..so basically, it's a big umbrella for people to hide behind.
On a frigidly cold morning in early 2008, two dozen complete strangers arranged to meet for the first time. They had travelled from all over the metro area, some taking over two hours to reach their destination. Coffee and doughnuts were sacrificed to the ritual of placing online handles to faces. The first meeting of the …
"This is a reincarnation of an old idea ...From slaves fighting for freedom or the fragmentation of religions to "no taxation without representation", there have always been people willing to agitate, gather en masse, and even die for the right to speak their piece."
And what has distinguished those people is that they were NOT anonymous. From anti-slavery campaigners, to Tianemen Square and after, the courage of the protesters can be seen because _we know their names_.
Anonymity is the cowardly shield of the balaclava-clad yobs thowing petrol bombs, versus the visible, sometimes uniformed, courage of those who stand up to them.
"Damned resistance fighters staying anonymous during the Axis occupation of mainland Europe! How dare they! Cheeky cowards they are!
See how crazy your argument is? There are plenty of reasons to stay anonymous, for good or for bad. Its all about perspective."
There is no comparison at all. No matter how hard you try you will not justify your attempt.
"Autotranslate: I can't coherently argue with you so I will just state you are wrong Because I Said So (TM)."
Insightless response. Demonstrate how they scale up alongside one another, making reference to (e.g.) Violette Szabo and other members of the Maquis, who put their lives on the line and ultimately died in concentration camps and other vile places.
As I said, there is no comparison between the Maquis and anonymous vandals who take elaborate precautions to maintain a gulf between their meatspace persona and their digital activities, to say nothing of what the Maquis were legitimately opposing. If you can find anything remotely resembling a comparison produce it. Show me how damn smart you are, that you are not merely an emitter of weak, risible easily iterated clichés.
I'm calling you out and, as I do, I note that you have offered no data at all, merely a reflex, that you have overlooked the examples that I cited.
Sloppy thinking. Anonymously, of course.
"The only thing that you have accomplished with your rants is to prove the old adage that one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist, and another adage, history is written by the victors...."
No, that is a non sequitur conclusion and precisely what I am not saying, since I oppose cultural relativism, which you would understand if you read my words on logic, epistemology and axiology. Read again carefully; I am clearly saying that the Maquis, engaged in legitimate self defence, in contradistinction to internet vandalism/'lulz'. So your attempt at sophism/intellectual sleight of hand is failed.
The OP has effectively put the Maquis into the position of being terrorists when they opposed an aggressive, adventurist, barbaric and murderous enemy shared by most of Europe. (Perhaps you are not aware of what happened in mid 20th century Europe, though that stretches even my imagination to snapping point.) This is an exercise in cultural relativism and sophistry that a) enables others to claim that by (say) hunting you down and killing you they are fighting for a cause, b) enables states to hunt down and kill whomever they choose (other than cultural relativists who thought that destroying the WTC was 'good terrorism' and acted on said thoughts), and c) makes concepts in jurisprudence and law relative to the perceiver (this sort of argument allows for, say, Muslims to beat their wives, female circumcision, male subincision, judicial murder [...]). That you did so by employing the argumentum ad hominem, interpolating in an exchange where someone was called out and challenged to justify their response, failing to provide any data that would defeat the status of my argument, shows that you recognise the argument to be a failure and that you are trying to distract me from the original point. Calling reason a rant, and not focussing on the argument itself - the argumentum ad hominem - is piss poor logic/epistemology and a weak technique for justifying failure to address the facts. It leaves me feeling convinced that you know the indefensible has to remain undefended, finding the argumentum ad hominem an easier task. Oh, but that would be a troll, wouldn't it?
You can address this by dealing with the original point; demonstrate how people who do DDoS, SQL attacks, deface web sites, publish confidential information about other internet users [...] are as brave as, for example, Violette Szabo who died in Ravensbruck concentration camp.
So now I am calling you out too. Address the point; how do you compare internet vandalism with the Maquis and Violette Szabo's death in Ravensbruck conentration camp? Freedom fighters? Inane.
"Damned resistance fighters staying anonymous during the Axis occupation of mainland Europe! How dare they! Cheeky cowards they are!
See how crazy your argument is? There are plenty of reasons to stay anonymous, for good or for bad. Its all about perspective."
Just to make sure that you have a little light reading, in which to have (as Douglas Adams once put it) 'some sense of perspective':
'Stupid boy'. (/girl)
That's a big general statement there pal... In many cases, some of the most famous in recent history in fact, the people involved were anonymous.
The U.S. Decleration of Independance wasn't even signed when they rolled it out for fear of reprisal (it took almost a year to get the original framers to actually sign it).
What was the name of the tank guy in Tienemen square?
The Boston Tea Party was held by protestors disguised as Mohawk Indians. No one is sure who participated or started it.
The list goes on. Many, many of history's most famous protests have been by anonymous freedom fighters. We DON"T know who they were.
"I've rarely heard anyone refer to Tianemen Square Guy by name. I'm sure I could look it up, but its hardly a common name.
History picks out a few names for us to know about things like the underground railroad, but in truth there were hundreds of unnamed Anons running those ops as well."
It is correct to say that this is a difficult problem of identity. Even the Wikipedia entry's writer is cautious. Wang Weilin seems to be the most consistently named individual:
Whether or not his name is a common one I do not know. I have not seen the stats.
Certainly none of the 'lulz' and Anonymous twits have been as brave and as defiant as him.
In the case of Capt. Charles Upham (VC & bar), if anyone read the article (and I seriously doubt it from the votes on my first response), they will have seen in the closing paragraphs that he *sought* anonymity after the war, was self effacing and probably suffered badly for his experiences, including multiple serious injuries in a number of battles. There is utterly no comparison between the French Maquis, or any other fighting force in any physical war and the behaviour of self appointed anonymous digital vandals without popular/electoral mandate or authority, *none*.
The act of popping up out of a Tor exit node, proxying and then attacking, probably using an unregistered cell phone connection can hardly be described as better than the act of a vandal and coward trying to avoid the consequences of their behaviour, one prepared to overlook the RL consequences of their acts on other people in meat space.
Moreover, comparing the underground railroad to stealing personal data and releasing it into the public space, defacing websites, DDoS, SQL attacks, no matter how elegant and well executed is risible, vain, childish and would appear to indicate a lack of both insight and lack of a sense of proportion. The people who ran the underground railroad were doing something honourable, selfless and humane [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_Railroad ]. Destroying business, personal confidentiality [...] is no more honourable than any other form of vandalism. I hardly think that even a substandard troll is capable of believing this.
