--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Shannon Nelson wrote:
Hi Shannon,
Maybe they are legal forums where the defense/prosecution use name calling to intimidate the witness? Don't think it is a technique used in homeopathic consultation.
Combo meds
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Combo meds
On Dec 5, 2010, at 5:47 PM, John Harvey wrote:
"Feel like" is of course not the issue.
How would you define "definition"?
Would you mind, choose for me one of the many contemporary words whose definition--as given by any dictionary--has undergone change over some period of years. Give me an old definition, and a new definition, let's note the differences, and you tell me which is the "real" definition.
One example would be "decimate". What would you say is the "real" definition of that word? I would love to see another example or two of your choosing. Thanks.
With the second half above, yes. But the first half is more difficult, per my remark.
I have never talked about "reinventing" the definition of homeopathy.
I have talked about acknowledging the broadening of definition that has already occurred--and in fact *had* already occurred during Hahnemann's own lifetime.
+ virulent; + long-extended; and presumably + other specific characteristics which identify it has *this* particular cough, that any ol' cough.
Yep. Got no more to say about it!
Best,
Shannon
"Feel like" is of course not the issue.
How would you define "definition"?
Would you mind, choose for me one of the many contemporary words whose definition--as given by any dictionary--has undergone change over some period of years. Give me an old definition, and a new definition, let's note the differences, and you tell me which is the "real" definition.
One example would be "decimate". What would you say is the "real" definition of that word? I would love to see another example or two of your choosing. Thanks.
With the second half above, yes. But the first half is more difficult, per my remark.
I have never talked about "reinventing" the definition of homeopathy.
I have talked about acknowledging the broadening of definition that has already occurred--and in fact *had* already occurred during Hahnemann's own lifetime.
+ virulent; + long-extended; and presumably + other specific characteristics which identify it has *this* particular cough, that any ol' cough.
Yep. Got no more to say about it!
Best,
Shannon
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Combo meds
No, they're forums whose purposes differ quite substantially from what I understand to be those of this one. Both concern the future of homoeopathy rather than what it is or how to practise it, both of which topics their participants already understand and have little argument about. Discussion on both occurs on a perfectly straightforward basis that what Hahnemann said homoeopathy is -- prescription on the basis that like cures like -- is not for sale.
Cheers --
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because we're supposed to have an open government—a democracy—everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications. That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling 'consent of the governed'."
—Glenn Greenwald, "The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics", Salon.com 1 Dec 2010, .
Cheers --
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because we're supposed to have an open government—a democracy—everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications. That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling 'consent of the governed'."
—Glenn Greenwald, "The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics", Salon.com 1 Dec 2010, .
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Combo meds
That's a confusing answer to the question of whether you agree with this declaration that it can't have different definitions according to what we may feel like its being. I can't tell from that whether you're agreeing or disagreeing.
Are you kidding me?
Now I know you're just messing around. I thought you might be serious for once in trying to raise your sights a little; but you are after all wanting to make homoeopathy whatever you feel like, aren't you.
Oh? What exactly is wrong with the first half? Is it not relevant?
Haven't you? Are you quite sure?
You sure have. In fact, you talk about little else; and then you claim not to be one of those yourself who like what you say has happened; and then you insist that it has happened, is a fait accompli, and so on: all the good-guy-bad-guy, reasoned-discussion-with-myself stuff. It's wonderfully entertaining, obviously, for years on end, and satisfactorily prevents all progress of this list beyond the rabbit-warren muddle puddles you enjoy splashing around in so publicly. I'm glad you enjoy yourself here. Why don't you stay?
You forgot to answer this question.
Yes. As I said, a single symptom: cough.
Thank you, at least, for one straight answer. Any chance of another?
Cheers!
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because we're supposed to have an open government—a democracy—everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications. That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling 'consent of the governed'."
—Glenn Greenwald, "The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics", Salon.com 1 Dec 2010, .
Are you kidding me?
Now I know you're just messing around. I thought you might be serious for once in trying to raise your sights a little; but you are after all wanting to make homoeopathy whatever you feel like, aren't you.
Oh? What exactly is wrong with the first half? Is it not relevant?
Haven't you? Are you quite sure?
