Re: Charles Johnson
Subject: Re: Charles Johnson
From: Clark Robinson <robinsonchicago@gmail.com>
Date: 12/15/10, 20:14
To: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>

Sorry I missed the meeting tonight: I am deep in family stuff.  I will try to get caught up in January.

At the end of his post about the Russian Wikileaks-affiliated person, Charles Johnson throws in the following, with no link to a source:

"In the context of this news, it’s interesting that un-redacted versions of the Wikileaks cables (with all the names revealed) turned up on Russian websites first."

This is presented like a throwaway line at the end but, if true, would appear to be more significant than the rest of CJ's post.  Is there anything to support the statement he makes?



On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
Things have only gone downhill since. But I'm happy with the manner in which I split the opinion there. At first most commenters refrained from defending Wikileaks due to Johnson and Kilgore Trout's stance and now Johnson and Trout have both lost reputation due to the manner in which they conducted themselves. Johnson yesterday posted a pic of the "mansion" that Assange is staying at during his trial and then posted a picture of people in dress coats and luxurious trappings, etc. Turns out to be a picture from an entirely different place hundreds of miles away. It's my fault for having gone on record that he is intellectually honest. You were the one who identified Michael Hastings; as such, I want you to take a more prominent stance in identifying those who ought to be included in PM blogger network at first.


On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 4:18 AM, Clark Robinson <robinsonchicago@gmail.com> wrote:
Just spent an hour scrolling up and down the comments to the LGF post linked below; aside from the actual dispute, I did sense a hardening of attitudes (or maybe more accurately, a surfacing of attitudes long rigid) to an extent that would make joint efforts seem less likely in the future.  So yeah, I guess not.


On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:44 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
I guess we won't be working with him anymore.





--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302