That would be Robert Catesby, Thomas and Robert Wintour, Robert Keyes, John Grant, Francis Tresham, Robert and Thomas Winter, John and Christopher Wright, Thomas Percy, Sir Ambrose Rookwood, Sir Everard Digby and Thomas Bates. I can also spell "conspirators" and "Fawkes".
Anonymous protesters don't wear the Guy Fawkes mask because the Gunpowder Plotters were anonymous. They wear it because the character V in "V For Vendetta" wore it, and the most important thing about V is that it didn't matter who he was.
".....We found enough money to pay his bills for 6 months. All he did for 6 straight months was watch Fox News and debunk them online....." So, what you're saying is the backbone of Anon is a load of bored lefties with too much time and money on their hands? Why don't they do something really useful like some charitable work that would actually help real people and/or the environment, rather than pretending to do so?
This sounds like the type of over-educated sheeple that used to join CND, the Greenpeckers, or turned out to support the Miners' Strike (despite never having done a day's manual labour in their lives) or the Poll Tax protests, simply because it was the hippest bandwagon to jump on in their day. Whilst I'd give them a thumbs up for their efforts against cults like Scientology, the rest of their activities seem to be mainly mindless vandalism or posturing. If they seriously think there would be "Worldwide rioting" if they got "v&" then they need to think again.
I believe that debunking Fox News, or any other major news outlet is a really valuable thing! I think this should be encouraged, when done correctly. Why not consider it to be like the peer review process?
Many people base their worldview and decisions unquestioningly on the authority of the goggle box.(Not to be confused with the Google box; the content of the Google box is completely fine to unquestioningly base all decisions on.)
As the news outlets have so much power, and as we all know they are being selflessly run for the spread of truth and wellbeing of all, I would expect them to applaud and encourage the army of unpaid volunteers checking their 'facts' for the lulz... er...I mean: mistakes.
As a final note, Thanks for publishing this article El Reg, liked it a lot - good job!
"I believe that debunking Fox News, or any other major news outlet is a really valuable thing...." I actually agree whole-heartedly with that sentiment. I think all news outlets, from government-controlled ones like the BBC to corporations like Fox, should be held up to scrutiny. What I object to is the selective scrutiny of those intent not in finding the "truth", but who simply claim they are looking for the "truth" when their focus is only on players with views which conflict with their own political/religeous beliefs. The fascination with Fox just shows the bias of the Anons involved, it's been a lighteningrod for their attention ever since Obama identified it as being "anti" to his administration. I'm betting there was no Anon interested in funding someone to spend six months debunking articles in The Guardian (at least not until The Guardian had the falling out with WIkileaks and A$$nut). Any Anons looking to hack the users database of Socialist Worker? Honest, this is my surprised face - not!
Fox has been a lightning-rod (unless you mean "a rod that lightens") to the left-wing since it's launch, ever since it was obvious how partisan their views are, to the point of obscuring the truth ("lying" to most people). It has nothing to do with Obama, though their coverage of him is sickening.
I'm not saying others don't do the same or opposite, but Fox is definitely one of the biggest offenders.
But, why would they attack the Socialist Worker? Anon is in it for the lulz, but not against other anons (i.e., hurting a faceless collective of constomers). They "want" to hurt corporations that step over-the-line with regards to freedom of speech/expression - something Socialist Worker is a heavy defendant of and Fox is an enemy of.
"They "want" to hurt corporations that step over-the-line with regards to freedom of speech/expression - something Socialist Worker is a heavy defendant of and Fox is an enemy of."
This kind of specious argument also informs things like the Warrington bombing, the Guildford pub bombing, the WTC attacks and many others, and that has been precisely my point all along; firstly there are greater consequences than anything originally planned (in the case of attacking the internet presence and activities of a commercial organisation that would be the investors, who in many cases just happen to be pension funds...), and, secondly, I've repeatedly made the point that people who do these things have no legitimate basis for doing so, that they are self appointed, that they are unsupervised and that they inflict their personal preferences on the world, rather than referring to some objective standard, or some attempt to produce something commonly accepted as being the closest yet to an objective standard.
IOW these people are criminals. Be sure of one or two things; people like Assange, the anonymous groups, Wikileaks as a whole, they will be penetrated and they will pay for what they have done. If you think it unlikely, remember that the various Baltic independence groups - Estonian, Lativian, Lithuanian - were seen as lost causes during the years in between the end of WWII and the downfall of the USSR. Once people thought that the Unabomber, Carlos the Jackal, the Angry Brigade, the Barclays Bank bomber, Milošević, Mladić even Arkan [the list is of course far longer, and the prisons of this world are filled with people who thought they would remain undetected] would never fall. Arkan, as you will probably know, was killed deliberately before his trial began, as was bin Laden for whom no trial was planned. Very few people will escape the consequences of these deeds, and people who value their freedom and well being need to remember this. Or face the consequences.
" but who simply claim they are looking for the "truth" when their focus is only on players with views which conflict with their own political/religeous beliefs."
Do you really think that people whose political ideas coincide with (which may or may not be equal to "are formed by") a news conglomerate, are going to spend time investigating and exposing its distortions and omissions?
Newsflash: they don't.
"....Do you really think that people whose political ideas coincide with (which may or may not be equal to "are formed by") a news conglomerate, are going to spend time investigating and exposing its distortions and omissions?...." I would hope that keeping a competitive press would encourage them to keep each other honest. After all, headlines like "NoTW Hacked Milly's Phone!" are probably helping to shift a few non-Murdoch papers this week. I would hope it is in the papers' own interests to be keeping tabs on each other. As a positive example, try reading Private Eye some time.
Similarly, I hope that this is even more so on the Internet as it is far cheaper to set up and run a news'n'views website than a national newspaper (no printing presses, no need for massive offices, etc), so we should get a wide variation in views. That is good. I would find a narrow variation would be bad even if I found it politically agreeable, as you cannot form your own opinions if all you hear is just one side of an argument. Discussion and debate is good. One of the things I did find very amusing in the run up to the Obama election was the amount of space many major websites dedicated to debunking the websites representing the opposite end of the political spectrum. Some of it was wildly funny, some of it was just tragic, but a lot of it was actually much more informative than what was coming out of either the McCain or Obama camps.
"They hate corporations because businessmen are self made, while libs get money passed down to them that their great grandparents earned."
Really? Then leave them naked in a deserted island and see how rich they will get. I didn't know the Koch brothers, for example, were libs either!
Anon since I think I've never posted Anon before, and this is the obvious article to do it... For the lulz, of course.