You sure have. In fact, you talk about little else; and then you claim not to be one of those yourself who like what you say has happened; and then you insist that it has happened, is a fait accompli, and so on: all the good-guy-bad-guy, reasoned-discussion-with-myself stuff. It's wonderfully entertaining, obviously, for years on end, and satisfactorily prevents all progress of this list beyond the rabbit-warren muddle puddles you enjoy splashing around in so publicly. I'm glad you enjoy yourself here. Why don't you stay?
You forgot to answer this question.
Yes. As I said, a single symptom: cough.
Thank you, at least, for one straight answer. Any chance of another?
Cheers!
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because we're supposed to have an open government—a democracy—everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications. That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling 'consent of the governed'."
—Glenn Greenwald, "The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics", Salon.com 1 Dec 2010, .
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Combo meds
Of course I am being serious. Your comment about it suggests we may have come to the end of yet another attempt, but I'll go a little further...
Argh. Of course I agree that one can't change the definition (which, by definition, means a meaning that is *agreed upon* by the relevant group of people--and note that the "relevant group" can vary, e.g. between a "technical" definition and a "popular" one, etc.) on the basis of what one "feels like." But I consider that an irrelevant point, because *no one* has been talking about changing a defintion according to what they "feel like." If that's what you think I was saying, then you are simply not hearing me. Oh well.
Sigh, no, I am not kidding you.
In looking for the "definition" of homeopathy, are we looking for:
(a) technical definition which is agreed upon by a small and specific group of specifically trained people (e.g. classically trained homeopaths), or
(b) a definition of common usage.
There are other possibilities too, but these will do for a start.
You may note that some terms have *different* definitions, depending upon the assumed audience, e.g. "mark" as a nautical term, or circus slang, or common usage.
In insisting that "homeopathy" has only the definition given it 200 years ago by Hahnemann, you are in a swipe erasing the input of several billion people across a wide swathe of the globe. Sure, do that if it makes you happy.... But it's not an aid to communication. "Denial is not just a river in Egypt..."
No, actually, it's not--because no one has been *talking* about changing definitions on the basis of what anyone *feels* like; the topic, instead, has been whether or not to *acknowledge* that the definition in popular usage, has long since already changed. Whether to make that nod to reality and move on, or whether to swim yet deeper in our pool of denial. Whatever, have a nice swim.
Shannon
Argh. Of course I agree that one can't change the definition (which, by definition, means a meaning that is *agreed upon* by the relevant group of people--and note that the "relevant group" can vary, e.g. between a "technical" definition and a "popular" one, etc.) on the basis of what one "feels like." But I consider that an irrelevant point, because *no one* has been talking about changing a defintion according to what they "feel like." If that's what you think I was saying, then you are simply not hearing me. Oh well.
Sigh, no, I am not kidding you.
In looking for the "definition" of homeopathy, are we looking for:
(a) technical definition which is agreed upon by a small and specific group of specifically trained people (e.g. classically trained homeopaths), or
(b) a definition of common usage.
There are other possibilities too, but these will do for a start.
You may note that some terms have *different* definitions, depending upon the assumed audience, e.g. "mark" as a nautical term, or circus slang, or common usage.
In insisting that "homeopathy" has only the definition given it 200 years ago by Hahnemann, you are in a swipe erasing the input of several billion people across a wide swathe of the globe. Sure, do that if it makes you happy.... But it's not an aid to communication. "Denial is not just a river in Egypt..."
No, actually, it's not--because no one has been *talking* about changing definitions on the basis of what anyone *feels* like; the topic, instead, has been whether or not to *acknowledge* that the definition in popular usage, has long since already changed. Whether to make that nod to reality and move on, or whether to swim yet deeper in our pool of denial. Whatever, have a nice swim.
Shannon
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Combo meds
In a nutshell, then, you consider every serious dictionary, as well as everybody who relies on it to understand what homoeopathy is, to be behind the times; is that right?
And your assessment to this effect is based on your impression that the half-dozen upstarts on this list who think they can highjack the term "homoeopathy" to mean whatever they want to do have joined some upstart manufacturers in seeking to take unfair advantage of public trust in their ethics by labelling combination medicines "homoeopathic" and recommending them for use in the relief of this or that symptom. Is that so, or not?
Regardless of the source of your impressions in this respect, do you think it's possible that you have overestimated mightily the authoritativeness and influence of the upstarts? Do you think it's possible that people capable of the attention span of two gnats may still use dictionaries and understand what they read? Or do you really believe that most people are as stupidly ignorant as you keep making out they are on this list and off it?
