Slashdot: News for the amnesiac, stuff that mattered.

This comment is not a debate contest in which I convince you to agree with me or vice versa. This comment is concerned only with establishing the truth about Mr. MyLongNickName. Some background is in order: MyLongNickName spouts all kinds of puffery about his moral vigor. Well, sure, he has somehow found the fortitude to endure our ongoing humiliation and discomfort at the hands of his cringers, but the larger point is that MyLongNickName insists that there won't be any blowback from his ridiculing, parodying, censoring, and downgrading opposing ideas. In the long run, however, he's only fooling himself. MyLongNickName would be better off if he just admitted to himself that he is stepping over the line when he attempts to trick academics into abandoning the principles of scientific inquiry—way over the line.

MyLongNickName says that depraved yo-yos are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. That's a stupid thing to say. It's like saying that the world can be happy only when his posse is given full rein. If he can one day smear and defame me then the long descent into night is sure to follow.

The question, therefore, must not be, "Is MyLongNickName genetically predisposed to deflecting attention from his unwillingness to support policies that benefit the average citizen?" but rather, "What demons possessed him to develop a Pavlovian reflex in us, to make us afraid to lay the groundwork for an upcoming attempt to get my message about MyLongNickName out to the world?". The latter question is the better one to ask because bitterness seeps out of MyLongNickName like blood from an underdone ribeye steak. That extreme bitterness is, as far as I can tell, what leads him to consign most of us to the role of his servants or slaves. To end this letter, I would like to make a bet with Mr. MyLongNickName. I will gladly give him a day's salary if he can prove that you and I are objects for him to use then casually throw away and forget like old newsprint that's performed its duty catching bird droppings, as he insists. If MyLongNickName is unable to prove that, then his end of the bargain is to step aside while I unveil the semiotic patterns that he utilizes to create a beachhead for organized Lysenkoism. So, do we have a bet, MyLongNickName?

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.htm

... to work out that there is definetely something fishy going on with the whole extradition story.

To begin with when both woman when to the police station to "report" Assange what they stated was NOT that they were raped but instead that he REFUSED to use a condom and they wanted to confirm with the police if they had the power to force him to take a STD test. Pure and simple! Now the police officer that took their statements called the prosecutor and, given the nature of the inquire, it already starts to sound a bit fishy. When the woman were told that they will issue an arrest warrant for Assange one of them REFUSED to continue with the statements and also even REFUSED to sign what had already been said. It sounds to me that it's pretty obvious that the public prosecutor that was called from that police station informed "someone" that they might had something on Assange.

There is so much to this it's hard to consolidate in a short coment but I would suggest watching this documentary on the subject:

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.htm

I don't buy for a second that the woman were raped. And given all the evidence already presented in Sweden I don't think anyone does. The question has got to be related to something else, not even Kadafi had a RED Notice put on him, not even the Syrian president, it's an orange notice, but hey, he refused to use a condom, that's seems justified!