".....With your choice of insult you reveal your own ignorance." Really? I think not. I used to date a girl back in the day who was hardcore and very engaged Greenpeace activist, which meant mingling with a load of her activist friends. To say the common theme was self-deluding, leftie nonsense would be an understatement. Of all those I met, 90% were great at parrotting the soundbites released by the core, but couldn't actually articulate a reasoned argument to support any of their views. Don't get me wrong, there were some core members that were both clever and eloquent, and welcomed debate of both the science and statistics, and many of those few passionately believed what they preached, but the vast majority were simply sheeple riding the bandwagon. Once they'd run out of soundbites, the sheeple got very uncomfortable if you started digging any deeper into their "reasoning" or lack thereof. It seems Anon are strikingly similar, just without the get-up-and-go to actually go out in the mud and the rain to protest.
The State kept right out of the voluntary sector when there was full employment. Along came Mrs Thatcher, unemployment at 3 million and, hey presto, we suddenly discovered that what we *really* needed was for people to work for nothing.
But, if so much needs doing, why keep people out of work?
Oh, I do lots of reading, plenty of thinking for myself, and I even know a bit about history. A damn more than you, by the looks of it.
"The State kept right out of the voluntary sector when there was full employment...." When was there full employment? If you mean in the years immediately before Thatcher, then I suggest you go read up on the Winter of Discontent. I think you'll also find there were plenty of charitable organsiations long before Margaret Thatcher was even born.
"......why keep people out of work?" You say it like there was some grand plan to keep a certain number of "the poor" unemployed. The fact is there are plenty of unemployed that simply choose not to work because they think menial jobs are below them. For example, the BBC has an article on its website about squatters (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14030336), and talks to one called Biz, an art graduate, who chooses to squat and stay unemployed as she wants to find a job "she enjoys". Personally, I think she needs a good kick in the pants. As a graduate, she must be smart enough to do any number of office jobs, she just seems to assume they are too "mundane" for her.
Those who have actually been awake have noticed a major shift of power away from people to the corporations. We are still allowed to vote, but not to have it make much difference when we do. The boot has very firmly been on the other foot since the 1980s. If you want people to be slaves in work, the threat of unemployment is a very useful instrument. Karl Marx (or, indeed, anybody with a mortgage to pay!) could have told you that.
"Those who have actually been awake have noticed a major shift of power away from people to the corporations...." Oh please, do back that up with some detail, even a tiny smidgen of fact to go with the blathering paranoia.
"....We are still allowed to vote, but not to have it make much difference when we do....." What you mean is you cannot find a political party that represents your point of view, becuase your POV is so rediculously unpopular it simply doesn't gain traction amongst the electorate. The Communist Party of Great Britain is still trundling blindly along, isn't it called Charter 88 nowadays? Go ask them about the failure to gain popular support as they've been failling since the early 1920s. If your POV did resonate with the electorate then you would already be celebrating success at the polls.
"....The boot has very firmly been on the other foot since the 1980s...." Try 1649. Read up on some people called the Diggers. The corporations of their day were the landlords and landed gentry farmers. The Diggers were probably the first real "communists" in the UK. Your lack of a view prior to the '80s (don't tell me, it's all Maggie Thatcher's fault, right?) is just the short-term revisionism of the Labout Party. Please go read up on the Winter of Discontent that was caused by a Labour government and allowed the Torys to get the popular support to get Maggie into No.10. In fact, please just go get some real knowledge rather than just repeating soundbites spoonfed to you.
".....anybody with a mortgage to pay...." Yup, got one of them, had a few over the years, and I think you're talking out of your rectum. At least you are a resounding success as an example of monumetal fail predicated by a blinkered outlook and a lack of knowledge.
""......why keep people out of work?" You say it like there was some grand plan to keep a certain number of "the poor" unemployed."
You appear to have missed the last 25 years (at least) of UK economic thinking. I remember Nigel Lawson spelling it out very clearly in a speech - a flexible workforce is a cheap workforce. What he meant by flexible, of course, was that a certain level of unemployment keeps wage inflation down because people are replaceable. If you get bolshie, there's plenty of people on the dole happy to take your place. Or in Eastern Europe.
Labour abandoned the concept of full employment around the same time. The Tories, of course, never believed in it in the first place. The Lib Dems...well, who cares what they think?
The idea that there is a certain level of unemployment which is desirable and optimal is very much the mainstream thinking at the moment amongst economists (employed ones anyway, I doubt that unemployed ones see it quite the same) and the fact that it also gives politicians a useful whipping post in the form of those same unemployed is a bonus, no matter how hypocritical that is.
"....You appear to have missed the last 25 years (at least) of UK economic thinking....." You seem to have missed the last fifty-plus years of non-change in employee thinking. I interview people as part of my job, and I in turn have been interviewed. I have preconceptions of my "worth" which mean I would look for certain jobs with a certain level of renumeration. People I interview have similar thoughts, some wildly off-target. The idea of full employment was junked by all mainstream parties because it was becoming unrealistsic due to the mindset of the employees and their idea of self-worth - some just consider it a better idea to stay on benefits rather than do what they see as menial or mundane jobs. No-one goes to school thinking how they want to grow up to be a burgerflipper at Mcdonalds or an office cleaner, but some of us are destined to end up there due to the limits of our ability to employ our potentials in the economic environment they find themselves in. To deny that un-PC idea is to deny the simple diversity of the human race - some people can run faster than others, some people are much better at crosswords, and some people will simply be better at getting ahead. The idea of democratic equality does not magically erase that variation in ability. Hilariously, the lefties that rail against that idea seem to forget the only economy which ever came close to real full employment was Communist Russia, and that was because it assigned you a job - if you were graded as burgerflipper material that was your given job, regardless of your expectations or ideas of self-worth.
When I was a student I did some pretty cr*p jobs to pay my way because I had to. But then I was brought up with the idea that I should work to pay my way. The problem is people are now all brought up with an expectation that we "deserve" something better than burgerflipping even if we are actually limited in what we can offer. Hence there will always be a number of people unwilling to work, whose place will be taken by those willing to accept the mundane or menial jobs (yes, students, part-time working Mums, or foreigners) as a stepping stone to better things.
So, economic thinking adapted to include the idea that some segment of the population will always be unemployed. The new thinking didn't create the unemployemnt, it adapted to encompass it. It is not an aim to create or maintain a certain level of unemployment, it is simply accepting a fact of life. You could argue it is an unfortunate by-product of the Benefit State introduced by the economic policies of socilaist Clement Attlee (which did assume full employment), but that would be to ignore the impact of the World's economy over the last half-century. Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling for an end to the benefits idea, what I support is the idea that those that are capable of working but refuse to accept menial or mundane jobs should also lose their unemployment benefits. I would much prefer it if there actually was full employment as it probably would reduce street crime and vandalism, generally make for a happier populance, and put an end to the careers of self-serving political vultures like George Galloway.
