tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780948984283358577.post1509334347014368811..comments2022-12-02T17:28:14.651+11:00Comments on Crafti's Cranium: Supporting Julian Assange - Melbourne ProtestCraftihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06371560597124706666noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780948984283358577.post-40878454735252012292014-01-03T12:50:20.532+11:002014-01-03T12:50:20.532+11:00"There's no integrity in going public ove..."There's no integrity in going public over such resignations." Yes, you have no idea how integrity works, do go on.<br /><br />"You can support the notion of transparency and democracy without slinging mud all over Assange" because protecting a man from his own actions is what exactly? Oh, that's right, now I remember, in this case it would be "lying".<br /><br />"This is infantile idealism". Where are you on the spectrum?<br /><br />"There's very few enlightened souls on this planet, and they don't spend their time 'commenting' and 'posting' on the internet." You can't hear yourself at all, can you?<br /><br />"He's a doer, and not just someone who chooses to enter another person's genius and rip it to shreds for its lack of this or that." What a fan you are! You must keep kneepads on a wallet chain.<br /><br />Good times. <br /> Sean Bedlamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08409491402477055641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780948984283358577.post-53355776536956108132014-01-03T01:30:19.556+11:002014-01-03T01:30:19.556+11:00So... Whether or not you like it, there is a diffe...So... Whether or not you like it, there is a difference between WikiLeaks and WikiLeaks Party. One requires operational secrecy in order to carry out a clear mission statement; the other has transparency and democracy in its slogan and aims to be an instrument of those goals.<br /><br />"Why don't you guys go and create your own party and then it can be full of nothing but integrity, transparency and democracy... Lol..."<br />Not sure if that was sarcastic, as that party has existed for almost 5 years in Australia. It's called Pirate Party Australia. Its preferences were decided by its members in a two stage vote conducted by the membership.<br /><br />Back in 2009, I expressed doubts that this level of transparency and internal democracy regarding preference allocation could work in practice. I was wrong and it worked beautifully.<br /><br />Anyway, independent of hygiene, I recently wore my Assange "Viva La Informacion" t-shirt for 3 days straight. I, like those in WACA, support him in his WikiLeaks mission.<br /><br />You don't think the average punter puts as much thought into things as you do. Maybe they don't, but I disagree. I never expected that anything the party could do could upset so many people, but I was wrong. After all, if people didn't care about the preferencing issue, why would they have cared about some internal spat? <br /><br />Maybe quietly stepping aside to no effect would have allowed the party to still succeed, but then what point in relinquishing their ability to work for transparency at all? "Fine, you kill these Jews, but I'm going to be on a beach pretending it's not happening and silently muttering about your actions." Stuff that. The whole party is about principle. It appointed principled people, so it's got to expect principled actions.<br /><br />This isn't a partisan attack. It's the opinions of someone who really wanted to see Assange get into the Senate.Craftihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06371560597124706666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780948984283358577.post-53907590349791255662014-01-02T22:51:17.360+11:002014-01-02T22:51:17.360+11:00The thing is, the people involved could have resig...The thing is, the people involved could have resigned from The Wikileaks Party without being so public about it all. You can't expect the general public to be able to differentiate between being a supporter of Wikileaks and/or the 'party'. <br />There's no integrity in going public over such resignations. It wasn't necessary and whichever way you look at it, the people you deem to have so much more integrity than most, have sullied the name of Wikileaks and it was entirely unnecessary. You can support the notion of transparency and democracy without slinging mud all over Assange, which is essentially what these public 'resignations' have done.<br />This is infantile idealism that you put before all that Assange himself has achieved, I agree about the 15 minutes analogy. People are jumping on a band wagon of something they never took the risk to create (as Assange did), and then proclaiming so much more exceptional 'transparency and democracy' than the founder, and then just blundering all this 'stuff' out to the world that they could have kept silent.<br />We've all got a dark side- yourself included!<br />Why don't you guys go and create your own party and then it can be full of nothing but integrity, transparency and democracy... Lol... Someone will always catch you out doing 'something' human. There's very few enlightened souls on this planet, and they don't spend their time 'commenting' and 'posting' on the internet. You should just accept your humaneness, and then you'd be less destructive.<br />Everyone who 'resigned' had that right, but they didn't need to be so public. It just gave fuel to those who are already critical of Assange. He's not perfect - so what? He's a doer, and not just someone who chooses to enter another person's genius and rip it to shreds for its lack of this or that. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780948984283358577.post-22331154159267396502013-11-23T10:42:50.604+11:002013-11-23T10:42:50.604+11:00There is a difference between being a supporter of...There is a difference between being a supporter of Wikileaks, which is an organisation with a mission it very capably fulfills, and being a supporter of the Wikileaks Party, which is an organisation that claimed to represent transparency and democracy, which demonstrably failed internally on both counts.<br /><br />I know, to some extent, several of the people who resigned from Wikileaks Party after the preference screw-up, and I can say they all did it due to their high level of integrity. That's only you placing them above yourself if you believe your own integrity is not up to the same level.<br /><br />We are all capable of lies and deceit; the question is obviously whether we use our capabilities. Some of that was seen in the Wikileaks Party, but not by those who resigned. As for your comment that some people's "lives are not so 'honest'", well if I was interested in that sort of anonymous, vague hearsay, I'd go read youtube comments.Craftihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06371560597124706666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780948984283358577.post-63951002315556165742013-11-23T05:04:30.344+11:002013-11-23T05:04:30.344+11:00Sorry, but these Wikileaks supporters are all the ...Sorry, but these Wikileaks supporters are all the same. They couldn't organise a chook raffle. They seem to want fame based on how wonderful and great their integrity is- placing themselves above the rest of us, and now a lot of them have resigned. But come on ... they're just ordinary people and no doubt just as capable of lies and deceit, I happen to know that some of their personal lives are not so 'honest'. Give it a break. Everyone just seems to want their 15 minutes these days. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com