Anonymous under attack.

TrevAnon

Big List researcher
I'm not about to support the criminal element in Anonymous anymore than I support the criminal element in Scientology. Sooner or later, Anonymous as a whole is going to have to "put ethics in" on that faction themselves.

I am sure law enforcement will also do what is necessary to get the criminal element in Anonymous prosecuted and in jail. I guess it's not per sé a task for Anonymous alone.
 

greebly

Patron with Honors
I agree with you trev, most authorities know who is who and when they do something naughty off they go to jail.

There are plenty of law abiding folk who carry on exposing the abuses of the Co$ everyday.

What it highlights yet again for the 1millionth time is that any person can say "anonymous". So when you keep hearing this word "group" come up all the time you can only shake your head and hope the authorities you speak to everyday truly understand.
 

Freeminds

Bitter defrocked apostate
. . .What it highlights yet again for the 1millionth time is that any person can say "anonymous". So when you keep hearing this word "group" come up all the time you can only shake your head and hope the authorities you speak to everyday truly understand.

Very true. I think that everyone is anonymous, at one time or another. Like when you want to get information from a website just once, and you're forced to register, so you call yourself Jane Doe, birthday January 1st, and give only a crappy Hotmail address that is already awash with spam. That's anonymity. It's just something that works, in an increasingly nosey Internet.

With regard to our friends over at WWP, when I hear them all being tarred with the same brush as the hackers, there's a handy diagram that I think might do some good.

From WWP:
vennq.png
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
I'm not about to support the criminal element in Anonymous anymore than I support the criminal element in Scientology. Sooner or later, Anonymous as a whole is going to have to *"put ethics in"* on that faction themselves.

*Idiotic Scientology newspeak.*

Why don't you try to handle them, like you're trying to handle us?


 
*Idiotic Scientology newspeak.*

Why don't you try to handle them, like you're trying to handle us?



Actually, Smilla, for once sneaks isn't just hoching the ol' tscheinek this time. Not all who act under the cloak of anonymous are accordingly 'white hats', nor even are all self-styled members of anonymous necessarily interested in the campaign against the scientology cult.

Anonymous, as they themselves profess, does not constitute a singular entity. It's like a cloud. It is a singular apparency composed of numerous separate particles which are not bound to it and which have no structure but whom participate in a largely unstructured and wholly voluntary fashion. It is merely the loose knit interaction of a bunch of individuals who join together for a specific action and then melt away. Often those who claim to be members know no more of other members than a computer screen login and what they may have inferred from the character of some online posts.

Where actual criminal actions have been conducted by those operating under the rubic of 'anonymous' it is not necessarily a wise act to be seen as publicly endorsing those actions.


Mark A. Baker
 

pollywog

Patron with Honors
I'm not about to support the criminal element in Anonymous anymore than I support the criminal element in Scientology. Sooner or later, Anonymous as a whole is going to have to "put ethics in" on that faction themselves.

^^^moonbat talk^^^
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
Actually, Smilla, for once sneaks isn't just hoching the ol' tscheinek this time. Not all who act under the cloak of anonymous are accordingly 'white hats', nor even are all self-styled members of anonymous necessarily interested in the campaign against the scientology cult.

Anonymous, as they themselves profess, does not constitute a singular entity. It's like a cloud. It is a singular apparency composed of numerous separate particles which are not bound to it and which have no structure but whom participate in a largely unstructured and wholly voluntary fashion. It is merely the loose knit interaction of a bunch of individuals who join together for a specific action and then melt away. Often those who claim to be members know no more of other members than a computer screen login and what they may have inferred from the character of some online posts.

Where actual criminal actions have been conducted by those operating under the rubic of 'anonymous' it is not necessarily a wise act to be seen as publicly endorsing those actions.


Mark A. Baker

I don't condone any law breaking by any group.

As you say, Anonymous isn't a unified organisation, that's why it can't *put ethics in* on some unknown people who style themselves as anon, as Sneakster suggests. Sneaks should have a chat with Tom Cruise - he's also keen to *put ethics in* on the planet. Better would be to let law enforcement and the judiciary deal with it.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
I don't condone any law breaking by any group.