With no principles and no desire to engage politically it is just a social club for maladjusted weirdos.
If you don't have a plan, you'll get ripped apart by people who do. See Adam Curtis las tseries.
We can either try to change the world - or ponce about behind a mask. Anonytards have chosen the latter.
no seriously, i mean, hahahahah, hohoho, god that makes me laugh.
Political engagement? engage in activities with the enemy? you have GOT to be kidding me.
why engage is political activities if you have no trust in the government whatsoever? that's a good way to set yourself up for failure.
"I've pretty much been saying this for ages, nice to see most of my suspicions regarding anon turn out to be true :)
always in it for the lulz, as it was meant to be."
I can't say with certainty what your view is, but it's clearly the case that there are people who deface websites, steal data/breach security in a variety of ways for the purpose of schadenfreude (deriving pleasure from the misfortunes of others, which misfortunes are in this case brought on by the person enjoying them). In it for the 'lulz'. Ah yes, enjoying the pain of others, and that lays bare the ethical pretensions of such people. It is also sad that these fools don't think that far ahead and anticipate the consequences of their behaviour, something for which Ritalin is prescribed in the US.
There will be a backlash [ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/technology-12007616 ] and that will not be so funny, even if the original offenders are made to suffer. Why not funny? Because my online rights will be reduced because of this shallow, vandalistic stupidity. Don't give me the 'gotta-crack-a-few-eggs' argument. Stalin used that one. Various other dictators and, more recently, Labour politicians did. Furthermore these shallow prats were not chosen by any electorate.
"" Furthermore these shallow prats were not chosen by any electorate."
We are the electorate. [...]"
Precisely, and none of us elected these self appointed, supposed protectors of morals/whatever. They just decided to do it, there is no recognisable electoral context. There is a difference between them and bin Laden/clones, inasmuch that they probably do not set out to kill people, and the sequelae of their acts evidently do not kill sufficient numbers of people (if at all ) for it to be noteworthy, but the difference is only one of degree, and they like the bin Ladens of this world claim to have ethical insights and authority that enable them to tinker with and damage infrastructure and commerce for the supposed benefit of... ...the electorates of various countries.
So in response to your non sequitur response, in which you demonstrate that the point zinged off your carapace, no they were not elected.
 Tinkering with, e.g., infrastructure can have direct consequences (see for example the case of a Polish boy who started remote controlling trains over the net, for 'lulz'), and indirect ones; pension plans depend on investment companies, who invest in... ...other companies, whose online presence and data impact on their predictable share values and predictable dividends. You see? Good.
If I see a YouTube video of a kid on a skateboard fall down some stairs trying to do a stupid trick, then yes, I'll probably laugh, sure. If I see someone terrified while riding on a roller coaster, I'd probably laugh then too. It's funny; the skateboarder was doing something stupid and injured himself, and the roller coaster rider is overreacting. No one is truly hurt.
Then again, if a random person pushed someone down stairs, or broke into someone's house just to scare them, that wouldn't be funny either. It would be cruel - and if you think cruelty is funny, you need some serious help. Someone else's misery might be funny, but causing misery never should be.
"you're saying you wont laugh if someone trips and falls? when someone riding a bike makes a faceplant?
misery is funny, it distracts us from our own misery, so tone it down mr high and mighty......"
You clearly did not read my response, which anticipated the possibility that someone might misunderstand my words. Do read this bit again: "deriving pleasure from the misfortunes of others, which misfortunes are in this case brought on by the person enjoying them"
What would your response be if I pushed you off your bicycle perhaps resulting in an auto accident, or down some stairs resulting in a broken spine/paralysis, perhaps if I pushed you into a wall resulting in a detached retina [...] or some other injury? Also, if you find it funny that someone (other than a character in a comedy) falls on their face from forward motion on a bicycle, I would raise a question mark about your personality and your ability to anticipate the consequences of such a fall, which might include entry of the turbinate bone into the central nervous system (death), a contrecoup injury to the CNS, permanent facial disfiguration [...]
Certainly if you find it funny that people are causing discomfort for 'lulz' (schadenfreude) this would be consistent with happy slapping shots on youtube. Perhaps I 'ought' not to be surprised that people have such moral standards.
now you're debating just how much suffering could be considered fun and what's too much suffering to be fun, don't you think that's a bit subjective?
you think i didn't get your post, in fact it seems you didn't get mine, but i'm used to that.....
I personally draw the line at grievous bodily harm, but the limit is obviously very personal, you drew the line at digital bullying. no bodies where mutilated, nobody got hurt physically and only a few egos got smashed if you look at it, so yeah, i laughed my ass off (cringed a few times too, when they went too far even for me).
but then, i'm a "bored lefty" too, as someone stated earlier. I laugh at people's misfortune, because if the tables where turned (and they have been), my misfortune would be (and has been) a laughing matter. i sucked it up and moved on, more people should try that.
It's easy looking down from your moral high ground, but you obviously haven't learned to roll with the punches and end up laughing at yourself.
There are tons of things you really shouldn't laugh at, but you laugh at them anyway and feel guilty afterwards, it's called being human.
"now you're debating just how much suffering could be considered fun and what's too much suffering to be fun, don't you think that's a bit subjective?"
If you are addressing me, no, I am not debating how much suffering could be considered fun and how much not. So get this absolutely straight, and stop misrepresenting my remarks because it is worse than egregious; it indicates to me a predilection for untruths.
I said that what we see is schadenfreude - laughing at the discomfort of others, having caused said discomfort - and that the ethical pretensions aired by these people are mere ash, since they cite their transgressions as evidence of their moral standing. This is an internal contradiction in their axiological claims; there is no internal consistency, that is they claim to be one thing yet their deeds indicate the opposite.
If you cannot see that then perhaps some remedial learning will help you here. Most towns have courses in philosophy, ethics and epistemology.
Your stuff about my moral position (if that is what you intend) and the like is pure BS, because I merely point out that these people have no moral leg to stand on, being themselves transgressors.
Perhaps logic and its sister, epistemology, are not your forte, but that really is not my problem. I use my education in philosophy and try hard to avoid the usual complications where values and subjective judgements are concerned. In this instance I have highlighted axiological, logical, and epistemological contradictions between their claims and their deeds. I am sure that you do not give a damn, every bit as much as I am sure that they do not, though there certainly seem to be a lot of outcries, voting down and weeping over the exposure, arrests, and other RL interventions where freetards and LULZtards are concerned. There will be a lot more, and kack handed legal defences derived from your rationale will fail badly.
