How do we know this w/o the full text of the logs?

Easy. You take the logs that Wired did release, and the information that Greenwald claims wasn't in there that was documented outside Wired, and you see if they're in there. Wired just went on the record saying they are. Go refute the claim.

We don't; how do I know you aren't payed by the government to say this unless right now you disclose all of your bank account credentials so I can check? (/sarcasm)

Greenwald's piece was predicated on new information coming to light (Lamo's recent allegations) that showed there was missing details in the chat logs that were material to the case. Wired refuted this; I just looked at the logs again and their refutation makes sense to me.

Ok, so if the chat logs are eventually revealed and they contain information relevant to the accusations against Assange, then you will reverse your opinion?

I'd gladly reverse my view on Wired in that case; I won't reverse my view on Greenwald's article; the information he used to back his argument doesn't make sense. If the conclusion ends up being correct, the argument still will have been bogus.

Tp: Uh, I think I'd rather just see the chat logs. Seems to me the Wired piece is long on unrelated attacks on Greenwald, and short on a lot of other things, like a convincing explanation of why they won't release the logs.

Who wouldn't want the chat logs? I'm sure they're a lot more fun to read than Wired's summary of what's in the chat logs. What's your point?

It is not interesting or insightful to point out that everyone wants the chat logs and will not be satisfied with anything but the chat logs. Yes. You are on record: you demand the chat logs. It is clearly obvious that you would want the chat logs.

Wired says: no. They gave their reasons.

You are not going to agree with any of those reasons, because you want to read the chat logs, and you are a commenter on a nerd message board and as such you see all those reasons as a logical system to be gamed to achieve the outcome you desire. I don't blame you because I too am commenting on a nerd message board. But: be self aware about it.

I don't think it's necessary for you to post personal attacks or personalize the issue. I think Greenwald's response today makes it amply clear why a reasonable person would want more of the chat logs, or at least some full commentary by Wired on the chat logs. To wit: Lamo has made various public statements about what Manning supposedly said, in those logs. Wired has refused to substantiate those statements by posting relevant excerpts, or to comment on why they refuse. This objection, which is obviously not mine alone and has nothing to do with gaming this system or nerd message boards and is in fact a serious issue, also has nothing to do with any protection of privacy or embarrassing content that might also be present in those chat logs.

You might think it's not interesting to demand that the substantive issues raised by Wired's very selective posting of those logs be resolved. That doesn't make it so, and neither do personal attacks. Please note that I've refrained from attacking you.

I think the issue is that Wired doesn't really come across as trustworthy and very well might be withholding relevant information. There are still a few somewhat fishy aspects to the story.

There's nothing they can reasonably do to not be "fishy" to WL supporters. Releasing the chat transcripts no more gets Wired out of the Lamo/Poulsen quandary than releasing the physical hard copy birth certificate gets Obama out of the birther quandary.

People should just admit it. They don't want the chat logs because it will make them believe Wired more. They want the chat logs because the chat logs are fun drama. It doesn't make you a bad person to concede that; it just makes you a human being.

Hah. I really don't care about the personal drama in the logs. I mostly want to see where Assange stands at this point with respect to evidence (aside from potential testimony by Manning) that he violated the espionage act.