You still misunderstand. You said the db @wikileaks linked to was the same as the one in the RT article. How do you know that?
-
-
Replying to @PeterMonnerjahn
.
@PeterMonnerjahn I said the database@zeynep took 4mths to complain about & misattribute to@wikileaks is the one RT wrote about in April2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @BellaMagnani
Yes, I’m aware of that—and that’s what I’ve been asking abt all along. How do you know they’re the same?
@zeynep@wikileaks1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @PeterMonnerjahn @BellaMagnani
Don't know why I bother repeating but it's not. I'll end: emails nothing; DB publicized new & dangerous. Bye.
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
Thanks, I’m aware of what you said abt that. I was specifically asking
@BellaMagnani to make her explain her claim.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @PeterMonnerjahn
Trace the history. This new dump contains the emails that Wikileaks made searchable; it's what they're working with/from.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @PeterMonnerjahn
While everyone nitpicks because I was cautious in providing a roadmap, emails ALSO have private info & no public interest.
3 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
I’m prepared to defend you on that point. But you were certainly not cautious when you claimed that WL “dumped” the db. Just false.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @PeterMonnerjahn
I disagree. WL dumped it on the world. Not otherwise public or known. I picked vague but accurate word to avoid roadmap.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
The accurate word is “link to”. That’s what they did. That entails responsibility, and I’ve explicitly asked WL for a justification.
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes
So the issue for you is WikiLeaks linking to the electoral roll which has been posted elsewhere on the internet?
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.