WikiLeaks founder chooses to blackmail

I'm sure if he told you he would have to kill you and we would much rather you are alive. Originally Posted by discreetgent

Two main groups of people, out of the total, would tell you that:

1. People being sarcastic and...

2. Posers.

You know, you guys would have a good point on this if it wasn't for the fact that: A) the operational aspects of Warlock were well know as far back as 2005, B) EDO (the makers of Warlock) had published the details of the feed-forward signal amplifier design for Warlock in a 2006 patent, and C) the Warlock system had been almost completely replaced by the more advanced Raytheon ICE system before Wikileaks released the Warlock report.

As usual, it's all smoke from you guys. There was nothing in the released Wiki document that people in the field didn't already know. Even if there had been the Warlock system had already been pulled from the field by the time it was released. It was only you - and the general public - who were still in the dark when that report came out.

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Wrong on two main counts.

First, key statement, "in the field." We're not talking about whether it was known in the field or not. We're talking about whether the general public knew it or not. (I direct your attention to the bolded red statements in your quote). From a warfare standpoint, whether the general public knows about it or not is key. The forces that we're engaged with happen to be a part of the "general public" when it comes to being privy to WARLOCK related information. With the WIKI releases, WARLOCK become general knowledge, and more would know about it, to include those we're fighting, than they otherwise would've known.

Second, you're WRONG when it comes to WARLOCK being phased out. You see, I recently did a combat deployment to Iraq. Our MRAPS and HMMWVs used WARLOCK. When we rolled into a major logistics FOB or COB, we occassionaly brought our vehicles to the shop that handled WARLOCKS. When we received updated operator's manuals for the WARLOCKS, they stated WARLOCKS, as well as other technical terms they were referred to. Enter one of these major FOBS or COBS, and you'll see NEW signs that read, "Turn your WARLOCKS off!" And get this, the FOB Mayor at the last FOB we operated out of made it a UCMJ offense to NOT deactivate the WARLOCKS while operating in the FOB... or to have the WARLOCK activated while operating in the base.

So, your comments, about WARLOCKS being "completely phased out," is completely in error.

Third, I wasn't in the dark about WARLOCKS because, well, as a truck commander, I activated the WARLOCK for my MRAP/HMWWV prior to rolling out the gate.

Nowhere, while working with the civilians on the FOBS that dealt with our WARLOCKS, did I see them referenced by the new term, though I heard about a newer version being implemented.

I was deployed to Iraq from 2009 to 2010, well beyond the date you claimed these systems were "phased out." WARLOCKS were still being used when we redeployed back to the US.

1994. Originally Posted by herfacechair

Thought maybe you were in the movie.

Yeah? Well I deployed to Anfield Road after the Liverpool match last night. Who's the tough guy now? Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

You're comparing apples to oranges. My statement, about deploying to Somalia, was made to counter a statement that I made a "singular" deployment. It was also used to counter the insinuation that I wasn't "well travelled." This has nothing to do with comparing strengths. Stick with the topic.

On a side note, dealing with sports hooligans doesn't compare to dealing with crazed jihadis with AKs, IEDs and Launchers.

Hint: Some of us have more than a third grade education - and last time I checked crossing the line did not enhance the IQ or common sense of those who happened to do it. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

WHERE, in MY posts, do I claim that crossing the equator enhanced a person's IQ?

Go back, and find the post that I made where I supposedly made that claim. Link to that post, and include that link in your reply. You do realize that having more than a third grade education entails that you have the ability to read, and comprehend, high school level writing, do you?

For someone that claims that there are people here that have more than a third grade education, your actions definitely work counter to your claims. Again, my bringing that point up was to counter someone's insinuation that I wasn't "well travelled" like other people on this website.

A few of us even have a little bit of knowledge about the military and war making. Shocking, isn't it? Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Based on your comments about the WARLOCKS, that I addressed in the previous post, I don't count you as being part of that group. None of the people that I've rebutted on this thread, have demonstrated any understanding of the military or war making.

