Southern_Man

Her is an interesting blog post I ran across while googling about whether Assange could be charged withe receiving stolen property: http://cyb3rcrim3.blogspot.com/2010/12/wikileaks-and-receiving-stolen-property.html Her conclusion is that looks like that is technically possible but it would be a relatively novel use of the law and it may be difficult to prove all the elements of the crime. It continues to raise questions about possible defenses under the first amendment for me. Also some troubling questions about extraterritoriality. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Plenty of reporters and publishers have received stolen classified documents. I don't believe the government has ever successfully prosecuted on for the crime of receiving stolen property. I guess it is not impossible but it would be a novel charge to make stick. Again, if they wish to do this, I hope they will apply the law consistently to all other reporters and publishers. Assumes facts not in evidence. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

U.S. paid an excise tax of 3% on phone service to fund the Spanish American war until 2006. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I went out once with a woman who said she owned a stripper pole. Claimed she and her daughter-in-law had taken exercise classes and used it for exercise. Only went out that once and didn't get to see it but I don't know why she would lie about that. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I'm actually always impressed with how non-controversial and quiet the adoption of the canon was, actually. I guess that is in contrast to some popular claims, as in Dan Browne's Davinci Code, but also other places, which claimed some sort of vast early conspiracy to suppress the Gnostic Gospels, like those found at Nag Hammadi. In fact, there were only a few disputed entries, Jude, Hebrews, Revelation which got in, and Shepherd of Hermes, the Diatessera, and the Didache which were ultimately left out. I'm sure there were minor debates about other books as well. Revelation is an interesting case, as the Eastern Orthodox churches have always viewed it as part of the canon and valuable for personal reading and reflection but not suitable for reading from the pulpit or preaching. Of course Luther wanted to take out James, calling it "an epistle of straw." Anyway, from the stuff I've read from the era it appears the settling of the canon was relatively non-controversial and certainly took a back seat to the Homoousious/homoiousious thingy. The truth about the gnostic gospels is that they were never considered for inclusion in the canon and don't appear in any of the various lists that various bishops made. The process of "inviting God" isn't really part of my thought process, personally, but as a philosophical matter I find it hard to say that God could be involved in the writing and editing of scripture through the agency of men but then could not be involved through the agency of men in the compiling of the canon. Not sure why one of those actions could be inspired but not the other. Of course you also see later controversies over things like this such as if the vowel pointings in the Hebrew text were inspired or just the original unpointed Hebrew. John Owen argued the pointings were also inspired. To me the biggest qualm, as far as internal consistency in the canon, is why the protestants went back to the Masoretic Text instead of using the Septuagint. After all, the writers in the New Testament, when they quote from the OT, use the Septuagint as their source. It is assumed that Jesus read from a Hebrew or Aramaic text in the temple but when he is quoted in John as saying, "You must be born again [or born from above]" he is clearly using a double entendre that exists in Greek but not in Hebrew. The Septuagint was accepted as authoritative by Augustine among other early fathers. And, as you state, it sort of solves any issues with the Apocrapha, as all of that was in the Septuagint and parts are quoted in the NT. Interpreting Jewish scriptures in context is definitely extremely difficult. Heck, it's difficult just to translate the things. Perhaps that's another advantage to the Septuagint, Greek is much, much easier. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I think this is a totally irrelevant question. The government can try to keep secret what they want (within the confines of the law). They failed to do that in this case. Their procedures and safeguards were not enough to keep Bradley Manning from copying an amazing amount of classified information. Manning broke the law and will be punished. That has nothing to do with Assange. Assange is a publisher. That's it. He didn't decide what the U.S. government could or couldn't keep secret. He merely published what he got when the government failed to keep its own secrets. That's what publishers do. If the U.S. government goes after every publisher who prints anything classified, or stories based on classified information, there are going to be an awful lot of empty newsrooms. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

