And I will point out one other thing: none of what Manning "leaked" was classified Top Secret. Yet there are Washington insiders talking to the press just about every week about things that *are* top secret. You read about it all the time, and some of those journalists have written whole books about the Top Secret things they were leaked.

Yet those Washington insiders, and those journalists, are not only NOT in prison, they aren't even accused of crimes.

So you tell me: where is the justice here?

No, I don't. He sent it to supposedly responsible news media outlets, whose job arguably *IS* to sort those things out.

Yes, that's true too. But I just don't really know if it would have been possible for him to separate them all out.

Someone else here reminded me that Manning actually delivered these documents to others, who WERE supposed to try to separate that out. But somebody goofed. So I'm not sure that can honestly be blamed on Manning, who actually did make an effort to expose wrongdoing while not releasing those other things to the public.

I say this freely... I'm just leading you on because I am interested to see just what level of bullshit you will stoop to.

And also, because I still suspect sock-puppetry and I'm waiting for you to hang yourself. I could be wrong about that, but maybe we'll see.

And -- this is just a guess, you understand -- you also consider that calling someone a "bully" and accusing them of "projecting" is also not an insult?

Yes, isn't it?

The is the biggest software pirate I know. I don't feel sad for them.

That WASN'T my response to THAT. Please keep that in mind.

That was my response to the entirety of his unnecessarily drawn-out, unnecessarily aggressive and offensive, tirade about something that was already explained to him.

You're just digging yourself a deeper hole here. I see no need to further participate in your one-sided "discussion".

Thank you for reminding us all of this. I am ashamed to admit that I had forgotten.

Gee, I think maybe you should shut up and stop spouting bullshit before somebody complains that you are practicing psychiatry without a license.

Again: bullshit. I am not impressed by your armchair psychology. Apparently you, too, seem to think you can read my mind.

Thank you for your opinion.

No, sorry. It's one thing for a person to say "I am done here." It's another thing for someone to day "You're done." He could have meant it the way you say, I admit.

"... your secret mind" is a personal comment, not a description of my own argument. I had explained to him exactly what I meant. There was nothing secret about it. His statement implies that he knew what I meant better than I did. And that was after I had already explained that yes, my comment was badly written and I did not mean what it seemed to say.

Bullshit. I admitted that I was wrong, more than once. That should have been the end of it. Yet he went on, and on, and on, about what he thought I was saying. When even the rest of the context of what I wrote contradicted his assertion, AND he was told in no uncertain terms that he misunderstood. He insisted that no, he DID understand. Apparently because he thinks he can read my mind.

And you seem to think that is reasonable, and not unwarrantedly aggressive or annoying. Well, that's your opinion. I disagree.

While it doesn't prove anything, I will point out that I have excellent karma here on Slashdot, and generally get along fine with others in discussions. But I have no problem counter-attacking when provoked. And I shall not apologize for that: I was provoked.

Barring further comments, this will be my last post on this subject: he also engaged in another practice that is generally viewed as insulting, and vastly annoying: insistence that he knew what I really meant when I wrote something that was badly worded. In other words, he was insisting (as the above comments support) that he could read my mind, and knew what I was thinking when I wrote it. And he went on and on about it, despite my protests that he (perhaps not entirely unreasonably) had misunderstood me.

To say that this behavior is vastly irritating -- and perhaps even intended to irritate -- as well as logical nonsense, is an understatement.

HERE.

I quote:

The "conclusion" he referred to was not my actual conclusion. My story agreed with the situation he cited. Then he went on:

And other things like:

"To reflect [my] secret mind"? Put that together with other personal comments, like "that's how you roll", etc. Those are only examples. But they are personal comments, and had nothing to do with the arguments I was making. So yes, he was very much insulting. Personal disparagements are personal disparagements. They have no place in a civil discussion, which it ceased to be after that. And a statement like "You're done," can reasonably be interpreted as threatening.

I did not insult him until he had already insulted me. Further, his attitude was arrogant and generally offensive. While that is an intangible, it was still pretty difficult to ignore.

While I don't disagree with you absolutely, I think you are taking THIS out of context.

The "3/5 of a person" bit was only a bow to the reality of their time. If the founders had tried to abolish slavery via the Constitution, it would never have been ratified. It might never even have gotten off the floor.

On the other hand, they deserve credit for wording the rest of it such that it did, in fact, support equality across the board. This left open ground for equality when society grew up a little bit.

Keep in mind that even Jefferson, who owned slaves (he inherited them), strongly disliked and spoke against the institution of slavery, but felt that it would be economic disaster to try to abolish the already-existing slavery all at once. He supported a law to ban the importation of any more slaves, and he did attempt to outlaw slavery in all the new Western territories (i.e., everything West of the existing 13 States). He authored that bill. But it was voted down by one vote. Jefferson said:

and

In the Declaration of Independence, he also lambasted King George for supporting the slave trade. So there were attempts to change things, even then. I think blaming the founders for trying to do the best they could, given the realities of their time, is a bit unrealistic.

Which is why I say: no, it's not a 'shitty' document. It has lasted longer than any other Constitution in anything approaching modern history. It may have some flaws, but it's a damned good document.