Accordingly, hornbooks are not considered persuasive by courts and should be used only for background purposes

Really? Where I went to law school they taught us something different. Your concept of law (and long-arm statutes in particular) is seriously, seriously naive. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Really? Let's add the entire statement that I made, shall we?

From Cornel.edu:

"Hornbooks are legal texts written expressly for law students by law professors using plain prose. They condense an area of law into a single volume and give a clear overview of the law's evolution, a discussion of courts' interpretation of the law and an explanation of the application of the law today. This presentation of "Black letter law" makes hornbooks an attractive study aid. A hornbook published by West Group identifies itself as such on its cover. West's "Black Letter" series, Aspen's "Examples and Explanations" series and Lexis' "Understanding the Law" legal text series are similar to hornbooks. There is no clear line of demarcation between treatises and hornbooks but as a general rule a hornbook is not as detailed as a treatise and provides fewer references to other sources. Accordingly, hornbooks are not considered persuasive by courts and should be used only for background purposes."

Since you assume that my concept of law is "seriously, seriously 'naïve'", answer this question:

Is Cornel WRONG about the above bolded red statement? YES [ ] NO [ ].

Simply copy and paste the Cornel.edu quote above, in its entirety, followed by the bolded red question. Then, mark an "X" in the box that represents your answer. Spare me your BS response. Just give me a "YES" or "NO."

Remember, we're talking about what I got from the cornel.edu website. You appear to have issues about that. I don't know whether what you said, about your learning something different, is true or not. But I do know what I read, from websites related to our discussion.

Also, on the long arm statute:

From ncpress.com:

"LONG-ARM STATUTE: Law that allows a court to exercise authority over a person or a business outside the area in which the court usually has power."

This is applicable for both, state and federal courts. Heinonline.com has an article that covers the federal long arm statute as it relates to the internet and other related technologies.

Again, the United States has hauled people from overseas, and placed them on trial in US courts. So far, the definitions that I've found matched what I've ben arguing here.
And they match with what I've learned about long arm statute taught by the law classes that I've taken while working on my undergraduate degree.

So, either you, or the district attorney that taught one of my classes, as well as the articles written by authors associated with the law, are BSing me. I strongly believe the latter, while red flags go up while reading your comments.

Mazomaniac: I don't mean to be demeaning,

You can't help but be demeaning, as that's characteristic of pompous, arrogant academics, especially when they come face to face with someone that doesn't see them as "gods of knowledge" that the naïve would see them as.

Mazomaniac: but it's pretty clear that you're way over your head here.

That'b be applicable if the facts didn't support my argument. But the reality is that the facts DO support my argument. Based on your comments, I'd say that you were better off not saying anything. The statement, "Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt," is very applicable to the posts that you've made in your attempt to prove me "wrong." You've seriously failed to counter my argument with a valid one.

Mazomaniac: I understand that you enjoy jumping onto the net and arguing for sake of arguing but you really need to stick to topic

I'm sticking to topics that I have extensive experience and research in. This includes the current debate that we're having. One major prerequisite that I put on myself, prior to jumping into the debate, is to know more about a topic than those that I'm debating with.

Mazomaniac: like swabbing the deck, cleaning the head,

We don't have "decks" and "heads" in the Army, but we do have FLOORS and LATRINES. If a floor needs moping, or a latrine needs cleaning, I could simply dispatch a Private to get the cleaning done. But speaking of moping the floor, well, I'm moping the floor with you in this exchange.

Mazomaniac: and other various skills that you picked up at sea

Many of the things that I've argued on other, as well as this, thread partly resulted from skills that I picked up at sea, when I was in the Navy.

Mazomaniac: and let the college boys handle the hard stuff.

Certainly, your "above 3rd grade level" education would've caused you to come across this statement:

"To illustrate, you're not going to see me refer to my MBA in a discussion involving war, but I would reference it in a discussion involving business/economy." - herfacechair

SURPRISE SURPRISE, I have college degrees. You see, now that you mentioned "college," I'm mentioning the fact that I have an MBA.