Even on this list, I'd have thought you'd have been given pause to reevaluate your settled beliefs that those who understand the dictionary and abide by the word's ordinary meaning are swimming in, as you call it, a "pool of denial". The few upstarts who keep pushing the combination barrow have been unable to refute the many pertinent points that have been made to them by any number of staunch defenders of homoeopathy. But I'm struggling to understand the basis of your projection to the general population of the stupidity you think is common to the thousands of readers on this list.
Does your certainty derive, as it appears so far to, merely from seeing the "homoeopathic" labels on clearly allopathic mixtures, or is there some other basis for believing that everybody else is so ill-informed and stupid?
Cheers --
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because we're supposed to have an open government—a democracy—everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications. That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling 'consent of the governed'."
—Glenn Greenwald, "The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics", Salon.com 1 Dec 2010, .
And your assessment to this effect is based on your impression that the half-dozen upstarts on this list who think they can highjack the term "homoeopathy" to mean whatever they want to do have joined some upstart manufacturers in seeking to take unfair advantage of public trust in their ethics by labelling combination medicines "homoeopathic" and recommending them for use in the relief of this or that symptom. Is that so, or not?
Regardless of the source of your impressions in this respect, do you think it's possible that you have overestimated mightily the authoritativeness and influence of the upstarts? Do you think it's possible that people capable of the attention span of two gnats may still use dictionaries and understand what they read? Or do you really believe that most people are as stupidly ignorant as you keep making out they are on this list and off it?
Even on this list, I'd have thought you'd have been given pause to reevaluate your settled beliefs that those who understand the dictionary and abide by the word's ordinary meaning are swimming in, as you call it, a "pool of denial". The few upstarts who keep pushing the combination barrow have been unable to refute the many pertinent points that have been made to them by any number of staunch defenders of homoeopathy. But I'm struggling to understand the basis of your projection to the general population of the stupidity you think is common to the thousands of readers on this list.
Does your certainty derive, as it appears so far to, merely from seeing the "homoeopathic" labels on clearly allopathic mixtures, or is there some other basis for believing that everybody else is so ill-informed and stupid?
Cheers --
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because we're supposed to have an open government—a democracy—everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications. That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling 'consent of the governed'."
—Glenn Greenwald, "The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics", Salon.com 1 Dec 2010, .
-
Mary Ann Gilmore
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:00 pm
Re: Combo meds
Would you mind, choose for me one of the many contemporary words whose definition--as given by any dictionary--has undergone change over some period of years. Give me an old definition, and a new definition, let's note the differences, and you tell me which is the "real" definition.
Cretinism is a condition of severely stunted physical and mental growth due to untreated congenital deficiency of thyroid hormones (congenital hypothyroidism ) due to maternal nutritional deficiency of iodine .
It seems that this definition has undergone some changes!!! And if someone who truly is a cretin by definition could understand today's definition, what would they say or how would they feel?
Or even two gnats?
Mary Ann Gilmore
________________________________
From: Shannon Nelson
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, December 5, 2010 9:18:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Minutus] RE: Combo meds
Of course I am being serious. Your comment about it suggests we may have come to the end of yet another attempt, but I'll go a little further...
Argh. Of course I agree that one can't change the definition (which, by definition, means a meaning that is *agreed upon* by the relevant group of people--and note that the "relevant group" can vary, e.g. between a "technical" definition and a "popular" one, etc.) on the basis of what one "feels like." But I consider that an irrelevant point, because *no one* has been talking about changing a defintion according to what they "feel like." If that's what you think I was saying, then you are simply not hearing me. Oh well.
Sigh, no, I am not kidding you.
In looking for the "definition" of homeopathy, are we looking for:
(a) technical definition which is agreed upon by a small and specific group of specifically trained people (e.g. classically trained homeopaths), or
(b) a definition of common usage.
There are other possibilities too, but these will do for a start.
You may note that some terms have *different* definitions, depending upon the assumed audience, e.g. "mark" as a nautical term, or circus slang, or common usage.
In insisting that "homeopathy" has only the definition given it 200 years ago by Hahnemann, you are in a swipe erasing the input of several billion people across a wide swathe of the globe. Sure, do that if it makes you happy.... But it's not an aid to communication. "Denial is not just a river in Egypt..."
