4 ms·

You assume WL published all Democrat documents. You presume those documents were mundane and uninteresting, and not controversial (most of the world disagrees).

You assume WL published all Democrat documents. You presume those documents were mundane and uninteresting, and not controversial (most of the world disagrees). You presume they did have Republican documents that would not be mundane and uninteresting. You simply disagree with their judgment in theory without having information about what you’re disputing, the magnitude, and the quality of your critique. You’ve clearly filled in the blanks with what you want to validate your criticism.

slg 5y ago
>You presume those documents were mundane and uninteresting, and not controversial (most of the world disagrees). Once again, I am not assuming or presuming anything. I am judging the documents directly. Have you looked at them? Because it doesn't get any more mundane and uninteresting than people taking office lunch orders[1], people reporting they are at the dentist, or even over a hundred automatic out of office replies[3]. If these emails are worthy of publishing, everything is worthy of publishing. If anything, these emails have negative public value because they drown out the leaked emails that might have actually interesting content and many of them, especially the out of office emails, end up leaking totally innocent people's contact information. [1] - https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/21638 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/21638 [2] - https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23479 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23479 [3] - https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/?q=&title=automatic+reply&count=200 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/?q=&title=automatic+reply&c...
- the_optimist 5y ago
  WL batch processed sources. You get the boring ones with the salacious ones, possibly useful for context. I listed three assumptions and you denied one. Since you want more disclosure that goes against the judgment of the site owners, why not just start your own site?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

slg 5y ago

>You presume those documents were mundane and uninteresting, and not controversial (most of the world disagrees). Once again, I am not assuming or presuming anything. I am judging the documents directly. Have you looked at them? Because it doesn't get any more mundane and uninteresting than people taking office lunch orders[1], people reporting they are at the dentist, or even over a hundred automatic out of office replies[3]. If these emails are worthy of publishing, everything is worthy of publishing. If anything, these emails have negative public value because they drown out the leaked emails that might have actually interesting content and many of them, especially the out of office emails, end up leaking totally innocent people's contact information. [1] - https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/21638 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/21638 [2] - https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23479 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23479 [3] - https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/?q=&title=automatic+reply&count=200 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/?q=&title=automatic+reply&c...

the_optimist 5y ago
WL batch processed sources. You get the boring ones with the salacious ones, possibly useful for context. I listed three assumptions and you denied one. Since you want more disclosure that goes against the judgment of the site owners, why not just start your own site?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]