But, a college education doesn't put someone, with no real military experience, on the same footing as someone, with real military experience, on the topic of the debate involving the ramifications of releasing military related information that should remain secret.

I highly recommend that you should let those of us, who aren't confined by the walls of the Ivory Tower, to handle real world issues. Don't hurt yourself by trying to venture out and discuss things that happen beyond your controlled, and protected, bubble.

Mazomaniac: If you're going to come on here and insult people you're going to find that it comes back to you in large buckets - especially when you can't even control the urge to play with the font settings.

WRONG.

Just as I've ben doing over the years I've debated on other message boards, I'm going to treat others the way they treat me. Notice, for instance, how I've recently interacted with discreetgent. He gave me respect, I reciprocated. However, when others attack and insult me, I return the favor to them. You need to address the source, but given your bias in the debate, and the fact that you're blinded by arrogance and an inflated sense of self importance, I highly doubt that you're going to see the real cause of the insult problem.

Judging by your performance on this thread, I highly doubt that you went to law school. But, just as there are good lawyers, there are substandard ones, so... If you argue your court cases, assuming that you're a lawyer, the way you argued here, I highly recommend that you start looking switch, to a new profession. You're an embarrassment to your profession, if you're a lawyer that is.

Thought maybe you were in the movie. Originally Posted by Ansley

The movie highlights one period of the Somalia operation. The entire operation was dangerous.

I was also at Old Trafford for United/Arsenal a few days ago and sat in the Stretford End. That was an experience as well. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

I'll bet! If you're a Man U supporter, that has to be the thrill of a lifetime.

Sunday it's down to Chelsea wearing red. That's the one I'm really worried about. If I stop posting you'll know what happened. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

You should be alright. Stamford Bridge is relatively "tame"...as far as the London grounds go. It's not like you're going to the New Den or Upton Park.

I'm off to Oz after that to see the Ashes. Need something a little tamer after a week of running from hooligans.

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Now...that should be fascinating. Seeing an Ashes test live (preferably IN Australia) is something I've always wanted to do. We've an active cricket league in Houston. I've gone a couple of times. Odd....odd....game.

Enjoy! Here's hoping you live to report back!

But, a college education doesn't put someone, with no real military experience, on the same footing as someone, with real military experience, on the topic of the debate involving the ramifications of releasing military related information that should remain secret. Originally Posted by herfacechair

Bottom line...should Wiki release info that puts troops in harms way? No

Should our troops be over there in the first place is the bigger question.

I sure as fuc don't need Wiki for the answer to that question.

I don't feel the need to fund Rambo so he can travel the world and come back and tell me how safe he is making it and would I be willing to give him another three trillion bucks. A bunch of scardy cats in this country fall for that, I ain't one of them.

So there herfacechair, you win the debate battle but you are losing the debate (funding) war.

I highly recommend that you should let those of us, who aren't confined by the walls of the Ivory Tower, to handle real world issues. Don't hurt yourself by trying to venture out and discuss things that happen beyond your controlled, and protected, bubble.
Originally Posted by herfacechair

That sounds like a line from ' A Few Good Men'.

Educated as you are, you can do better than that.

Educated as you are, you can do better than that. Originally Posted by WTF

Says who?

The price of freedom keeps going up, but the quality keeps deteriorating.

well, as a truck commander, Originally Posted by herfacechair

Well, I see you were nothing more than a glorified semi driver. The truth is now out.

I'm now ready for the clueless assault.

Well, I see you were nothing more than a glorified semi driver. The truth is now out.

I'm now ready for the clueless assault. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I'm 11B Infantry, dumbass.

We do two types of patrols, mounted and dismounted. During mounted patrols, my main job is that of a "TC." I don't drive the vehicle, but I'm assigned a driver. Depending on availability of senior personnel, I could wind up as a gunner. Let's simplify this, when we do combat patrols via vehicle convoys, we ride vehicles.

