re: #103 ozbloke

Succinctly what is shows is that the chat logs do not support Lamo’s contention that Assange was a co-conspiritor with Manning as I read it.

Your mileage may vary.

And if the chat logs do not support it, so what?
It is very possible that Lamo’s contention is supported by something else, isn’t it?

Greenwald seems to have locked on to one specific source as his be-all, end-all acceptable source, but it isn’t necessarily the only acceptable source that exists in the world, is it? Wired may have seen the evidence, but doesn’t have access to it for release. I mean, that is not far-fetched, is it?

That’s why this is so confusing to me. If the chat logs do not support something, it doesn’t mean that the something isn’t true - it only means that the chat logs don’t support it. That’s all. Period. End of it.