Julian Assange's Really Creepy Emails

[Shady]

Since transparency seems to be the new fad, and also what Assange has been championing. I'm wondering why he isn't more supportive of his leaked emails? After all, isn't turnabout fair play?

I found your company and kisses very appealing. I want to explore them further. Are you busy Monday night?

Julian

Unfortunately for Julian, she was busy. And what did Julian do? What anyone would. He used her license plate number to look up her phone number. Which then led to the next email.

Your reaction to my phone call lacked dignity and stung me. You seemed above such trivialities. It saddens me to have misjudged you. I enjoyed our moonlit walk and the intamicy of our interaction. I had hoped that such an interaction would produce an interesting friendship if nothing more.

Please respond.

Julian.

She replied, and he then responded again.

It is not so hard to thaw. Or to be drawn.

Our intamicy seems like the memory of a strange dream to me. A dream that would probably not translate to the real world, but this was never my desire. There was something unusual about our interaction. It is almost as if I had scripted it and left my fingerprints in the ink. I'm not concerned with your messy reality. I don't want to see it and I confess I could not place you in mine. But I still want to see you in isolation. I am unconcerned with the context since time and your silence has made me philosophical; but when I first wrote the heat of your breast pressed against me was still vivid in my mind.

Julian.

A couple days later, Assange tried calling Elizabeth again. This time, Elizabeth pretended to be someone else because she was becoming increasingly creeped out by Assange.

Email

...

After a few more emails got him nowhere, Assange decided to change tack. Instead of calling Elizabeth, he would try to get Elizabeth to call him. But he chose probably the worst possible way to give her his phone number. Somehow, Elizabeth says, Assange figured out the make and license plate number of her car. Then he incorporated it into a riddle which, when solved, would reveal his phone number.

Email

...

More weirded out than ever, Elizabeth emailed back that she couldn't call him because the riddle didn't give her his number. So Assange decided to go back to calling her, and later that day sent an email asking the best time to call.

Email

...

At this point, Elizabeth told him flat-out to stop calling her house. Assange then tried to give Elizabeth yet another way to contact him—through his (now-defunct) personal website.

Email

...

Finally, Assange gave up. But not before making up for his humiliation with a stream of overwrought put-downs in an email.

Email

[bush_cheney2004]

LOL! I need to try these lines on my wife:

....there was something unusual about our interaction....

....I want you in isolation.....

Translation: Can I get laid again?

[jbg]

Since transparency seems to be the new fad, and also what Assange has been championing. I'm wondering why he isn't more supportive of his leaked emails? After all, isn't turnabout fair play?

What's sauce for the goose...cooks the gander?

[Sir Bandelot]

"Finally Assange gave up."

Sounds like he did the right thing then. If she says no and he doesn't stop, that would be harrasement.

Otherwise, can you blame a guy for trying?

Or is even trying to pick someone up a crime

[eyeball]

Over time greater transparency should cause most people to become less easily amused by the redundant and focus on things that are more important and pressing. Like for example the fact our government still seems to think it can win a WOT with allies that routinely terrorize people by torturing civilians and murdering militants.

WikiLeaks cables: India accused of systematic use of torture in Kashmir

These included 498 on which electricity had been used, 381 who had been suspended from the ceiling, 294 who had muscles crushed in their legs by prison personnel sitting on a bar placed across their thighs, 181 whose legs had been stretched by being "split 180 degrees", 234 tortured with water and 302 "sexual" cases, the ICRC were reported to have told the Americans.

"Numbers add up to more than 681, as many detainees were subjected to more than one form of IT [ill-treatment]," the cable said.

But what the hey, for all I know find some people are amused by this sort of stuff. People in the know in our government sure don't seem fazed by it or you'd think they'd have spoken up by now.

These really are very very creepy times we live in.

[dre]

LMAO@SHADY

[bloodyminded]

So we've now got at least two posters--presumably more to come--who honestly believe that private, personal, non-governmental emails are equivalent to private emails by officials regarding matters of state.

I dunno, the clear distinction doesn't seem that baffling to me....

Edited December 18, 2010 by bloodyminded

[scribblet]

Looks good on him, wonder how he feels now about his private and personal correspondence made public LOL

[jbg]

So we've now got at least two posters--presumably more to come--who honestly believe that private, personal, non-governmental emails are equivalent to private emails by officials regarding matters of state.

How stupid is that?

