• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ran

  • Rank
    King o' the Board
  • Birthday 05/06/1978

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
    [email protected]
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Blood of Dragons
    Balerion (Admin), Aidan Dayne, Rhodry Martell

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Westeros! History (ancient and medieval), SF/F, adventure and strategy gaming, MUSHes and MUXes (but not MUDs), Linda.

Previous Fields

  • Name

Recent Profile Visitors

85,529 profile views
  1. I agree with you on that -- I don't consider either of them to be 100% trustworthy. Could Assange be an anti-semite? He could be. If he were outted as such by something verifiable and clear, the two tweets and phone discussion report would be seen as fitting a pattern. But on the face of it, given that there are alternative explanations, and given that they are tiny slivers of the body of Assange's public statements (or alleged public statements, in the Hislop conversation case) over a decade, those few items simply aren't sufficient.
  2. Which, actually looked at in context, makes a lot more sense when Assange was calling out "neo-liberal castle creepers" who he claims have taken an anti-semitic tag ironically appropriated by anti-racists and used it, as he said, as a way to mark themselves out to fellow "establishment climbers"; it's not only Jews who have adopted the "echo" symbol thing in solidarity, and while I (being näive!) would guess the people Assange was slighting it did it out of genuine feeling, surely the cynics in this thread would admit that it's possible some of them really were just signalling how hip they are to their clique (or the people they'd like to be in a clique with)? So the sum total of the alleged anti-semitism is ... mentioning that the closeness of the friendship of a person (who incidentally is a Rothschild-by-marriage) to Clinton might have influenced the magazine she has a controlling interest in its reportage, a tweet since deleted when it was misconstrued (both by critics... and by neo-nazis who assumed Wikileaks was embracing them), and -- so far as I can tell -- a 2011 article by Ian Hislop regarding an unverified, unrecorded conversation he had with Assange the chief points of which (namely that suggestion or implication there was a "Jewish conspiracy") he has denied; Hislop edited Private Eye and became known as the most sued man in Britain for the many libel suits brought against him over the years (a number which he lost), so he's not exactly 100% trustworthy. Is there some genuine smoking gun I'm unaware of? Or are we to take two or three "contentious" remarks in a decade of public life to be proof of anti-semitism? Pretty sure if I dig around I can find people calling Bernie Sanders an anti-semite with as much cause. (Also, given this conversation, I find this rather amusing.) ETA: And since this fortuitously came across my Twitter feed, a former colleague of Assange's has some relevant thoughts. Yes, Buzzfeed, I know, but it seems plausibly insightful as to Assange's character.
  3. As I noted, Rothschild's e-mail says nothing about her ownership of the Economist. The only way most people would know that would be by Wikileaks actually saying so in their tweet. And you and I very well know that even if the tweet was "the Economist owner "loyal adoring pal" to Clinton" and then linked the e-mail with Rothschild's signing off, it would still be considered "anti-semitism" for the temerity of saying anything connected to a Rothschild because OMG dog-whistle; it would still draw the same responses from conspiratorial crackpots and anti-semites, and apparently guilty-by-association is a thing. So should the Rothschilds change their name? No. Should the Rothschild name grant an automatic immunity from criticism? No. People throw around vituperative labels with far too low a bar these days.
  4. I'd say at very best it's leveling a dubious critique. At _worst_ it's dog-whistling. Given that they're in Putin's pocket and given that the editor is Clinton's bestie, how would you have formulated that attack if you were in the same position as Wikileaks? Or would you-as-Wikileaks-twitter-person have gone, "Meh, she's part of the Rothschild family, can't possibly criticize for fear of being called an anti-semite"?
  5. It doesn't seem to me to matter. The whole point of the tweet was to explicitly connect the Lynn de Rothschild of the e-mail to the Economist owner; the source e-mail gives no titles and no indication that she has any connection to The Economist, so to make their point they _had_ to explicitly name her and note her control of the magazine. A quick look also notes that Rothschild's email to Clinton was subject "Miss You", suggesting they are _very_ close personal friends, which is what I think Wikileaks is really angling to get across when trying to smear the magazine as untrustworthy on Putin.. They're idiots in this case, mind you, but simply referring to the fact that Clinton's friend owns the allegedly-anti-Putin The Economist is not anti-semitic, regardless of her (married) name or whatever conspiracies exist about the family she married into. Also, thanks to Wikileaks bringing it to my attention, the relevant articles from The Economist. Sound reportage and analysis, IMO.
  6. I'm very well aware of the Rothschild family. But the reference is to a controlling owner of The Economist being a bosom-buddy of Clinton (and providing a quote from de Rothschild to this effect) and this, Wikileaks claims, is one factor making The Economist a biased sourced regarding Putin. That is the sum total of their claim. Is de Rothschild not one of the owner's of the magazine? There's nothing anti-semitic in criticizing a person for their political bias or connections, if your criticism isn't motivated by or predicated on their ethnicity or religion. One might as well have called Wikileaks out for being sexist for all the value the claim has. (I think Wikileaks are these days in Putin's pocket and the only thing their tweet did is remind me to pay a visit to see if I could read the contents of the issue.)
  7. What in the world is anti-semitic about that Wikileaks tweet?
  8. Straczynski/Wachowski Sense8 on Netflix

