180 Seconds with Craig Ranapia - 12 December
50 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
Anyone have any suggestion where I can buy a cheap but reliable iron -- destroyed one in a fit of bingo rage.
-
Ironing your star spangled blindfold I suspect.
-
All you had to do Craig was admit that you perhaps could have used more accurate language (particularly in this case where you were apparently trying to make a point about someone’s presumed innocence) but instead you’ve both gone off on an embarrassing diatribe that the word “alleged” means to accuse someone of lying.
Your reaction has only confirmed for me that it probably was a Freudian slip and you have indeed made your mind up about Assange's guilt.
The strangest thing about your line of thought Boganette is that you've clearly already made your mind up that the accusers can't possibly be lying. Hence Assange must be lying.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I'm very sorry I can't re-write the English language for you, or even pretend to take your disingenuous trolling seriously any more. Oh well -- life is full of disappointment.
-
No rewrite required Craig. All you need to do is pull your head out.
-
And of course then there's always the potential outcome of these alleged crimes that don't involve lying: they got bad advice, the prosecutors got it wrong, etc. Cripes he hasn't even been charged with anything yet.
Far too nuanced for you two I suspect.
-
there’s always the potential outcome of these alleged crimes that don’t involve lying: they got bad advice, the prosecutors got it wrong, etc.
Which is a good point: we shouldn’t assume that they are liars even if it goes to trial and he’s found not guilty.
Going back to the original point of contention here, I really didn’t take Craig’s sans alleged ‘rape victims’ phrase as being a sneaky way to imply Assange’s guilt, or a Freudian slip. (Sometimes, slips are just slips.)
All you had to do Craig was admit that you perhaps could have used more accurate language
Maybe, but all you had to say was that you think people need to be careful with their language when discussing these issues. It seems to me you went a bit further & your case started out more confrontational than necessary: “practice what you preach” always sounds didactic. And “it seems that so far he is not receiving a fair trial. No comment from you on that” was a bit odd – it’s “180 seconds with Craig Ranapia” and he made it pretty clear what particular issue caught his interest here.
Anyway, while I had question marks over the initial decision not to grant bail, I wouldn’t go so far as to say he hasn’t been given a “fair trail”, so far.
I don’t get why it’s been suggested you think the woman are lying, or why you portray Craig and Boganette’s stance as being naively differential to the US.
-
Maybe, but all you had to say was that you think people need to be careful with their language when discussing these issues. It seems to me you went a bit further & your case started out more confrontational than necessary: “practice what you preach” always sounds didactic.
Fair point. Not only confrontational but perhaps unfair. The reaction, however, suggests it really was a Freudian slip.
And “it seems that so far he is not receiving a fair trial. No comment from you on that” was a bit odd – it’s “180 seconds with Craig Ranapia” and he made it pretty clear what particular issue caught his interest here.
Fair point. I could have worded that better. It wasn’t so much a criticism about not commenting but an invitation to.
In any case I don’t think it’s particularly wise to comment on this topic with addressing the political gorilla in the room.
I don’t get why ... you portray Craig and Boganette’s stance as being naively differential to the US.
That’s based on their reactions in this thread. They clearly see themselves as bastions of feminism but can’t even manage a serious response to comments about the broader power games at play.
It seems to me that Craig and Boganette are stuck in automatic, presumably from having discussed this topic ad finitum with misogynous gutter dwellers. I come along and offer a nuanced (if confrontational) point and they can’t get out of automatic gear.
-
Anyway, while I had question marks over the initial decision not to grant bail, I wouldn’t go so far as to say he hasn’t been given a “fair trail”, so far.
That Interpol was even involved was strange, considering he's not even been charged with anything. They'd already told him he was free to leave the country. If they wanted to speak to him again why not by video link? And passport confiscated, location tag, £200000 bail, 10 PM curfew? Now the Swedes even appealing his bail? None of this is about the safety of women.
I hope those who are forcefully arguing that this is simply justice taking place will just as forcefully oppose any attempt by the U.S. to extradite him, whether he is guilty of these Swedish allegations or not.
