Comments:'Wikileaks.org' taken off line in many areas after fire, court injunction

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

That doesn't sound awfully suspicious. 71.124.195.171 14:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course not *whistle* Spacehusky - (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So much for freedom, the US finds everyday new ways to dissapoint me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.233.0.36 (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

openness of informational models: might be too complex

It is true. Factors put you in a paradoxical juxtiposition to us in the daily complexity of routine, that may affect the Group's operations that are described under 'Risk Factors' in the Operating and Financial Review and Prospects in the company's Annual Reports to the targets action date ["Dec.31,2007"] and the ie. one legal schemes safety study about the likley hood of it the scheme becoming illegal.

Than as to, those more interested, in precieving the results presently they are worried about its viability, and it having become too complex in conjunction with  'those discussions not intended as legal advice' dose dependencie, and the like, will have begun to take a toll on your workforce cohorts is/is not, difficult to guestimate the KOR-elements which is necessary for responsiveness, to anyone.

To dampen prisoners [or the mirrors questionably added benefits] runaway brain activity selectively blocked to the conditioned place aversion, and stress-induced immobility, by administration of a mixture of potencies on the one hand, while handling my more signficant major lucurative protagonistic vsug accounts simulotaneously and still make my increases, personal commitments and production quotas, relevance to the study, or any continued preceptable benefits requires someting, As I see it, these refusals to desist, it's just an idea to tarnish any point someone created earlier. Would it be better to have control...? Of an ispired insight and unfortunately anyone else should normally be successfully nominated for Foreign & Domestic maintenance allowance awards. Is this the same as knowing something thats the same as to have been lawfully obtained or the utterance of the schemes circulation and the use of the above mentioned objects or are they provided by the High Contracting Bodies. I'm sorry, I wish I had something more intelligent to add. But than that would be linked. As it should be designed to achieve WHOIS sunrise swisscom what is an ftp://mirror...gov^.uk^.com etc. than is or would be obliged to file a checkup about the many clients & assets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emissrto (talk • contribs) 23:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Judges in the US who do things like this are either ignorant of the law to the point of needing to be disbarred or so lacking in technological knowledge as to need to be disbarred for failure to seek professional counsel where it is merited. In either case, this should not stop with the judge's order being revoked. I feel questions need to raised about judicial competence in the face of technology they are too ignorant to understand and too arrogant to seek counsel on. How can one be judged by a peer in a system where many members of the judiciary are scared to have computers in their offices and know nothing about the nature or how to use Internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.87.228 (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The final battle

Well here we are, the internet has reached it's pinacle and the final battle will now begin. Unfortunately for me my government has 'decided on my behalf' that it is not suitable for me to view the contents of the site. I am not surprised at China's supression, nor some of the other dictatorships there are around the world - but I am suprised to hear western democracies participating in this suppression of information. I sincerely hope the people at WikiLeaks will persevere even more as it's clear they are now close to exposing the real crimes of the century - carried out by elected governments in our name. I don't know if I believe the various conspiracies about our world, but I am certain that when someone goes to such lengths to stop information being published - it needs to come out. This is what the internet was created for - sharing information (ARPAnet) and now we will finally get to the bottom of this corrupt world where the many are forced into submission by the powerful few. Get back on line - please - for all our sakes - you have in your hands the power to change the world for the better and this time it needs to be used by the public and not a government as it did last time (the atom bomb).

I will be looking for it's return - and offer my assistance in any way.

loui@operamail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.130.4 (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)