Confidential is confidential. Just like a proof is a proof.

All kidding aside Assange chooses to live by the sword....

[bloodyminded]

Looks good on him, wonder how he feels now about his private and personal correspondence made public LOL

And there's #3....

Edited December 18, 2010 by bloodyminded

[scribblet]

Yup, of course only your opinion is correct, I should've known that one LOL

No one is saying they are as important or the equivalent, but the moral aspect of publishing private correspondence without consent is the same.

[Shady]

No one is saying they are as important or the equivalent, but the moral aspect of publishing private correspondence without consent is the same.

Exactly. He's the champion of transparency, claiming there's nothin that needs to be a secret. Ironically, he didn't want the address of the house he's currently staying at to be made public. So not only is Assange a creepy stalker/rapist, he's also a giant hypocrite.

[bush_cheney2004]

Exactly. He's the champion of transparency, claiming there's nothin that needs to be a secret. Ironically, he didn't want the address of the house he's currently staying at to be made public. So not only is Assange a creepy stalker/rapist, he's also a giant hypocrite.

Yup....but his defenders scramble to protect his "honor" (and privacy) in the face of oppressive governments who would dare to keep secrets.

You can't make this stuff up...LOL!

Edited December 18, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

Ironically, he didn't want the address of the house he's currently staying at to be made public. So not only is Assange a creepy stalker/rapist, he's also a giant hypocrite.

but wouldn't only a Shadyjudge assign guilt before trial? Hypocrite? Clearly, you reveled in Hackergate... you lived and breathed to parrot the, (typically) without context, anal line-by-line parsing of hacked climate scientists emails. How does the same Shadyjudge rationalize a relished participation in parroting the leak of Hackergate emails versus the counter position taken concerning the release of the 'wikileaks' emails? Hypocrite is as hypocrite does - hey, Shadyjudge?

[Shady]

but wouldn't only a Shadyjudge assign guilt before trial? Hypocrite? Clearly, you reveled in Hackergate... you lived and breathed to parrot the, (typically) without context, anal line-by-line parsing of hacked climate scientists emails. How does the same Shadyjudge rationalize a relished participation in parroting the leak of Hackergate emails versus the counter position taken concerning the release of the 'wikileaks' emails? Hypocrite is as hypocrite does - hey, Shadyjudge?

How do you rationalize relishing WikiLeaks, but continue to denounce the leaked CRU emails?

[kimmy]

You can't blame a guy for trying. However, the part about using her license plate to obtain her personal information seems a little stalkerish. Isn't that something only law enforcement agents are allowed to do? Or are things just a little different in Australia?

So we've now got at least two posters--presumably more to come--who honestly believe that private, personal, non-governmental emails are equivalent to private emails by officials regarding matters of state.

I dunno, the clear distinction doesn't seem that baffling to me....

Isn't there a reasonable expectation of privacy when you're at work as well? Should government officials, bureaucrats, and so-on, entitled to communicate privately about their work?

Personally, I would not want the threat of public reaction to prevent government agents from discussing matters that are important to their jobs.

-k

[dre]

Exactly. He's the champion of transparency, claiming there's nothin that needs to be a secret. Ironically, he didn't want the address of the house he's currently staying at to be made public. So not only is Assange a creepy stalker/rapist, he's also a giant hypocrite.

claiming there's nothin that needs to be a secret

Outright lie.

Ironically, he didn't want the address of the house he's currently staying at to be made public

Intellectual dishonest.

So not only is Assange a creepy stalker/rapist, he's also a giant hypocrite.

Abject Idiocy!

The Shady Trifecta! Hat trick!

[dre]

You can't blame a guy for trying. However, the part about using her license plate to obtain her personal information seems a little stalkerish. Isn't that something only law enforcement agents are allowed to do? Or are things just a little different in Australia?

Isn't there a reasonable expectation of privacy when you're at work as well? Should government officials, bureaucrats, and so-on, entitled to communicate privately about their work?

Personally, I would not want the threat of public reaction to prevent government agents from discussing matters that are important to their jobs.

-k

Isn't there a reasonable expectation of privacy when you're at work as well?

Not at all. My employer can monitor most of my communications, read my emails, keep tabs on my web browsing habits while at work. Why do they do it? To make sure theyre getting their moneys worth and that I act proper at work.

Should government officials, bureaucrats, and so-on, entitled to communicate privately about their work?

