The suggestion that people that have been here for years are paid shills guilty of disinformation is beyond the pale.
I agree that this is most likely a smear and at a minimum blown up, but evidence is where it is at and people that defend the 'other side' of the argument (especially ErrantX and DanielBMarkham) are for the most part just playing the devils advocate and cautioning you to think for yourself instead of following the herd.
Believing that these claims, at this point in the affair, have any serious possibility of being real is to be ignorant of the history of the way power structures way. Discrediting dangerous figures which are too well-known to be dissuaded silently is common to the extreme.
And seriously, we're talking about the same power structure that has put dictators and thieves in places throughout the world when it was convenient. A smear campaign is about the least dishonest thing that they could do.
What's that got to do with the price of tea in China, that's just handwaving.
You accused a bunch of people and now you point outside of HN to bolster your non-existent case. Rubbish.
I'm not taking issue with your interpretation of the case against Julian Assange, I'm taking issue with your case of there being paid shills in this thread. Give HN some credit.
The suggestion that people that have been here for years are paid shills guilty of disinformation is beyond the pale.
I agree that this is most likely a smear and at a minimum blown up, but evidence is where it is at and people that defend the 'other side' of the argument (especially ErrantX and DanielBMarkham) are for the most part just playing the devils advocate and cautioning you to think for yourself instead of following the herd.