I don't care if you laugh at a heart attack victim. I don't care if you laugh at gruesome death scenes. The world has no shortage of pain, nor of idiots that laugh at others experiencing it. But if you hurt someone because it's funny, you are scum of the earth.
If you laugh at someone that got 'pwned' by a hacker, ok, fine. But if you steal personal information and release it onto the Internet, you're no better than the identity thieves that use it - scum of the earth. Moral high ground? If you hurt someone because it's funny, EVERYTHING is moral high ground to you.
A couple of comments on the footnotes, though:
1) could you please put the footnotes on the same page as the item which references them?
2) This: "No element of homophobia is implied. Rather, Anons append "fag" to the end of a term as a sign of disrespect for those who use "fag" and "gay" as pejoratives." Really? Would they like to use the n-word, too?
"And then make sure the enlargement is on the last page.
Yeah, I checked."
An observation of merit is that ogling women's mammaries seems to improve the health of men. I have the research paper somewhere on one of this machine's HDs.
Perhaps the moral of this story is that feminism is bad for male health, though I don't think I'd try too hard to push that one, purely for its non sequitur quality alone.
I suppose it's no different from the kids hanging around the local train station after dark with a bottle of White Lightning, meths mixed with apple juice ( that stuff is NOT cider! ) and way too much time on their hands.
When you're young you want to belong to something odd, different, something only you can relate to and others don't get, I suppose this it the one for the modern age.
All seems a little bit pathetic and pointless to me but everyone has to be somewhere I suppose.
We know but nobody said anything about their physical age!
If you're over 30 and proud to be keeping this sort of company you really need check your priorities! If they managed to achieve something worthwhile like helping the homeless or feeding the starving by attacking the world governments I'd have some respect for them, but bringing down a few websites for tech companies like Sony, standing for Assanges right to free speech and, as true to their name, anonymously spreading stolen info, is hardly a stand for world peace is it! People like Peter Tatchell or organisations like Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders, they make a difference and they don't do it hiding in Mum's basement, behind computer screens.
This lot need to grow up, get a life and put their energies into making a real difference to real people.
"....People like Peter Tatchell...." Whilst I happen to think Mr Tatchell is bit of a berk, I do respect and support his willingness to say what he thinks and how he stands up for what he believes in, despite the threats of violence. Deomocracy and free speech is all about people accepting and supporting that others have different views. I suspect we'd share a few views but could probably have a great time debating the differences. The childish hacktivism of Anon simply doesn't bear comparison.
"....This lot need to grow up, get a life and put their energies into making a real difference to real people." Spot on!
"...you're supposed to skip straight to page 5, ignore the article completely, and marvel at the...errr....cake. Then post something that looks like they actually read it. Like every other male on here did."
On his return from the pub this male poster checked the image name in the teaser link, clicking Sa_v_e Image As: "anonymoussideteaser". Ah, I see. Brazen with it! I will have to report this to the commission on press activities, to be considered alongside Coulson et al. :-)
This wasn’t an assignment El Reg sent me on; it was one I asked them to let me publish. If it brings in new readers…good! El Reg has a collection of great writers, and it publishes news relevant to more than just its core stable of IT nerds.
If my articles are different than those you have come to expect from authors on El Reg…also good! It’s a bad thing when any news organisation has all contributors with the exact same sociopolitical leanings. The one thing I as a reader and commenttard have always loved about The Register is the diversity of opinion amongst her writers.
For every author who does not believe in anthropogenic driven climate change, there is one who does. For every establishmentarian, there is a disestablishmentarian. There are even a few antidisestablishmentarianists!
If you want the truth about why the article was written here it is:
With lulzsec running about, coverage of Anonymous skyrocketed. Much of it was blatantly wrong. Every article that was wildly inaccurate bothered me in the same way that the misuse of “you’re” and “your” does. I decided to put my time to better use than complaining about inaccuracies.
Instead, I spent three weeks talking to nearly 100 Anons, from all walks of life, on dozens of servers. I tried my best to put together the most accurate and comprehensive article on “who Anonymous is.” Target audience? Anyone who had an inaccurate understanding of Anonymous’s origins, motivations and structure.
The regularity of readership simply wasn't a consideration.
Trolling? Moi? I would never do such a thing ...
Anus? Some think so. I'm cool with that ... Most who do should look within, though. For the most part I'm only telling it as it is as I see it, which kinda pisses the kids off ;-)
"Herds of a feather flock together" was mixing & matching cows, birds & sheep. If I had been a trifle less rushed this morning, I'd have typoed "school" instead of "flock" ... "pack" was already in use in the colophon ... Surely you've been around here long enough to have caught my "herding the cats back into the worm can thru' the newly locked stable door"?
When you have to explain it, it loses impact ...
 Over a third of a century in the industry tends to make one opinionated.
 The Vet was making her "first Thursday of the month" house call here at the ranch.
I enjoyed the article. I'm tired of MSM (and some commenters here) trying to boil everything down to [black&white]|[left&right]|[right&wrong]|[etc&etc]. Good to see a bit of perspective and balance.
Posting anon because I identify with some of their ideas, but don't consider myself a member of the group.
"For every author who does not believe in anthropogenic driven climate change, there is one who does."
Belief is a dangerous thing. Knowing is safer. If as you say you ' tried [your] best to put together the most accurate and comprehensive article on “who Anonymous is.” ' you most certainly understand that, because you've demonstrated a commitment to knowledge in place of belief and manipulation.
To 'know' something to be true is to deny absolutely the possibility that it could be otherwise. I 'know' very few things in life. I believe many things to be true - within given error bars, depending on the topic - based on information, experience and observation.
With the exception of mathematics, it is my belief that nothing can ever be ‘known.’ The closest we can come is a state of understanding wherein the possibility of our being incorrect is vanishingly small, but still non-zero.
lol I just turned up here to bemoan the lack of an enlargement, and what do I find? Serves me right for glazing over before the end of the first page, I suppose - it's something to do with articles based entirely on unattributed quotes ( I have the same problem with the New York Times ;-) ) ... so I can find a picture of Paris Hilton in a wig on page 5, right?
I think you'll find that every news organization uses quotes from people who request that their identity be hidden. You'll find them attributed to 'a source close to' or 'an unnamed person' or 'from a person familiar with the situation'.
The problem you have is that you think you need to have a name/face to go with the quote. And... you're both right and wrong. The problem is promoting truth and honesty whilst preventing retribution.