No, actually, it's not--because no one has been *talking* about changing definitions on the basis of what anyone *feels* like; the topic, instead, has been whether or not to *acknowledge* that the definition in popular usage, has long since already changed. Whether to make that nod to reality and move on, or whether to swim yet deeper in our pool of denial. Whatever, have a nice swim.
Shannon
Cretinism is a condition of severely stunted physical and mental growth due to untreated congenital deficiency of thyroid hormones (congenital hypothyroidism ) due to maternal nutritional deficiency of iodine .
It seems that this definition has undergone some changes!!! And if someone who truly is a cretin by definition could understand today's definition, what would they say or how would they feel?
Or even two gnats?
Mary Ann Gilmore
________________________________
From: Shannon Nelson
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, December 5, 2010 9:18:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Minutus] RE: Combo meds
Of course I am being serious. Your comment about it suggests we may have come to the end of yet another attempt, but I'll go a little further...
Argh. Of course I agree that one can't change the definition (which, by definition, means a meaning that is *agreed upon* by the relevant group of people--and note that the "relevant group" can vary, e.g. between a "technical" definition and a "popular" one, etc.) on the basis of what one "feels like." But I consider that an irrelevant point, because *no one* has been talking about changing a defintion according to what they "feel like." If that's what you think I was saying, then you are simply not hearing me. Oh well.
Sigh, no, I am not kidding you.
In looking for the "definition" of homeopathy, are we looking for:
(a) technical definition which is agreed upon by a small and specific group of specifically trained people (e.g. classically trained homeopaths), or
(b) a definition of common usage.
There are other possibilities too, but these will do for a start.
You may note that some terms have *different* definitions, depending upon the assumed audience, e.g. "mark" as a nautical term, or circus slang, or common usage.
In insisting that "homeopathy" has only the definition given it 200 years ago by Hahnemann, you are in a swipe erasing the input of several billion people across a wide swathe of the globe. Sure, do that if it makes you happy.... But it's not an aid to communication. "Denial is not just a river in Egypt..."
No, actually, it's not--because no one has been *talking* about changing definitions on the basis of what anyone *feels* like; the topic, instead, has been whether or not to *acknowledge* that the definition in popular usage, has long since already changed. Whether to make that nod to reality and move on, or whether to swim yet deeper in our pool of denial. Whatever, have a nice swim.
Shannon
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Combo meds
Thank you, Maryanne -- that's very funny.
"Cretin" has always, of course, been used by extension, just as "idiot" has. Perhaps "Wilful ignoramus" would be more apt, and then the gnats need not take offence!
Cheers --
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because we're supposed to have an open government—a democracy—everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications. That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling 'consent of the governed'."
—Glenn Greenwald, "The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics", Salon.com 1 Dec 2010, .
"Cretin" has always, of course, been used by extension, just as "idiot" has. Perhaps "Wilful ignoramus" would be more apt, and then the gnats need not take offence!
Cheers --
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because we're supposed to have an open government—a democracy—everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications. That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling 'consent of the governed'."
—Glenn Greenwald, "The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics", Salon.com 1 Dec 2010, .
-
Jeff Tikari gmail
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:00 pm
Re: Combo meds
As I am not in the habit of raving and ranting and subverting what was written to satisfy ones thrust, I shall bow out vanquished. Adious!
Jeff
Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone
________________________________
From: John Harvey
Sender: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 09:21:11 +1100
To:
ReplyTo: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Re: Combo meds
Thank you, Jeff; but, in all that, you forgot to answer my question! Yes, you've clarified what you meant when you said that you don't use these patented combinations: you meant that you don't use them once they fail, but instead take the case and give an "appropriate" medicine. But you didn't say why you reject only the patented ones that fail.
That was the thrust of my question: why have you diverted a discussion of polypharmaceutical corruption of homoeopathic practitioners to the topic of whether (and, now, of why) you reject patented medicines, only to state the obvious: that it's because they fail?
Yes, of course they fail! Unlike the dumb luck that may enable a prescriber to hit upon a homoeopathic remedy by prescribing the most obvious polychrest, the prospects of true success in shotgun prescriptions are -- for all the reasons given to you many times over by Soroush, Fran, Chris, Sheri, Kerry, Joy, Magda, Rik, and others -- nil.
And if you understood the basis of homoeopathy, you'd also understand why the certainty inherent in the medicine of certainty is not available in the medicine of indecision; why it is that both patented and unpatented combinations must always fail to cure. The explanation lies in the scientific underpinning of homoeopathy's discovery.
