The New York Times and The State Department are both putting their reputation (however much that means to you) on the line with their quotes, whereas WikiLeaks and its anonymous source, aren't putting anything on the line since a large part of their business model depends on making claims that can only be proven in their favor, but never in reverse.
Example, this claim about who is responsible for cutting Assange's internet access. Let's say the US did not cut his internet. There is absolutely nothing The State Department can say to make WikiLeaks supporters believe them. Whereas, anything WikiLeaks says about the US government will be eaten up by their supporters since the only people that can provide evidence to the contrary, WikiLeaks supporters don't trust. It's the same approach taken by Alex Jones (They want to take your guns, they want to put you in fema camps, etc...), Trump (A lot of people are saying...)
Oh and btw, I'm not saying you should just blindly believe what the government tells you, but until any actual evidence is provided to support another explanation, there is no reason to assume it is true.
Bonus hypocritical Trump tweet: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/78183870603031347...
I think the disconnect here is just how much weight you put on this statement here. For a significant number of people a lot of recent news has severely damaged the reputations of these institutions as well as shown that their reputations really wouldn't be impacted by their claims being shown to be false.
It used to be a saying that geeks can't do politics. And now after what I've seen of years of slashdot, digg, Reddit, and HN I think its fair to say that saying is true. The problem I see is that people who think they're smart think they must automatically be immune to propaganda, bias, etc because, well, they're so smart. I find the techie personality to be unusually vulnerable to propaganda and conspiracy theories. I think this type of thinking gives simple answers and black and white thinking that are intellectually satisfying and dismiss the incredible complexity of human interactions. Its very easy to just eat up anti-US college identity politics and make the US be the devil in all things. Its simple and is emotionally satisfying. The problem is that its also incorrect, especially when your "good guys" are Russia, China, and Iran.
We cannot have any sort of meaningful dialog when the opposition on both sides is painted into a caricature.
George W. Bush had an amazing quote during the memorial service for the fallen Dallas PD officers. Paraphrasing but: "We judge other groups by their worst and ourselves by our intentions"
How so?
If ecuador was going to give in to US demands, why wouldnt they just let the US extradite Asssange?
Clearly the US doesnt have the type of pull with Ecuador to force their hand, why would you think this is any different?
you believe that john kerry alone was able to convince them to cut the internet, but the fact that 3 separate countries want him arrested is meaningless to them?
Doesnt sound believable to me at all. so yes, i have reason to doubt a)
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&searc...
Given that the English (/Germanic) is "name" and the French is "nom", I would have expected the PIE for name to be some sort of "nVm"-ish thing, whence I expected the Greek to render it is some sort of "non"-ish thing. The actual Greek is ónoma, with the PIE being something like *hnómn. (So my PIE guess was right-ish, but the transition to Hellenic was wrong).
Do you have other evidence to bring to the table? Do you have reason to doubt a.) or b.)?