The pattern of your discernment is clear to me -- it is hit and miss, and everything in between. Mine is surely the same. The difference is that you think you are the best hitter in the league, and no one else can compare.

Zook is pure discernment, and Chico has none. Of course you can't take me seriously! How could you, with that kind of psychology?

More to the point, given this pattern of yours, how is anyone going to take you seriously?

In closing, I would like to highlight the exchange you are offering me in your quote above. "Discern as I do, and I will take you seriously." It's the same sociopathic bargain religion makes when they say "Believe as we do and you will be saved!" It's the usual game-playing of the sociopathic mind. I'm sure you think you have checkmate, but the game is all in your mind.

Discern as the facts warrant ... not as I do, not as Mags do, not as Andy do, not as Chicodoo do.

Checkmate.

Pax

http://www.news.com.au/national/julian- ... 6690736578

Julian Assange, the people's champion ... the maverick outsider ... the independent challenger to the incumbent political establishment ... the avenger of the geeks, the gentle-fleeced, the seekers and the meek, looking to rescue ordained inheritance from the clutches of the wolves in sheepskin ....

... NOT.


beginExcerpt
"There is a very personal and organisational connection with the type of corruption purpose in Australia represented by Bob Carr and how the ALP has behaved in Canberra in the past three years and I think it is important when people have a broader political position about transparency and felt the abuse themselves and as an organisation ...," he told Meet The Press in a rare face-to-face interview.

He said during the past year the ALP's own research group had the WikiLeaks Party polling between 25 and 28 per cent of the voting intention nationwide, 40 per cent for those under the age of 30.

"I am obviously proud of that but it is also extremely interesting about the Australian people and the perceptions about what is happening in Canberra," he said.

Mr Assange said like Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, WikiLeaks had also hired a President Barack Obama ex-staffer to help their campaign.
end

Quintessential insider.

Same Old Same Old being rammed down our lungs as fresh air. The spirit of Spartacus dead in most of us and dying in the few that still care. The wasteland littered with critters opining for change but not capable of recognizing the status quo from which change must leap, and so, therefore, in quo remain ... shoveling like armored beetles on personal dung heaps on the pungent terrain.

So I present yet another link on Julian Assange's Marleyian chain ... but with the tepid expectation that nothing will change here at United Ivory Towers And Castle Keeps.

Certainly not when preponderance is chewed like tobacco and spit out as red rain.


Pax

Zook, this is ridiculous. You're gatekeeping again. You have nothing here but your flimsy assumptions that compound errors like the banksters compound interest.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you've aggrandized the text you believe condemns Assange. The first is "he told Meet The Press in a rare face-to-face interview". The implication is that information from Meet The Press is bad, and Julian Assange is bad for agreeing to let them interview him.

The second is "WikiLeaks had also hired a President Barack Obama ex-staffer to help their campaign". The implication is that this ex-staffer must be bad because Obama is bad, and so Wikileaks must be bad as well for hiring him.

Your "guilt by association" arguments are awfully selective. How do we know? Easy -- why didn't you also condemn John Young for being an ex-staffer from Wikileaks?

Nobody can take you seriously, Zook, when you deliver discernment like this.

Agreed, what's more ridiculous than one gatekeeper calling another a gatekeeper a gatekeeper!

What is actually ridiculous here, Chico, is that whenever I extend the preponderance by one element (N+1) ... you isolate the element from the preponderance (N) ... and pretend that it is the only element in the indictment.

Free clue: the preponderance is not any single element in the preponderance, but all the elements taken together ... plus all the elemental couplings.

My discernment is fine, thanx. As for being taken seriously, I have confidence that the people interested in the facts and fact derivatives take me seriously. That's all that really matters.

Assange is an insider handled by insiders to push through an insider agenda. By contrast, John Young left when he understood that Wikileaks was not what he thought it was. That you continue to compare the two, is an indictment of your poor discernment.

Pax

When you offer up flimsy, highly uncertain evidence, you are not extending the preponderance of evidence or cementing your indictment. You are shooting yourself in the foot.


In your dreams.


No, it's an indictment of your poor discernment. It's not a binary situation. Both John Young and Julian Assange are being handled by insiders to some degree. To some degree, we all are. I was being handled on this forum by Andy, to some degree, so I know what I'm talking about. Does that make me a co-conspirator with Andy? Am I guilty by reason of association? Absolutely not. Your elements of preponderance are just as faulty as answering those two questions with a "Yes".

Well, we've had another three years to discern the genuineness of Julian Assange. So we should have an even greater preponderance of evidence. And we do.

Zook got it wrong. Again. Kind of like Mike Pompeo.


If Zook still posted here (and he can), he would say Paul Craig Roberts is just a gatekeeper, "an insider handled by insiders to push through an insider agenda." Yes, the old gatekeeper defense. It rarely worked for Zook, but he never hesitated to reach for it.


Alas, poor Zook. I knew him well.

Yes, it's a freedom of speech issue. The U.S. government, charged to uphold the Constitution and the First Amendment that guarantees free speech, instead attempts to destroy both. The hypocrisy is astounding, but it's to be expected in a government of, by, and for sociopaths.

UncleZook started at least three threads ( 1 2 3 ) to attack the credibility of Julian Assange, and he carried on mightily in this thread and others to discredit Assange as well. After seven years of watching the Assange story unfold, it is fairly clear that Zook was acting as a gatekeeper, the very label he used to accuse everyone else who opposed the Zook dictate. This is the sociopath's way -- accusing your opponent of your own malfeasance. Whether Zook was a witting gatekeeper or not is of little significance. If witting, he's a fraud, and if unwitting, he's a fool. I've seen him behave as both in this forum, unfortunately.

Contrary to Zook's insistent claims, Assange is not controlled opposition. I would argue (and have argued) that Assange is the real deal, a legitimate whistleblower, a genuine opposition to the sociopaths that rule our world.


Zook would claim Paul Craig Roberts is a gatekeeper too, and can therefore be dismissed, but this is just more Zook legerdemain and prevarication. Zook loved to throw those terms around like lethal weapons in order to pass himself off as the premiere guru of the forum world. This is just how sociopaths function, sadly, presenting a false front to the world that is far removed from the real character that plots and schemes in the shadows.

Back to Julian Assange, so maligned by UncleZook. Assange may be getting close to regaining his freedom after seven long years of totally unjust imprisonment.


Evidently there is some maneuvering going on behind the scenes.


Zook will get a kick out of this chess game, which is startling in its brilliance, especially after move 34. The moves that remained unseen, that followed the last move of the game, are fabulous. I offer them here to Zook and other interested chess fans as examples of patience and unexpected human resourcefulness in the face of relentless attacks. Let us hope Assange can finish as brilliantly as Capablanca, which would be sweet justice indeed for the malevolent actions taken against Assange by the evil sociopaths controlling the UK, the USA, and effectively all of humanity.




The Birth of a Deadly Marshall Attack: Capablanca vs Marshall 1918