-
Meanwhile a WikiLeaks cable shows the Swedish Department of Justice is quite capable of conspiring with the U.S. to undermine Swedish democracy: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8202745/WikiLeaks-Swedish-government-hid-anti-terror-operations-with-America-from-Parliament.html
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
I certainly oppose his extradition to the USA.
(And oops, I meant "deferential", before.)
-
"They clearly see themselves as bastions of feminism" - Really? Gosh you've got an active imagination Christiaan. I'm always surprised when people troll for a reaction then get all emotional when they get the exact reaction they were seeking.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
In any case I don’t think it’s particularly wise to comment on this topic with addressing the political gorilla in the room.
Christiaan: I'll say this one more time -- there are at least two other threads here where you can address that gorilla to your heart's content. I chose to address certain aspects of the sexual charges laid against Assange. I'm really finding it tiresome, and more than a little troll-ish, being harangued for not discussing what you want in terms you approve of. It's also pretty shitty netiquette.
It seems to me that Craig and Boganette are stuck in automatic, presumably from having discussed this topic ad finitum with misogynous gutter dwellers. I come along and offer a nuanced (if confrontational) point and they can’t get out of automatic gear.
*headdesk*
Frankly, I've done you the courtesy of reviewing the audio, in a good faith effort to see if you actually have cause for complaint. (I'd be the last person to claim I've never gotten anything wrong, tonally or in matter of fact.) Honestly, I don't and being obnoxiously man-splained and patronising won't improve your case.
-
Christiaan - it might help you to read this link to see why this is a sensitive topic to people http://tinyurl.com/24h8nlx
-
Frankly, I've done you the courtesy of reviewing the audio, in a good faith effort to see if you actually have cause for complaint. (I'd be the last person to claim I've never gotten anything wrong, tonally or in matter of fact.) Honestly, I don't and being obnoxiously man-splained and patronising won't improve your case.
Fine. Well, at least you taught me a new word: mansplain.
-
Christiaan, in reply to
Christiaan - it might help you to read this link to see why this is a sensitive topic to people http://tinyurl.com/24h8nlx
Thanks for the link. It's a nice insight. However I'm offended if you think it applies to what I've said. What I've said above doesn't fit any of the given examples. Take note, also, that whoever wrote that eloquent piece thought it important to use the word alleged.
-
Why am I not surprised that you're offended. Sigh.
-
Wouldn't you? You're accusing me of being a rape apologist for fucks sake.
-
*rolls eyes* yeah you're such a victim Christiaan. Jeez. You come on here and de-rail the shit out of Craig's post and then get all worked up because you got called on it. FFS indeed.
-
I haven’t been called on anything! You’ve been called on an embarrassing diatribe trying to redefine the meaning of ‘alleged’ and now you’re clearly irked by it.
Either put up or shut up. Please explain how the above link applies to what I’ve said.
-
Christiaan:
Against my every instinct, I've been civil to you, while wanting to poke my eyes out with tiny toothpicks to distract myself from the acid reflux burning through my internal organs, Alien-style.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree and you need to move on, because your persistent flaming isn't going to change my mind to your satisfaction. Also, patronising and belittling other PAS users doesn't really go down well around here.
I've also told you repeatedly that there are several threads on PAS where you should find the framing of Wikileaks-releated discussion more to your liking.
Please, please take that as a friendly and final warning. M'kay? I don't want to kick this upstairs to Russell for a moderation ruling (free speech isn't free, and all that), but I don't want to be receiving any more complaints about your conduct on this thread.
-
All you've done is accuse me of being a liar, a troll and a mansplain. And now your sidekick is accusing me of a being a fucking rape apologist. The last thing you've been is civil.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
At the bottom of every post, there's a wee Report button. If you think anyone -- myself included -- has treated you in a manner that doesn't meed PAS's terms and conditions, you're welcome to utilize it.
Otherwise, I intend to ignore you and encourage everyone else to do the same.
-
I think you should both be ashamed of yourselves and I hope you're embarrassed this thread is here for all to read.
-
Well I’ve just read through the comments on that post you linked to Boganette and perhaps that’s what you meant me to do earlier. I’m sorry to hear you speak from experience on this Craig.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.