4 ms·
The argument is based on NF referring in the first person to doing things that JA did (debate in Iceland, conference in Norway), that other members of Wikileaks
by ChrisKnott 6y ago
The argument is based on NF referring in the first person to doing things that JA did (debate in Iceland, conference in Norway), that other members of Wikileaks didn't do.
- pera 6y agoAs far as I can tell they only state that for the conference in Norway: "[...] Assange was identified as a 'lecturer.' A review of the other names on the list revealed no other persons known to be associated with WikiLeaks" To me the fact that they wrote "other persons known" indicates that they are not sure if there were other members present.
- bryanrasmussen 6y agoother persons known sounds like normal legalese to me.
- curryst 6y agoThat's standard legalese since they don't have any context to identify who "I" is. And the real identity of many people involved with WikiLeaks seems to be unknown, so it isn't impossible that it was someone else. It makes it the weakest evidence that NF is Assange, but it has some circumstantial value.
- pera 6y ago> the real identity of many people involved with WikiLeaks seems to be unknown It seems I wasn't clear before but this is exactly what I intended to imply: If they cannot attest that JA was the only member present at that conference then that line of argument is insufficient to make the claim they are making.