Lamos, than it's also completely inconsequential to the truth. Evidence is only valuable if, after confirm its existence, your beliefs shift in some direction.
  - archgoon 16y ago
    One can not trust Lamos, but believe that he didn't have the foresight to work out a consistent story before sending the chat logs to Wire.
    - mikedouglas 16y ago
      If Lamos's story were consistent, would you be any more likely to believe it? If not, then you already have sufficient evidence that Lamos can't be trusted and you can just point to that. Evidence can't be important if, after learning it, you believe the exact same things.
- jdp23 16y ago
  Agreed -- although see points by nir and me elsewhere in the thread that it's not actually suspicious that he's not releasing them.
jdp23 16y ago
Viewing information as a currency, until the chat logs are published, people who know what was in them have an advantage no matter whether or not it is true.
- mikedouglas 16y ago
  That doesn't make any sense. If P(whatever Lamos wrote | whether Wikileaks aided Manning) = P(whatever Lamos wrote), then your posterior probability always equals your prior probability, and you haven't learned anything. If you don't trust Lamos, nothing written in the transcripts will (and should!) change your mind.
  - jdp23 16y ago
    That's correct but the logs affect P(people will trust Lamo's current and future stories). If he had told Kevin in May that the purported Bradley claimed to have communicated with Julian, then the same claim made now to Charlie has somewhat higher credibility. Also just because somebody is untrustworthy doesn't mean they are lying about everything or even most of the time.
OpieCunningham 16y ago
1) i'd say it is possible but the likelihood is questionable. 2) There's a timing factor. Lamo's description of what the chat logs contain has seemingly changed. Which description matches the chat logs held by Wired? How about those held by other news agencies?

pmorici 16y ago

They don't, his argument revolves more around the fact that not releasing them is exceedingly suspicious not that their release would be the savior of iron clad truth.

mikedouglas 16y ago
Suspicious, but if you don't trust Lamos, than it's also completely inconsequential to the truth. Evidence is only valuable if, after confirm its existence, your beliefs shift in some direction.
- archgoon 16y ago
  One can not trust Lamos, but believe that he didn't have the foresight to work out a consistent story before sending the chat logs to Wire.
  - mikedouglas 16y ago
    If Lamos's story were consistent, would you be any more likely to believe it? If not, then you already have sufficient evidence that Lamos can't be trusted and you can just point to that. Evidence can't be important if, after learning it, you believe the exact same things.
jdp23 16y ago
Agreed -- although see points by nir and me elsewhere in the thread that it's not actually suspicious that he's not releasing them.

jdp23 16y ago

Viewing information as a currency, until the chat logs are published, people who know what was in them have an advantage no matter whether or not it is true.

mikedouglas 16y ago
That doesn't make any sense. If P(whatever Lamos wrote | whether Wikileaks aided Manning) = P(whatever Lamos wrote), then your posterior probability always equals your prior probability, and you haven't learned anything. If you don't trust Lamos, nothing written in the transcripts will (and should!) change your mind.
- jdp23 16y ago
  That's correct but the logs affect P(people will trust Lamo's current and future stories). If he had told Kevin in May that the purported Bradley claimed to have communicated with Julian, then the same claim made now to Charlie has somewhat higher credibility. Also just because somebody is untrustworthy doesn't mean they are lying about everything or even most of the time.

OpieCunningham 16y ago

1) i'd say it is possible but the likelihood is questionable. 2) There's a timing factor. Lamo's description of what the chat logs contain has seemingly changed. Which description matches the chat logs held by Wired? How about those held by other news agencies?