Only if theres a real compelling need, and eventually the minutes from all meetings should be public. If people know that eventually the sunshine will beat down on them, they will act more responsibly. Just like how putting cameras behind the tills in Casinos is proven to reduce employee theft.

[Sir Bandelot]

He's the champion of transparency, claiming there's nothin that needs to be a secret. Ironically, he didn't want the address of the house he's currently staying at to be made public. he's ... a giant hypocrite.

This shows that exposing secrets is not a crime in itself. If the media can do it, the state can do it, he can do it.

[waldo]

Ironically, he didn't want the address of the house he's currently staying at to be made public. So not only is Assange a creepy stalker/rapist, he's also a giant hypocrite.

but wouldn't only a Shadyjudge assign guilt before trial? Hypocrite? Clearly, you reveled in Hackergate... you lived and breathed to parrot the, (typically) without context, anal line-by-line parsing of hacked climate scientists emails. How does the same Shadyjudge rationalize a relished participation in parroting the leak of Hackergate emails versus the counter position taken concerning the release of the 'wikileaks' emails? Hypocrite is as hypocrite does - hey, Shadyjudge?

How do you rationalize relishing WikiLeaks, but continue to denounce the leaked CRU emails?

why are you deflecting, Professor? I just searched... but feel free to correct me... I have a total of 2 MLW posts related to the content of the wikileak emails - both have to do with the U.S. using it's diplomatic corps to spy on UN officials. If that's your definition of "relish" - hey, have at er. Now back to the original question you're deflecting from - I expect you have at least a brazillion MLW posts concerning the content of Hackergate emails (also feel free to correct me here). Again:

Hypocrite? Clearly, you reveled in Hackergate... you lived and breathed to parrot the, (typically) without context, anal line-by-line parsing of hacked climate scientists emails. How does the same Shadyjudge rationalize a relished participation in parroting the leak of Hackergate emails versus the counter position taken concerning the release of the 'wikileaks' emails? Hypocrite is as hypocrite does - hey, Shadyjudge?

[eyeball]

Personally, I would not want the threat of public reaction to prevent government agents from discussing matters that are important to their jobs.

-k

What about the threat of public reaction to prevent government agents, including our proxies, from committing acts that are contrary to the law and the stated principles we are supposedly fighting to instill and uphold? You think the sanctity of our side's state's secrecy trump these?

[kimmy]

Not at all. My employer can monitor most of my communications, read my emails, keep tabs on my web browsing habits while at work. Why do they do it? To make sure theyre getting their moneys worth and that I act proper at work.

Maybe your boss reads your email at work. But would your boss release your company email to the general public?

Only if theres a real compelling need, and eventually the minutes from all meetings should be public. If people know that eventually the sunshine will beat down on them, they will act more responsibly. Just like how putting cameras behind the tills in Casinos is proven to reduce employee theft.

And in this case we have ... apparently Julian Assange being the guy who decides whether there's a compelling need. And his decision is always "no", right?

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

Maybe your boss reads your email at work. But would your boss release your company email to the general public?

Touche.....Kimmy is lethal today!

[dre]

Maybe your boss reads your email at work. But would your boss release your company email to the general public?

And in this case we have ... apparently Julian Assange being the guy who decides whether there's a compelling need. And his decision is always "no", right?

-k

Maybe your boss reads your email at work. But would your boss release your company email to the general public?

But in this case the boss IS the general public. We pay their salaries, and how is representitive government supposed to work if the government can arbitrarily hide whatever activity they want from the voters?

And in this case we have ... apparently Julian Assange being the guy who decides whether there's a compelling need. And his decision is always "no", right?

No thats fundamentally wrong. Wikileaks is just an information clearing house. A media wholesale outlet. Its the WHISTLE BLOWERS that are uploading documents to wikileaks that are the guys making the decisions, and its regular news networks that actually decide what gets shown to the public. And if wikileaks wasnt there theres thousands of other outlets they could send the information to.

Julian Assanged didnt "decide" that some American soldier was going to leak hundreds of thousands of US goverment documents, anymore than YouTube decides what theyre users will upload.

Edited December 18, 2010 by dre

[eyeball]

Touche.....Kimmy is lethal today!

On the issue of public tittilation over breaches of individual privacy maybe, but she seems just as lame as you when it comes to discussing public concern over breaches of state secrecy.

Edited December 18, 2010 by eyeball