So....the sheep saw the green light? When will they learn to spot. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Sheep should not B.A.S.E. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Well, this is all a side tangent but it is interesting to me (and Davjohns apparently) so others can ignore. I'm not terribly familiar with the details of each modern translation but NIV definitely tends towards the paraphrase end of the spectrum--it sacrifices literal fidelity for readability. Translation is an art not a science, so all of them do this to some degree. Much better to go back to the greek text, with some language tools like a large Kittel and look at that--a good Greek text will have some notes on the textual variants as well. That takes time and effort most people aren't willing to put in. The Tanakh (Torah--law, navaiim--prophets, and kataviim--wrirtings) was codified by somewhere around 200 B.C. and at the very, very latest has minor revisions up until the council of Jamnia in ~70A.D. Nicea really didn't have anything to do with that. Although I would note that OT Apocrapha are still a disputed status in the Christian Church today with catholics accpeting them and protestants generally disregarding them. These are books that were never, as far as we know, canonized or even widely circulated in Judaism but were in the Septuagint (Greek version of OT) and therefore accepted as authentic by many Christians. (Many early Christians used the Septuagint as their Old Testament while generally Christian translators today go back to the Jewish Masoretic text). Jewish scriptures had a very rigid system for copying and certifying. The oldest complete copies of the Masoretic Text we have are from the 1008 or 1009 AD in the Leningrad Codex, which is much younger than the Christian Texts we have. The Jewish scribe had to count the number of letters in the copy he made and if it dd not match the prescribed number the entire copy had to be destroyed. Such a system led to a Masoretic text that is very consistent from copy to copy. I would note that consistency is not entirely the same thing as accuracy. There are, for example, a couple of obvious places in the MT that letters were recorded wrongly but these mistakes were then copied into all copies instead of sometimes corrected, sometimes not. I have read that some of the Dead Sea scrolls were close matches to the MT but I have not really studied them in any detail. The New Testament was canonized somewhere in the 4th century between councils at Nicea (325) and Constantinople (381), The NT has a much more varied textual history as there was not as certralized an authority overseeing copying. These has led to a process of translating and editing that is much, much more open to interpretation and judgment calls. There are a huge number of variants which are merely scribal typographical erros but there are also places where entire sections of text have been inserted. For example, the longer ending of Mark (the last eight verses) and the story of the woman caught in Adultery in John (somewhere around 7:53-8:7 or so) are later additions. The verses in Mark are just missing from the text entirely. The story of the woman caught in adultery are sometimes missing, sometimes in Luke, and sometimes in other parts of John. Of course all of these textual problems are well known among scholars and even included in a good annotated English translation even if not everybody in your Sunday school class knows about them. I do think sometimes people overestimate the idea that such changes are based on overt political ideaologies when they are simply the result of a very chaotic textual tradition. This is making me use parts of my brain and think about things I haven't thought about for a long time. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I think you are mixing up some things here. The Dead Sea scrolls are Old Testament texts along with some Essene writings and parts of what we know as Apocraphal writings. They generally date from about 100 years before Christ to 100 years after, or thereabouts. Sinaiticus is one early New Testament Manuscript. It was written probably in the 300s. Translators look at the entire textual history including both Sinaiticus and other early texts. Sinaiticus is considered one of the big early three, along with Alexandrinus and Vaticanus. I'm not sure what to make of your 98% comment. I don't know what you are measuring that against. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

People didn't stop burning witches because they became more enlightened about burning them being morally wrong. People stopped burning witches because they no longer ascribed power to them. If we still ascribed the same power to them we would still be burning them. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I have seen absolutely no evidence that Assange was part of any conspiracy. I have not really commented on Bradley. his is clearly a very different case with a long history of jurisprudence behind it. Clearly what he did was illegal and he can be prosecuted. I have found one case under the Bush Administration when a private citizen was charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 with simply receiving classified information. It is unclear whether such a charge could be brought against 1. a journalist and 2. a foreigner who does not owe any allegiance to the U.S. Indeed, the U.S. congress apparently does not think it is applicable since they made an attempt to pass the SHIELD act specifically to criminalize Assange's actions. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I can't find that there is a crime called subversion in the United States. Moreover that wikipedia article that you linked to indicates that the essence of subversion is advocating the overthrow of a government. I don't believe Assange did that. Frankly, I'm not a lawyer and didn't spend hours searching but I did do some searching and I don't think the relevant parts of the U.S. Code apply to what Assange did since he did not incite or encourage the overthrow of the government. The closest things I can find indicate: Article 2383, "Rebellion or insurrection", of the US Code:[6] Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. As well as Article 2385, "Advocating overthrow of Government by force or violence"[7] Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