I am fully aware why quotes are unattributed - however I find that an article without a single attributed source is built on shaky foundations, as it is impossible to verify the veracity of any of it. In the US, such articles seem to have become the norm for anything concerning the government, or more specifically, the military. While this is a great thing for the dissemination of propaganda, it is less wonderful for those interested in getting to the truth of the matter.
I am not suggesting for a moment The Register has suddenly become a mouthpiece for the US military, just observing that this lowering of the standards of journalistic integrity is becoming prevalent elsewhere.
Well after reading this article I'm not sure if I agree with them any more or less. Personally I think they're fooling themselves, or being fooled.
To quote the article:
"There are no "leaders" of Anonymous. Anonymous resists the concept of leadership so fiercely that anyone who attempts to take on a leadership role is ostracised. At the same time, Anonymous can – and does – contain sub groups which may have a more formalised social hierarchy than the group as a whole."
And then a couple of paragraphs later:
"There are many "strong personalities" who are active Anons. Quite often these individuals succeed in rallying other Anons, or serve to as organisers for some event, project or raid. Their contributions are generally appreciated."
So which is it? Does Anon disparage leadership or embrace it? It smacks of anarchism, and the problem with anarchism is it's an ideology, through history there have been many times that there have been attempts to formulate 'equal' groups the ultimate end is self-destruction because some people naturally have stronger personalities than others, the group tears itself apart. The difference with things like slavery and womens lib is that there was a clear and simple objective, something that Anon lacks, without it the notion of a self regulating system is complete tosh.
Strong personalities don't have to be explicit leaders.
Individuals within the group all, I'd assume, provide input into many decisions. There are of course, however, some forces of personality who have a bit more sway over what is going on. Lack of defined, explicit leadership doesn't mean that everyone has equal weight in decisions, but some people having more power than others doesn't imply the group is going to tear itself apart.
Anonymous has an advantage in this, as, if somebody does attempt to exert too much power, other anons ruthlessly abandon and ostracize them. Most active anons agree on some core issues, as the article points out. I think you may be thinking of anonymous in the wrong terms. It isn't a movement like feminism or civil rights, it's more of a civilization or society not bound by location. To imagine that society itself would fall apart because there is no explicit goal in society is somewhat foolish.
Not agreeing with everything they do, just pointing out a different opinion on what anonymous is.
"Anons are teenagers, they are programmers. They are judges and nurses and lawyers. Anons are sysadmins and teachers, the poor, the rich and everything in between."
Errm, no, they are spotty American virgins who waste their life on Xbox Live and hate Sony (a foreign company) for making a better console than their homegrown horseshit...
@Matt Bryant re saying Anonymous should do some charitable work.. perhaps some of them are.
@Lamont Cranston re: " Really? Would they like to use the n-word, too?" Yes, constantly. You have obviously not been to /b/ if you think otherwise.
@Daegroth, TheRead addresses your concern. There are people who as they say are "strong personalities" but there's a fine line between that and being told to FOAD (F. off and die). Anonymous inherently rejects any leadership or structure.
Something this reminds me of... LOD/H (Legion of Doom/Legion of Hackers) from the 1980s. Look at old Phrack magazines if you want to read about it. So, Legion of Doom were concrete in the beginning, with an specific head ("Lex Luthor" of course), and specific members. But, by the time the original members retired, their exploits were well-known, and anyone who wanted to be 'leet would claim allegiance to the LOD. In the late 1980s the feds tried a crackdown on hackers and phone phreakers in general, and one or two self-professed LOD members got caught up in this. The feds just couldn't figure out what the hell was going on, as many LOD members as they knew must exist they figured there must be cells and a leader, and just couldn't comprehend it was completely decentralized.
Some Are. Some Aren't.
Some are here, posting, right now. I mean really, really RIGHT NOW.
Some are working inside big, important buildings and places where they are paid very well indeed for providing advice to high ranking powerful people who don't know who they are employing.
Some are hearing things said in private by powerful people and keeping tabs on things. Some even put the word out when needed.
Some are suprised by the fact that not everything they hear is bad, but some is.
Some aren't skiddies or likely to use LOIC because they're very well trained and experienced in their field.
Some are mature, left-wing politically minded people who want to see change and have found a vehicle here whereby they won't be persecuted for effecting and advising change.
Some say they are Legion, and you'd be making a serious error in underestimating them.
Word to MB. Here's looking at you, Newfag. Just sayin'.
Joke Alert, because it's all, and only, for the LULZ isn't it?
Some are. Some aren't.
Convening private players === public interest.
Adam Smith, right?
Well. You think NewsCorp, Thatcher and the NeoCons are the best representatives of this and it's an intellectual fallacy to challenge them. These pesky kids think the people in general under no specific ideology, threat, financial backing or other coercion are better representatives, and that they have fundamental freedoms that must be defended.
Different interpretations. Swings and roundabouts. Stick the kettle on, point your browser at dailymail.co.uk, and forget all about it.
".....You think NewsCorp, Thatcher and the NeoCons are the best representatives...." Now who's making assumptions. I wouldn't touch any of Mr Murdoch's "news" sources with a bargepole.
"......an intellectual fallacy to challenge them....." So how exactly have you challenged them, intelectually or otherwise? By hiding in your Mum's basement and defacing webistes? Ooh, so such skillz, such intellectual artistry - not!
Unfortunately, the people who will read this are the ones who already know about it.
The plebes and proles in the public will still be mislead by the media on what Anonymous is and what it represents.
I like the folks who compare Anonymous to the weather. Sometimes you can predict it. Sometimes you can shield yourself from it. But you can never control it and it can result it good or ill based on tiny manipulations that you can't begin to understand.
"......But, why would they attack the Socialist Worker? Anon is in it for the lulz, but not against other anons....." Speaks volumes both for your guillibility and your own partisanship. So, only big capitalist corporations can oppress the masses, eh? You really need to go back to school and start history from scratch.
"......I like the folks who compare Anonymous to the weather...." Is that because you think they are just such big egos that they think they have supernatural powers over nature itself? I prefer to compare them to the yobs that kick in the glass sides of bus stops - both think they're clever beacuse they're equally childish mates tell them they are; both do little more than make an inconvenient mess and waste other peoples' money; both talk big but then run and hide; and both only do it because they can't "protest" effectively in the normal manner as they have such a tiny level of support.
Really? And how did you manage that? When it's been made explicitly clear that there's no membership list and no agreement amongst "them" as to who qualifies to be one of these people and who doesn't?
Did you head down to the local pub and happen upon somebody in a Guy Fawkes mask, ask them if they belonged to this group, got an affirmative answer and then started asking questions hoping that things were on the level?