As you say, Anonymous isn't a unified organisation, that's why it can't *put ethics in*

You have a view not backed by history.

" Put ethics in" can be described with other words not likely to
invoke reaction here. Lets say " Guerrilla Action", which dosn't fully
express the term, but may apply in certain circumstances.

Without going into rights and wrongs here, the Vietnamese people
took Guerrilla action and defeated the most powerful nation on earth.

" Put ethics in".

The first anon protest had 9000 worldwide. This movement has been VERY successful at " Putting ethics in." I know I'm one of them.

What goes on apart from protests is probably even more important.
Much of that is not known.

on some unknown people who style themselves as anon, as Sneakster suggests. Sneaks should have a chat with Tom Cruise - he's also keen to *put ethics in* on the planet. Better would be to let law enforcement and the judiciary deal with it.

I hope Tom has a chat with Sneaks or me or his former auditor Marty.
Ms Caberta has REALLY put him on the spot.

Part of all the efforts is to get law enforcement and judiciary to deal with it.

Massive success.

The US is where we need a breakthrough.
 

Ackerland

Patron with Honors
Anonymous doesn't care about its image. You don't need to stand up for us. And in particular not for some teens or twens that try to outwit each other with more and more spectacular break-ins that serve no other purpose than to boost someone's ego.
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
I don't condone any law breaking by any group.

As you say, Anonymous isn't a unified organisation, that's why it can't *put ethics in*

You have a view not backed by history.

" Put ethics in" can be described with other words not likely to
invoke reaction here. Lets say " Guerrilla Action", which dosn't fully
express the term, but may apply in certain circumstances.

Without going into rights and wrongs here, the Vietnamese people
took Guerrilla action and defeated the most powerful nation on earth.

" Put ethics in".

The first anon protest had 9000 worldwide. This movement has been VERY successful at " Putting ethics in." I know I'm one of them.

What goes on apart from protests is probably even more important.
Much of that is not known.

I hope Tom has a chat with Sneaks or me or his former auditor Marty.
Ms Caberta has REALLY put him on the spot.

Part of all the efforts is to get law enforcement and judiciary to deal with it.

Massive success.

The US is where we need a breakthrough.

To win the trust of the public Terril, you need more than breakthrough - you need a miracle. After the miracle, you need about 50 years of exemplary behaviour. The events in Hamburg, whilst interesting, haven't changed anything as regards the way the world sees Scientology. In the eyes of the general populace, Scientology remains as it has been, which is something considered to be only slightly preferable to a case of Rabies.

So clean pyjamas, face, teeth, and hands, and off to bed with you to dream of a world that doesn't want Scientology to go away.

Smilla xx

 

GreyWolf

Gold Meritorious Patron
Anonymous doesn't care about its image. You don't need to stand up for us. And in particular not for some teens or twens that try to outwit each other with more and more spectacular break-ins that serve no other purpose than to boost someone's ego.

Who is us, and who's ass are you tryin' to kick here? Mine or Anon's?
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
Posted by Smilla

To win the trust of the public Terril, you need more than breakthrough - you need a miracle. After the miracle, you need about 50 years of exemplary behaviour. The events in Hamburg, whilst interesting, haven't changed anything as regards the way the world sees Scientology. In the eyes of the general populace, Scientology remains as it has been, which is something considered to be only slightly preferable to a case of Rabies.

So clean pyjamas, face, teeth, and hands, and off to bed with you to dream of a world that doesn't want Scientology to go away.

Smilla xx







:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
Hey! They stood up for us. We should stand up for them.

http://www.kgw.com/news/national/129613903.html

OK?

Not really... because there is NO "them".
Anonymous is just that... "Anonymous".

They are not a cohesive group of anything.

The best that I could say is that they are a bunch of cats.
Have you ever tried to herd a bunch of cats? What happens when you try?

I understand your sentiments BUT there is NO Anonymous to give "payback" to.
(Unless you personally know some particular individuals that you would like to support in whatever they are doing?)
 
Top