I completelyfail to grasp what you are actually complaining about. The man gave an opinion. He might be right or wrong.
(
TheSundaeLunch I'm a fucking shrub, alright?,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:47,
archived)
I'm complaining because I believe he is wrong in his assessment, unqualified in his opinion, opportunist in his timing and involvement. And above all damaging to any attempts to teach the sites that are colluding with wikileaks that their behaviour is unacceptable.
OTOH having publications for sale on amazon, whilst also accepting payment for such via visa, master card and paypal perhaps there is a perfectly prosaic reason why mr Manuel would take a negative view of attacks agianst said organisations.
(,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:59,
archived)
OTOH having publications for sale on amazon, whilst also accepting payment for such via visa, master card and paypal perhaps there is a perfectly prosaic reason why mr Manuel would take a negative view of attacks agianst said organisations.
But isn't your right to say thatexactlty the same right for him to say what he did?
If you are taking the stance that gagging Wikkileaks is wrong; how can you take the stance that gagging Rob is right? You either have censorship or free speech; make your mind up.
Edit: I don't expect an answer because there isn't one. And i'm missing QI for this.
(If you are taking the stance that gagging Wikkileaks is wrong; how can you take the stance that gagging Rob is right? You either have censorship or free speech; make your mind up.
Edit: I don't expect an answer because there isn't one. And i'm missing QI for this.
TheSundaeLunch I'm a fucking shrub, alright?,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:06,
archived)
You seem to have confusedAnonymous and Wikileaks.
As far as I am aware, Wikileaks has nothing to do with Anonymous. It is entirely a one-way relationship.
Might be wrong - point me to evidence if that is the case.
(As far as I am aware, Wikileaks has nothing to do with Anonymous. It is entirely a one-way relationship.
Might be wrong - point me to evidence if that is the case.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:07,
archived)
ha ha hamy secret agenda to protect amazon because of the few old copies of the joke book that still get sold.
(
rob,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:10,
archived)
I was askedand I'm a huge fan of wikileaks but don't think anon is doing the right thing
( rob,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:22,
archived)
So Did you think they were doing the wrong thing when they did exactly the same with ACS:law?
Did you offer your opinion to the press then?
(,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:26,
archived)
Did you offer your opinion to the press then?
nobody asked me then - the media contacted me over this anon thingI don't just phone up the press offering my opinion on random news stories.
( rob,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:32,
archived)
Just roll with it, RobI agree with free-speech but don't like people being pressured into making a statement that they may regret.
(
Fr_Jerry_McGwier looked over both shoulders at,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:42,
archived)
it's a double edged sword talking to the mediabecause of b3ta, I've been dealing (not seeking out) with press requests since about 2001. Whatever you say to them, there's only one thing for certain - somebody is going to be pissed off.
Anyway - I must go to bed.
(Anyway - I must go to bed.
rob,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:57,
archived)
You ain't gonna win with the pressThe way to tackle it is to make your point then perform a publicity swerve.
Anyway, look at that owl that's just dived like a demon. Isn't nature just great?
See!!
(Anyway, look at that owl that's just dived like a demon. Isn't nature just great?
See!!
Fr_Jerry_McGwier looked over both shoulders at,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 9:25,
archived)
Did you think then like now it was counter productive?
Did you think it was a group of children and disenfranchised 40year olds?
Do you believe the consequences of that DDos we're detrimental to the aims intended (I.e. To punish ACS:Law)?
You've had your fair share of run ins with lawyers regarding B3ta. The apology to "artist formerly known as" springs to mind. I'm thus at a loss as tohowyou can take a negative view of any and every action, short of outright physical violence or harm, which helps keep attempts to stifle wikileaks on front centre of news papers.
Elsewhere it has been pointed out that the proj chanology DDos was unsuccessful until it becak an information distribution exercise. My argument is that without the DDos phase proj chanology would never have taken off.
Due to the popularity of this site you must know or have heard how substantial and pervasive web censorship is in some countries. A quick rev look up of my IP addy would act as a starter (wikileaks censorship? Try you tube censorship for size)
For my part I'll disappear and relurk after this for another 5 years, hopefully by then we won't be looking back on wikileaks and Anons actions and feeling like pastor Martin Niemoller
(,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:53,
archived)
Did you think it was a group of children and disenfranchised 40year olds?
Do you believe the consequences of that DDos we're detrimental to the aims intended (I.e. To punish ACS:Law)?
You've had your fair share of run ins with lawyers regarding B3ta. The apology to "artist formerly known as" springs to mind. I'm thus at a loss as tohowyou can take a negative view of any and every action, short of outright physical violence or harm, which helps keep attempts to stifle wikileaks on front centre of news papers.