If there's no possible way of defining anything here - or going to a location or group where there's agreement - then how can it possibly be claimed that you managed to meet anybody who could objectively be said to be a part of this group?
All of the individuals interviewed spoke the language, knew the memes, hung out on Anonymous-related websites, IRC servers and forums, participated in Anonymous related activities and called themselves Anonymous. The individuals I talked to would be accepted by the majority of those who self-identify as Anonymous as fellow Anons. That’s really as solid a definition as is humanly possible under these circumstances.
If you chose to call yourself Anonymous, participated in Anonymous activites, etc. you would be accepted by them as well. Even if you disagreed with them about almost everything all the time.
For an example of anonymous internal disagreement, start up an argument about “how can you fight censorship by DDoSing (denying access to) a website? Isn’t that trying to fight one form of censorship by employing another form of censorship?” The debate has raged on for years, and will continue to do so for years more. (Or start a Republican versus Democrat thread.) Despite this, both sides of that debate would recognise the other as Anons.
It is all quite…complicated.
I have had conversations about a number of topics with thousands of individual Anons over the years, though I limited myself to 83 Anons on 32 servers for “targeted” interviews for this project. If you are curious where to find some of them to talk to, there are really three main tentacles of the hivemind I can point you to;
1) Chanology Anons have a presence on irc.anonnet.org
2) Activist Anons of all stripes will be found on irc.anonops.li
These are of course two of thousands of places anonymous can be found, but they are good “starter” locations for those seeing to have discussions with a specific tentacle. Asking around will get you links to other servers and then you’re off to the races.
"If you chose to call yourself Anonymous, participated in Anonymous activites, etc. you would be accepted by them as well."
Duh. Paraphrased, "We is us, you is not us, and therefore not us!!!!! You is bad!!!!" ... Typical of gang behavior world-wide.
"Even if you disagreed with them about almost everything all the time."
Horseshit. I'm effectively Anonymous, and yet my commentardary on the activities of Anon are routinely "down voted" by Anon here on ElReg.
Can you see the absurdity in this simple fact?
Anon has an agenda. Their agenda is "our way or the highway, and we'll rough you up and try to make your life miserable if you don't see it our way".
And the Anon idiots don't even see why that attitude is just as bad as the worst of the rest of human governments that they claim to be decrying ...
 Not that I give a rat's ass about up and down votes ...
Nice jubs, why does any article with nice jubs and anything remotely lefty bring out the raving Thatcherite richboy wannabees? How quaint trying to shout down criticism when democracy died to fascism a lifetime ago. Keep up the good work wannabee, maybe someone will give you a gold star.
Seriously, in just one brief scan of this thread, I have spotted 17 logical fallacies posted by that one individual. Either Matt Bryant is the biggest fool on The Register, the second most arrogant and self important commenter - the first has always been jake - or...
...y'all got trolled.
Read these, learn to recognise them, and DON'T FEED THE TROLLS:
Our dear friend the troll has used each and every one of them in this thread.
".....But if you have then in each case you made no valid or sound argument for him to counter....." Unfortunately, dogged is merely offering the standard response of the Anon supporter - he can't argue ('cos he hasn't got a clue about the real issues or how to debate them), so he won't argue, just post pics he thinks are funny'n'cool, just for the lulz. He goes away thinking he is clever, the rest of the World + dog just think he's a tragic waste of bandwidth.
Thank you for your erasoned and eloquent participation in the discussion, you really helped me understand exactly what it is that drives the Anon mind with your precise disection of both the variety of their socio-political views and the non-centralised structure of their group.
Oh, hold on a sec - you didn't add anything, just resorted to childish insults! And you know what they say about those that fall back on insults knowing they've lost the argument....
Would you like to try a second go at posting something of value? Go on, it will be hard, but think of it as all part of growing up.
"......arguing (debating) on an Internet site is absolutely meaningless...." Oh, sorry, I forgot that you and your tiny little herd of the hip'n'trendy don't debate anything, you just swallow whatever is spoonfed to you! You haven't a clue how to debate anything because it's just not tolerated amongst the sheeple. Why should I let you twits post complete twaddle unchallenged? You and many others posting here profess undying faith in the righteousness of Anon, yet you can't even provide the flimsiest of justifications for their actions. Just smacks of blind faith to me.
".....your babble is wasting space on my giant monitors." Well, if Mummy was good enough to buy her ickle Grundy big monintors it was probably to keep him safely indoors, away from all those other nasty kids. How about you leave the monitors, get outside and see the real World? A bit of real life experience will soon let you see the stupidity of the Anons.
It's a trap, and you wandered in like the lackwit you are.
Let me begin with your response to my trolling of you....
"you didn't add anything, just resorted to childish insults! And you know what they say about those that fall back on insults knowing they've lost the argument...."
Now, bearing in mind that you said that, allow me to post some selected quotes from your other posts in this self-same thread...
"they desperately want to be fantasy freedom fighter heroes rather than just the dull, boring bunch of wannabes they are."
"I hardly think that even a substandard troll is capable of believing this."
"...you're talking out of your rectum. At least you are a resounding success as an example of monumetal fail predicated by a blinkered outlook and a lack of knowledge."
"...you really need to loosen up the tinfoil hat and double up on your meds."
"Mrs Bryant saw the pic and said; "Pfft! I bet she's a minger, otherwise why would she be wearing a mask?"
"...knowing the negative correllation between good-looking girls and those that know anything about IT..."
"Asking "Would you like fries with that?" is not exactly important work."
"So how exactly have you challenged them, intelectually or otherwise? By hiding in your Mum's basement and defacing webistes? Ooh, so such skillz, such intellectual artistry - not!"
" You really need to go back to school and start history from scratch."
"Unfortunately, dogged is merely offering the standard response of the Anon supporter - he can't argue ('cos he hasn't got a clue about the real issues or how to debate them), so he won't argue, just post pics he thinks are funny'n'cool, just for the lulz. He goes away thinking he is clever, the rest of the World + dog just think he's a tragic waste of bandwidth."
"Hey, dogged, is this you?
BTW, really admire your ability to clearly articulate your views, you add so little to the discussion."
"Would you like to try a second go at posting something of value? Go on, it will be hard, but think of it as all part of growing up."
In answer to that last part; Yes, yes I would. I'd like to present you with the "Hoisted by my own petard" award. Falling back on your own insults seems to be something you do in a lot of threads, I imagine that means you accept you've lost them all.
Please note, these are rhetorical questions and do not require you to answer. You can go back to living under your bridge now. Alternatively, you can continue spouting your nonsense and we'll continue downvoting you and pointing out your hypocracy. Perhaps eventually you'll learn you're never right, judging by the standards of your peers.
