nsajko, I do see you're getting downvoted pretty bad. I'm sorry to see it. I think that it may be because your posts don't address the specific points made in

nsajko, I do see you're getting downvoted pretty bad. I'm sorry to see it. I think that it may be because your posts don't address the specific points made in the article, and in fact repeat insinuations that the Rapporteur specifically addresses and debunks. For instance, you say ... Assange is not above the law, or common decency, just because of founding Wikileaks... Literally no one said that, and no one reasonable believes that. That's not what this is about. The article makes the case that Assange is not guilty of anything under Swedish law. If you were to say, rather, "Despite what the Rapporteur says, Assange is likely guilty because..." and then lay out an excellent case why he is indeed, you would get up-voted, not downvoted. But instead, your posts come off like you just have an ax to grind against Assange and people who support him. It comes off like you're dismissing the entire concern as invalid "because Assange is not above the law". The people here are smart, engineer-types. They're going to look at evidence and make up their own minds. My 2¢ Good luck.