Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Follies who wrote (69085)	12/5/2010 11:54:55 AM
From: Metacomet	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218050

I think I am in disagreement with the majority of opinions here on wikileaks. Haven't seen a poll, but you may be right. I hope so. Seems to me that in addition to living in interesting times, we are too often lied to or mislead by the powers that be, either in government or powerful private entities. And not just lies of omission, there are active disinformation programs extant with the goal of influencing behaviours in a way that would differ from reactions to the truth. This is not healthy for a democracy, or just a lot of innocent people, for that matter. Anyone who successfully sheds some light on these matters has my support. Sometimes, it is the only way that we can get some light into the financial collapses unfolding all around us. By my way of thinking, I am in a better position to understand and react to what is happening as a result of knowing what is in those released cables.

To: Follies who wrote (69085)	12/5/2010 12:38:46 PM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu	8 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218050

all you write is true, but in this case the material posted is the result of work done by public officials who are paid with our tax money - we have the right to know what is done with our money and it seems it is being irresponsible wasted

To: Follies who wrote (69085)	12/5/2010 8:34:10 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 218050

I tend to agree with you but for different reasons. As a lawyer, my private communications with a client in which I express advice, thoughts, suggestions on tactics, etc., are sacrosanct. Absent some really unusual conditions, I can rely on the confidentiality of my communications. I view an ambassador's communications to his 'client' - the government - in much the same way. However, there is probably no lasting harm resulting from the disclosures. Most countries will simply ignore the revelations but use the information to their advantage to the extent they can. No truly important information seems to have been revealed.

To: Follies who wrote (69085)	12/5/2010 10:06:14 PM
From: Webster Groves	1 Recommendation Respond to of 218050

If yo have a problem with Wikileaks, then you have a problem with the NY Times. Shouldn't they be equally held to blame for publishing classified material ? wg

To: Follies who wrote (69085)	12/6/2010 12:37:40 AM
From: Maurice Winn	3 Recommendations Respond to of 218050

The difference is that one is about individuals and their private lives. The other is about public entities and people in the public space with opm. It is a huge difference. When some soldiers in a helicopter conduct a turkey shoot on people on the ground who seem not to be acting in a military way, or even if they are, then it's a matter of public interest. Those doing the shooting should be answerable to the public for their actions. What the soldiers do in the privacy of their bedrooms and personal relationships is not a matter of public interest. Mqurice

To: Follies who wrote (69085)	12/6/2010 1:55:23 AM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	Respond to of 218050

Put a hidden camera in your bedroom and release that on youtube?Happened already ... Rutgers Student Tyler Clementi's Suicide Over Gay Streamed Video The second problem with wikileaks is what proof or guarantee do we have that what is released has not been modified Denials would be a start.. Do we trust the wikileaks editor to be fair? Lack of rebuttal lends credence to leaked material.. Trying to stick fingers in the dike first ... lends credence.. If someone says Kharzi is a crook in one memo... can the same person get a 'do over' :o) My surprise is the surprise folks have... and that is not a dig at the US... I bet this kind of 'stuff' is pretty universal... Everyone has an agenda... Diplomacy is built upon the premise that only a fool tells the bald truth.. in public :O)