Anonymous as an Organisation appears to be either:
• a group of script kiddies
• a collection of people who have some abilities, and a bunch of fall guy script kiddies
I cannot see why this deserves anything other than outright condemnation? Other than identifying a person responsible for drowning puppies why does this group deserve any respect?
So, Bernie, what you're saying is you don't actually have anything to say because you don't actually have any argumnets to support your blinkered faith in the zealous activities of the Anonyputzs? I think I'll just re-employ the reference to the vacuous nature of dogged's responses":
"Unfortunately, Bernie is merely offering the standard response of the Anon supporter - he can't argue ('cos he hasn't got a clue about the real issues or how to debate them), so he won't argue, just post vacuous non-arguments he thinks are funny'n'cool, just for the lulz. He goes away thinking he is clever, the rest of the World + dog just think he's a tragic waste of bandwidth."
I think you'll find the majority of the comments you have collected above are in reasoning as to why I think the Anonyputzs are just childish e-vandals. Care to post anything vaguely argumentative as to why you think not?
".....and we'll continue downvoting you and pointing out your hypocracy...." I'm not sure why on Earth you think I'm at all bothered by your reflexive downvoting, I wasn't really expecting you to actually read, consider and then possibly formulate a cohernet counter. Being downvoted by the clueless is just an amusing measure of how much the truth upsets them. "Ooh, grr, that Matt Bryant makes me soooo angry, he just won't be herded like the rest of the sheeple, but I can't think of a clever response, so I'll just downvote him!" Yeah, that really taught me - not! And since when did you "point out" anything? Your posts are nothing but noise, no substance whatsoever!
I have been using imageboards since 2004, when they first became english speaking. I would like to thank The Reg for providing a relatively balanced article even if most of the commentards have got the wrong end of the stick and think this is just about protesting.
I am now over 30 and work in a job where I handle multimillion pound computing hardware and work in places with unmarked doors in walls in London which require industrial secrets act paperwork to so much as look at.
I don't participate in raids that much, although I do love to sit there and watch the fallout sometimes. So far I have however talked several people out of suicide. I've personally visited people who were kicked out of their home because their family found out they were transgendered, and bought them their first saucepan, fixed their computer and taught them how to survive. I've worked on the wireless mesh network you mentioned even though it didn't take off, mostly because people were too far away from each other to start establishing nodes. I've helped one of the people who worked on that network get through a really messy legal situation regarding access to her kids by her ex. I am now working on a wireless bulletin board (search for David Darts' "Piratebox"). I am also helping to rebuild Encyclopedia Dramtica after the original admin took her ball and went home (ate the ball by the look of her), and Essex police arrested our other one. I have found a bunch of brilliant people that I hope to know for the rest of my life.
Anonymous isn't about protesting. It isn't about hiding behind an umbrella, or a banner to hold. It is simply a situation where people can be free to be human: To be the brilliant nasty inventive destructive beautiful monsters that people are deep down, when they aren't having to hide behind the mask of society. It is being the idd with all of the demons within. This is more about being "Project Mayhem" than being the next greenpeace or peta.
Staying anonymous is probably a good idea. People have commented that hiding your identity is cowardly compared to notable rebels from the past, but in this day and age of information, the game has changed. When businesses are firing people because there was a picture tagged with their name of them holding a drink at a party, and crowd control at events is starting with people using computers to analyse the faces, body shapes and walks of everyone there so a dossier can be compiled rather than actively watching troublemakers then something is rapidly becoming very wrong. If a company demands my social network logins in the future so that HR can go snoop at it then i will tell them I log on to imageboards, my username is anonymous and they can go datamine that. I might even link them to /d/ for some family friendly entertainment...
What more can I say, sometimes the world needs a few things to be broken by people doing stuff for shits and giggles. It stops us becoming a race of people that wear their identical shirts and ties to work, driving their identical silver cars (for maximum resale value) and blindly accepting the status quo, living like a pig in a cage to quote an old lyric that seems quite apt.
I would also like to add that the masks come from a comic on 4chan, where the character ends up wearing one. Anon started wearing them because it was funny. We were wearing afro wigs and black suits before that when doing stuff in meatspace before that.
"What more can I say, sometimes the world needs a few things to be broken by people doing stuff for shits and giggles. It stops us becoming a race of people that wear their identical shirts and ties to work, driving their identical silver cars (for maximum resale value) and blindly accepting the status quo, living like a pig in a cage to quote an old lyric that seems quite apt."
What I am reading from what you are saying is that you are a middle class guy who gets a laugh from encouraging other, younger more impressionable people to break stuff for your amusement. How hard do you laugh when they get caught?
"....I have found a bunch of brilliant people that I hope to know for the rest of my life...." I hear lots of ex-gang members saying that they used to love being in a streetgang because of the thrills and the sense of belonging, and becuase other gang members looked out for them. Then they got caught, banged up and finally came to realise how stupid they were and how much misery they inflicted on others. You may think your mates are simply lovely now, but I hope the time will come when you grow up and realise they were just criminals all the same.
".......sometimes the world needs a few things to be broken by people doing stuff for shits and giggles....." If it's your own stuff then go ahead. I do target shooting, on private ranges, which is a destructive process for my own entertainment. I also like trackdays, which do nothing more than use up petrol and tires, again not really constructive and again for my entertainment. But I do both of those on land set aside specially for those activities, inside the law, and in a manner which does not inflict misery on others. I don't go to someone else's land, shoot their property or drive over it regardless. What Anon are doing is breaking other peoples' stuff, and they not only didn't give you permission to break it but also didn't even know you were trying to break it, so they are criminals and vandals, fullstop.
Using big words in order to appear intelligent during a public debate has been proven to be the one of the most annoying tactics possible.
There is a reason press releases and sound bites are short and sweet; people won't read through reams of babble for the purposes of a meaningless online debate. Obviously Scorchio!! doesn't get that but he wants soooo badly to WIN. Too bad really. On a scale of 1 - 10
Valid points: 8
"...... I think we have a majority ....." I think the reality is you could get all the Anons to emigrate to the island nation of Nauru and still not have a majority. Mind you, you would probably be quite popular seeing as Nauru's main export is phosphates from guano, and you Anons do seem to talk a massive quantity of male bovine manure.
I usually read the comments on articles for a chuckle, but all the big words and political nonsense have left me doubting my own intelligence and self worth. I only saw about 7 boob-related jokes and that has spoiled my day.
Less inflamatory stories pls Reg. To paraphrase, 'these comments have warped my tiny little mind'
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019