@BellaMagnani I don't know enough about AWP to comment. I'm interested in how the @EcTransparente implementation works out. This is 1st pub.
-
-
Replying to @bbhorne
@bbhorne@BellaMagnani They are diplomatic cables, not formatted as US because they are Ecuadorian. Redactions = petty fights between actors2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @EcTransparente
.
@EcTransparente@bbhorne Thanks for clarifying. But "petty fights between actors" not an appropriate reason for redaction, imv.#WikiLeaks3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BellaMagnani
@BellaMagnani@bbhorne In this case and local context we believe it was. Besides, it would distract attention from the important matters.3 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @EcTransparente
.
@EcTransparente@bbhorne Call me a#WikiLeaks purist but scientific journalism means full transparency of your OWN biases re what's "petty"1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @BellaMagnani
@BellaMagnani@bbhorne +1, thats what we're doing right know. Petty= "you started it! - no, you did!" kind of gossip.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @EcTransparente
@EcTransparente@BellaMagnani Don't see why plain language argument between public functionaries already identified in the papers is petty1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @EcTransparente
@EcTransparente I respect your decision. I hope this publication goes well. This is a good set of docs. Thx for publishing.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@EcTransparente @bbhorne Looks like it might. RIP scientific journalism.
-
-
Replying to @AssangeInSweden
@AssangeInSweden@EcTransparente I hope future publications do not have these sorts of redactions. It's really unnecessary.0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.