Happy Face

The irony of Newcastle United now paying Sports Direct for PR services when the company and it's owner have dragged our name (and stadium name) through the mud.

Thought of him the other night. Reading Green Eggs and Ham to the bairn. RIP

The majority support Ashley now man. We're a club on the up. Everything had changed. ... Not sure why we still aren't breaking ground on the training facility upgrade mind. And not sure why there's been no fans forums. Or why nust haven't been readmiitted after a dialogue was promised at the last one. And not sure why we've heard no more about the deal for sports direct to pay for their advertising. And I know the club debt has increased by more than a quarter although we made £30m profit in the last transfer window. ... But Ashley has learned his lessons and there's no need to worry about Rafa getting all he needs whatsoever.

I think we need shelvey B more than we need to start concentrating on other formations/styles before perfecting the managers favorite.

Wonder if he'll pay for the wall and pretend they did, or if he'll not build the wall and pretend he has.

But not aware of a microphone on his own suit as he talks about grabbing pussies

So is he besties with Russia or are they misleading him? All seems like guesswork by people with an axe to gring against Wikileaks because there is no evidence.

Monday's press conference Assange, speaking during an audio-only Periscope Q&A session, said the source of his information was not a member “of any government” or “state parties” and did not “come from the Russian government.” The WikiLeaks editor-in-chief blasted Friday’s declassified intelligence report on “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” as being inadequate and misleading. Asked Monday whether it's possible that WikiLeaks' source was a go-between affiliated with the Russian government, Assange said he didn't want to "play twenty questions with our sources." In November he said to Pilger "we can say that the Russian government is not the source,” He's consistent enough for me, but it's noteworthy he's not as categoric on the go-between question. If it was an internal leak from the Clinton campaign then he could possibly have been. i think he's choosing his words very carefully so as not to lie but to say where it definitely did not come directly from, but also not to give any indication who it did come from. Again though, I don't think this is a a criticism that Assange needs to answer to. I wonder more about his decision to time the release as close to the election as possible to give Trump the boost, rather than give Sanders a boost if they had some emails during the primaries. He probably informed this decision on Snowden's claimed one regret from his leak, that he didn't time it closer to the election to maximise it's impact on the news cycle.

Surprised Trump hasn't taken credit for it as he publicly encouraged them to do it. I don't know the source. Once verified, I agree with them being published regardless of source. I also have no issue with Assange protecting his source. International law guards his right to protect his source. I have no doubt that Russia seek to interfere in foreign elections almost to the same extent that the US do.

I've seen no evidence that it is.

When have wikileaks ever released anything and said "Half of the stuff in here is provably false, none of it provably true, we don't know who came up with it or where they got it from, but here, for shiots and giggles have a read" This is exactly the point I was making about the harm caused being to deligitimise actual news sources. The fact it's being driven by the US intelligence community makes you wonder if there isn't actually some intelligence behind it. But that would give them too much credit I think.

They always verify their sources and the authenticity of docs. They don't have the resources to go through with a fine tooth comb and make redaction decisions. They do invite the impacted parties to do that though. the likes of the US government refuse https://openanthropology.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/gc-letter.pdf

Why?

Wikileaks haven't released any unverified leaks. They have a 100% record of unchallenged accuracy over the past decade.

People were outraged that Wikileaks would publish verified authentic Clinton emails because it might influence the election and/or help Trump (therefore was against the public interest). Now the defense for publishing unverified claims is that it is in the public interest...even though the only thing verified is that it contains some falsehoods, presumably because it's harmful to the bad guy. The Ministry of Truth would struggle with this. There has to be some standards that are adhered to regardless of who a story helps or hinders. Verified and corroborated stories should be published about anyone in power, Unverified and false stories should not get the oxygen of publicity.

Yeah, I think the lesbian on the beach hour was just to get a break from Negan and that because it becomes monotonous, shame it was worse though.

There's been no evidence provided to support the claims whatsoever. The intelligence agencies are at loggerheads over their support/opposition to Trump and anonymous sources from both are popping up all over with unsubstantiated claims to deligitimise the other. Comey says "we might have incriminating emails on Clinton" on the eve of the election... they didn't. Now an anonymous source says Russia might have incriminating stuff on Trump... no reason to believe they do.

You sound like you're saying I've ever defended someone for doing that?

The big deal is the publishing of "unsubstantiated, unverified allegations" as news. The preponderance of fake news at shit holes like buzz feed or Huffington post or whatever shouldn't be as alarming as it is. People who confuse those unethical traffic generators with actual news should be few and far between and were already too idiotic to worry about. But the New York Times and Washington Poist are doing the same thing. Organisations that had some basic standards aren't wasting any time looking for any evidence to support their claims that Trump is a Russian Manchurian Candidate, or that the left wing media has been infiltrated by Russian propagandists. They just whack it out there and quote anonymous sources. The Guardian recently made up complete falsehoods about Assange as well. It's leading people to distrust ANY media whatsoever. It elevates this unverified tattle from BuzzFeed to the same level as the verified and 100% auhentic Clinton emails. It's deligitimising the fourth (and fifth) estates who no longer have any power to provide a fact check service for what people see in their Facebook Feed.

Mark kermode says he watched the exorcist alone for his stag do. What he means is, he never had a stag do so he did what he does most days.

I thought the first sentence related to the current theme of the thread. The complaint that followed rang hollow as a result EDIT: Not sure if it was intentional dark comedy (if so, kudos) or not. EDIT2: Then I read back to Alex's story and saw what Wyki was getting at. So many layers in here man, it's like a Game of Thrones.

Search for the question or "44.7" at the link. I'm content with my job. I wouldn't stay if I won the lottery though.

Just catching up on the latest series of A Bugs Life. I mean Walking Dead. One of the most boring hours of TV I've watched that lass ending up at the beach community. Conversely, I thought the first episode of the season was the best in 3 years and the first to generate any concern whatsoever for major characters. Only watching now in the hope that Karl goes proper mental nails and that it's worth having persevered when he does.

The noteworthy thing for me want the result. It was how Douglas manages to come up with 44% being a "majority". Basic GCSE stuff.