Jeff, Liz, Varun, Shannon: underpinning Hahnemann's discovery of the principle Similia similibus curantur -- the one aspect without which no homoeopathic practice may be said to exist -- was a scientific principle of discovery. That principle is fundamental to all scientific discovery. In medicine, Hahnemann was the first to apply it to discovery in medicine, and it resulted in a gift to the practice of medicine that is more fundamental than the principle of homoeopathy. Can you describe it? Do you have the least clue how we come to inherit a two-century history of medical cures toward which the dominant medicine of trial and error cannot hope to aspire? Or are your patients doomed to see you repeat the errors of all the other geniuses who have reinvented polypharmacy as an original way to circumvent their aversion to the work of overcoming their ignorance?
If you need a clue, just ask.
Cheers --
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because we're supposed to have an open government—a democracy—everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications. That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling 'consent of the governed'."
—Glenn Greenwald, "The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics", Salon.com 1 Dec 2010, .
Jeff
Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone
________________________________
From: John Harvey
Sender: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 09:21:11 +1100
To:
ReplyTo: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Re: Combo meds
Thank you, Jeff; but, in all that, you forgot to answer my question! Yes, you've clarified what you meant when you said that you don't use these patented combinations: you meant that you don't use them once they fail, but instead take the case and give an "appropriate" medicine. But you didn't say why you reject only the patented ones that fail.
That was the thrust of my question: why have you diverted a discussion of polypharmaceutical corruption of homoeopathic practitioners to the topic of whether (and, now, of why) you reject patented medicines, only to state the obvious: that it's because they fail?
Yes, of course they fail! Unlike the dumb luck that may enable a prescriber to hit upon a homoeopathic remedy by prescribing the most obvious polychrest, the prospects of true success in shotgun prescriptions are -- for all the reasons given to you many times over by Soroush, Fran, Chris, Sheri, Kerry, Joy, Magda, Rik, and others -- nil.
And if you understood the basis of homoeopathy, you'd also understand why the certainty inherent in the medicine of certainty is not available in the medicine of indecision; why it is that both patented and unpatented combinations must always fail to cure. The explanation lies in the scientific underpinning of homoeopathy's discovery.
Jeff, Liz, Varun, Shannon: underpinning Hahnemann's discovery of the principle Similia similibus curantur -- the one aspect without which no homoeopathic practice may be said to exist -- was a scientific principle of discovery. That principle is fundamental to all scientific discovery. In medicine, Hahnemann was the first to apply it to discovery in medicine, and it resulted in a gift to the practice of medicine that is more fundamental than the principle of homoeopathy. Can you describe it? Do you have the least clue how we come to inherit a two-century history of medical cures toward which the dominant medicine of trial and error cannot hope to aspire? Or are your patients doomed to see you repeat the errors of all the other geniuses who have reinvented polypharmacy as an original way to circumvent their aversion to the work of overcoming their ignorance?
If you need a clue, just ask.
Cheers --
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because we're supposed to have an open government—a democracy—everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications. That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling 'consent of the governed'."
—Glenn Greenwald, "The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics", Salon.com 1 Dec 2010, .
-
Mary Ann Gilmore
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:00 pm
Re: Combo meds
Dear John,
Sometimes 'laughter is the best medicine' however it is defined!!!
Mary Ann
________________________________
From: John Harvey
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, December 5, 2010 10:41:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Minutus] RE: Combo meds
Thank you, Maryanne -- that's very funny.
"Cretin" has always, of course, been used by extension, just as "idiot" has. Perhaps "Wilful ignoramus" would be more apt, and then the gnats need not take offence!
Cheers --
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because we're supposed to have an open government—a democracy—everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications. That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling 'consent of the governed'."
—Glenn Greenwald, "The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics", Salon.com 1 Dec 2010, .
Sometimes 'laughter is the best medicine' however it is defined!!!
Mary Ann
________________________________
From: John Harvey
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, December 5, 2010 10:41:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Minutus] RE: Combo meds
Thank you, Maryanne -- that's very funny.
"Cretin" has always, of course, been used by extension, just as "idiot" has. Perhaps "Wilful ignoramus" would be more apt, and then the gnats need not take offence!
Cheers --
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because we're supposed to have an open government—a democracy—everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications. That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling 'consent of the governed'."
—Glenn Greenwald, "The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics", Salon.com 1 Dec 2010, .