We also do dismounted patrols, which includes our combat patrols within the city limits, where we're on foot.

Don't let "truck commander" fool you. Google "MRAP" and HMWWV," which you deliberately left out of what you quoted. That action reeks of intellectual dishonesty... and your willingness to deceive people in your move to take me out of context.

But, a college education doesn't put someone, with no real military experience, on the same footing as someone, with real military experience, on the topic of the debate involving the ramifications of releasing military related information that should remain secret. Originally Posted by herfacechair

Bottom line...should Wiki release info that puts troops in harms way? No

Should our troops be over there in the first place is the bigger question.

I sure as fuc don't need Wiki for the answer to that question.

I don't feel the need to fund Rambo so he can travel the world and come back and tell me how safe he is making it and would I be willing to give him another three trillion bucks. ing
So there herfacechair, you win the debate battle but you are losing the debate (funding) war. Originally Posted by WTF

We need to be downrange until we accomplish our objectives... real world realities dictate that. You don't need Wiki for the answer to the above questions, as you already have an opinion, one that you intend to stick with.

Given the vantage point that I have, based on my experiences and research, I'm going to give you information that you're obviously not getting from your information sources. Bottom line, we have to stabilize that region, before its radical elements change us into a series of Islamic Caliphates.

I'm winning both, the debate battle and debate war. We won with a straight cut victory in Iraq, thus we don't need the troop levels there that we used to have. As long as there's a will to fight, and win, we're going to continue to receive funding for our efforts downrange.

I highly recommend that you should let those of us, who aren't confined by the walls of the Ivory Tower, to handle real world issues. Don't hurt yourself by trying to venture out and discuss things that happen beyond your controlled, and protected, bubble. Originally Posted by herfacechair

That sounds like a line from ' A Few Good Men'.

Educated as you are, you can do better than that. Originally Posted by WTF

Pardon me for not using big bookish, pompous words.

But understand that I've spent more time in a military environment than I have in a university environment. That's the military side of me speaking, which is lenient compared to what's actually said by military people.

As far as the movie is concerned, the character that you're comparing me to in your quote? For that character to have the rank he did, he would've had to graduate from the Naval Academy... hence, he would've ben a college graduate. He did a pretty good job acting like someone who was in the military. Our actual language, and communication with each other, is much more abrasive.

@herfacechair

I see you finally got the hang of the Quote, Multiquote and Quote Tags on this Board. Damn! I enjoyed thinking you were wasting a lot of time cutting and pasting. I guess you're much smarter than I gave you credit for...you know, learning how to click on buttons.

Tree in the forest Charles; lol

@herfacechair

I see you finally got the hang of the Quote, Multiquote and Quote Tags on this Board. Damn! I enjoyed thinking you were wasting a lot of time cutting and pasting. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

The quote, multiquote and quote tags are no different from the ones I've used on the other boards. I've done both, use the quote functions and dismantling, depending on the length of the posts I'm addressing. For short responses, good chance I'll use the quote functions. For addressing long responses, I tend to do point by point rebuttals.

I guess you're much smarter than I gave you credit for...you know, learning how to click on buttons. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

The real problem is that you assume that this is the only board of its kind on the internet. You also assume, erroneously, the reasons to why I do certain things. Smart people would either ask me, or investigate my past actions. Google "herfacechair" to see what I mean by this.

If you're a Man U supporter, that has to be the thrill of a lifetime. Originally Posted by Sisyphus

It was! Still can't hear anything from all the chanting, but I'm hoping that will pass.

I'm currently doing a global sports fan's bucket list. Already did Indy 500, Super Bowl, World Series, Winter and Summer Olympics, and World Cup.

I'm hoping to finish it out over the next year with:

United at Old Trafford (now done)
The Ashes at Melbourne
Formula 1 at Spa
Ansley at Atlanta
All Blacks at Auckland in the RWC

Have to say that, so far, it's the best project I've taken on in a long time. Highly recommended.

Cheers,
Mazo.