What would Assange spend the rest of his life in prison for? What crime would he be charged with and convicted of? I keep asking this question and not getting any answers. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Assange cannot be guilty of treason by definition, as he owes no allegiance to this country. His actions as a publisher are protected under the first amendment. What do you wnat him charged with? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I think the courts will disagree with you. They have recognized internet publishing a long time ago as a valid extension of traditional press. Blogging would actually involve both authorship (writing) and publishing. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

How about "publisher?" Is that accurate enough for your liking? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Same. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Can you please advise me. I'm having some problems. I'm currently running the latest version of Girlfriend and I've been having some problems lately. I've been running the same version of DrinkingBuddies 1.0 all along as my primary application, and all the girlfriend releases have always conflicted with it. I hear that DrinkingBuddies won't crash if you run girlfriend in background mode with the sound turned off. But I'm embarrassed to say I can't find the switch to turn the sound off. I just run them separately, and it works okay. Girlfriend also seems to have a problem coexisting with my Golf program, often trying to abort Golf with some sort of timing incompatibility. I probably should have stayed with girlfriend 1.0, but I thought I might see better performance with GirlFriend 2.0. After months of conflicts and other problems, I consulted a friend who has had experience with GirlFriend 2.0. He said that I probably didn't have enough cache to run girlfriend 2.0, and that eventually it would require a Token ring to run properly. He was right --- as soon as I purged my cache, it uninstalled itself. Shortly after that, I installed girlfriend 3.0 beta. All the bugs were supposed to be gone, but the first time I used it gave me a virus. I had to clean out my whole system and shut down for a while. I very cautiously upgraded to girlfriend 4.0. This time I used a SCSI probe first and also installed a virus protection program. It worked okay for a while until I discovered that GirlFriend 1.0 was still in my system! Then I tried to run GirlFriend 1.0 again with GirlFriend 4.0 still installed, but GirlFriend 4.0 has a feature that I didn't know about that automatically senses the presence of any other version of girlfriend and communicates with it in some way, which results in the immediate removal of both versions! The version I have right now works pretty well, but there are still some problems. Like all versions of girlfriend, it is written in some obscure language that I can't understand, much less reprogram. Frankly, I think there is too much attention paid to the look and feel rather than the desired functionality. Also, to get the best connections with your hardware, you usually have to use gold-plated contacts. And I've never liked how GirlFriend is totally "object-oriented". A year ago, a friend of mine upgraded his version of GirlFriend to GirlFriendPlus 1.0, which is a Terminate and Stay Resident version of GirlFriend. He discovered that GirlFriendPlus 1.0 expires within a year if you don't upgrade to Fiancee 1.0. So he did. But soon after that, he had to upgrade to Wife 1.0, which he describes as a "huge resource hog". It has taken up all of his space, so he can't load anything else. One of the primary reasons that he upgraded to Wife 1.0 is that it came bundled with FreeSexPlus 1.0. Well, it turns out that the resource allocation module of Wife 1.0 sometimes prohibits access to FreesexPlus, particularly the new Plug-Ins he wanted to try. On top of that, Wife 1.0 must be running on a well warmed-up system before he can do anything. Although -he did not ask for it, Wife 1.0 came with MotherInLaw 1.0 which has an automatic pop-up feature that he can't turn off. I told him to try installing Mistress 1.0, but he said that he heard if you try to run it without first uninstalling Wife 1.0, Wife 1.0 will delete MSMoney files before doing the uninstall itself, Then Mistress 1.0 won't install anyway due to insufficient resources. Can you help?? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

You say boozehag like that is a bad thing? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

What do you think Medicaid is? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

If you trust the internet for diagnosis more than you trust your doctor, then it is time to get a new doctor. I hope it is not too serious and you are better soon. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Saudi Arabia is a much different society. IMHO that would be a ways down the road. Jordan or Syria could easily be next though. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

If you had actually read any of the HC proposal you would know that the government would not be providing the healthcare, only setting regulations for the provision of healthcare. The government couldn't even ensure that its regulations were being followed in a facility it owned. Why do you think they can do better elsewhere? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Stop giving it to people who can't afford it. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"