    Ah, found the quote that I was thinking of: He's definitely indicating he's much less involved with the day-to-day than he was last season. He still wrote, but it's less of his show compared to the first season, and I don't think that's conducive to his getting much more notice or credit for his involvement, which was my main point when bringing this up. Later he answers, when asked how different season 2 is for him:
  9. Straczynski/Wachowski Sense8 on Netflix

    To my recollection, JMS has said he had much more limited involvement in season 2. I can't recall exactly where I saw it, but as I recall he basically indicated that he had been more hands-on because the Wachowskis were new to TV and wanted his advice as a former showrunner, but that Lana felt more than able of handling it for season 2.
  10. map matters

    And arguably a river as a rough boundary between their core seats and lands would make it more likely that they'd skirmish and raid one another without being able to easily escalate to all-out, existence-threatening warfare. Which, if they've been feuding for thousands of years, would be a real risk if they had nothing between them to slow them down somewhat.
  11. I think it very likely that this was the work of a couple of loons rather than some organized conspiracy.
  12. map matters

    And what of the seats north of the river -- holdfasts, for example, which we know Jaime stormed -- that were in Lannister hands? Simply having a small garrison in a seat north of the Red Fork would not by itself provide warning. The enemy would have to pass through or close by the lands, and then they'd have to fail to hide or screen their movements. We know Brynden was particularly adept at getting Robb's army past outriders. If I get the opportunity to bring up Raventree's location with George, I'll certainly do so, and will point out the various issues that might make placing it south of the river easier. But if he's placed it north of the river in ADwD, as he seeme to be intending, I'm not at all as convinced as you are that it's impossible to fit that with the info in AGoT.
  13. map matters

    You're taking Jaime's description of the land immediately around him just a few hours outside of Riverrun as representing the entirety of the Red Fork. That's further than I would go. It's a long river, one presumes its geography is capable of changing. The slow, wide, shallow parts dotted with isles sound like they'd provide easy ferrying opportunities and perhaps even crossing with the use of guide ropes. There's also no reason that their seats being separated by a river means they don't have adjoining lands. GRRM certainly did not believe that was an issue in 2004, and yet he was very clearly framing his remark about their placement in relation to their rivalry (specifically he said he intended to place Raventree and Stone Hedge on opposite sides of the river). It's also worth recalling that lords do not necessarily have contiguous lands in Westeros; much as in the Middle Ages, their domains may over the centuries wax and wan unevenly leaving them with bits here and there. We tend to simplify the picture a lot because it's easiest to imagine a seat in the center of a continguous domain, but that's just a convenience for readers rather than an accurate reflection of the novels. The only real issue is how far away Raventree is being placed from the Red Fork and Stone Hedge, IMO. Everything else fits well enough with the facts we have on hand.
  14. map matters

    Not to my knowledge, but if we get the opportunity to bring it up we'll certainly recommend it to George and Random House. Raventree, at the very least, since it appeared directly.
  15. Wikileaks' investigatory document has a ton of information that can be followed-up on through Internet tools like whois, Google maps, and so on. Those claims, at least, look to be accurate based on some cursory looks I did. Also, the Swedish law firm has significant credibility with me at least. They denied many of the claims from T&C about communications made regarding contact they add with them in their civil court filing.