Elsewhere it has been pointed out that the proj chanology DDos was unsuccessful until it becak an information distribution exercise. My argument is that without the DDos phase proj chanology would never have taken off.
Due to the popularity of this site you must know or have heard how substantial and pervasive web censorship is in some countries. A quick rev look up of my IP addy would act as a starter (wikileaks censorship? Try you tube censorship for size)
For my part I'll disappear and relurk after this for another 5 years, hopefully by then we won't be looking back on wikileaks and Anons actions and feeling like pastor Martin Niemoller
My concern is very specific.Wikileaks is an amazing thing that has been exposing extraordinary behaviour from our governments.
I'd like the media to be reporting on the content the leaks - following up the stuff exposed - validating its truthfulness.
However, instead the authorities have first gone on a manhunt for JA, then this is followed by the Anon attacks. This has become the story. This is deflecting from the stuff I believe is important.
I support Wikileaks but I don't support Anons tactics in this specific case.
(I'd like the media to be reporting on the content the leaks - following up the stuff exposed - validating its truthfulness.
However, instead the authorities have first gone on a manhunt for JA, then this is followed by the Anon attacks. This has become the story. This is deflecting from the stuff I believe is important.
I support Wikileaks but I don't support Anons tactics in this specific case.
rob,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 0:10,
archived)
I bet you were in the Socialist Workers' Party once.
Colonel Boris "...a desperate Buzzfeed imitation...",
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 0:11,
archived)
Although to the centre left of the political spectrum, I've never joined or affiliated with a political organisation
(,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 0:43,
archived)
Are Anonymous not apolitical organisation?
They have very clear manifestos.
(They have very clear manifestos.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 0:47,
archived)
Possibly yes of a sort but as indicated I'm not affiliated with or a member of it.
(,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 1:08,
archived)
Do you not find theconcept of a mob following the orders of a few using anonymity as a shield, just as scary as a lying government?
Especially, when their own ethics have been so dubious in the past.
If I was to take a deliberately extreme parallel, I'd say that Anonymous base themselves on a terrorist organisation, and many people join not through political reasons, but rather to feel edgy.
I will be very surprised if Wikileaks ever say that they support Anonymous.
(Especially, when their own ethics have been so dubious in the past.
If I was to take a deliberately extreme parallel, I'd say that Anonymous base themselves on a terrorist organisation, and many people join not through political reasons, but rather to feel edgy.
I will be very surprised if Wikileaks ever say that they support Anonymous.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 0:12,
archived)
Not in and of itself no, (I also dispute the characterisantion of anon as a mob following orders). However I accept that any collection of persons using anonymity as a shield has the potential to be quite scary be that anon paypal shareholders or even wikileaks themselves. That said I find your critique of anon to be substantially correct. But the again one mans terrorist organisation....
As for wikileaks not supporting anon I suspect you are quite correct which is all the more ironic given anions success in ferreting out ACSlaws emails, Sarah palins emails, and a fair raft of animal abusers personal details to the extent the abuser was apprehended.Not to mention providing a large number of wikileaks site mirroring facilities.
(,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 1:01,
archived)
As for wikileaks not supporting anon I suspect you are quite correct which is all the more ironic given anions success in ferreting out ACSlaws emails, Sarah palins emails, and a fair raft of animal abusers personal details to the extent the abuser was apprehended.Not to mention providing a large number of wikileaks site mirroring facilities.
.If you dispute the characterisation of it being a mob following orders, how would you yourself characterise it?
The communiques certainly take the form of orders, and there it has the scary mob mentality, since it deliberately avoids the idea of individuality by the whole concept of anonymity.
"But the again one mans terrorist organisation...." is what?
They are not freedom fighters, because they have no stated goals as an organisation. Wikileaks could be described as being such, but Anonymous seem to be just tagging along, for whatever reason, be it genuine political concern or just wanting to boast about their power.
I'm not going to argue that they have done some good stuff, and the current campaign is very much a grey area. However, I fail to see how you could admire them, with all the shit that goes along with it.
(The communiques certainly take the form of orders, and there it has the scary mob mentality, since it deliberately avoids the idea of individuality by the whole concept of anonymity.
"But the again one mans terrorist organisation...." is what?
They are not freedom fighters, because they have no stated goals as an organisation. Wikileaks could be described as being such, but Anonymous seem to be just tagging along, for whatever reason, be it genuine political concern or just wanting to boast about their power.
I'm not going to argue that they have done some good stuff, and the current campaign is very much a grey area. However, I fail to see how you could admire them, with all the shit that goes along with it.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 1:15,
archived)
regarding you not being happy with him being"opportunistic in his timing and involvement" I would say that may be an unfair accusation.
If he's been called up by the reporter, then they have gone to him and asked his opinion. He's given it.
If he's gone to them, then you have a point.
But until you know FOR CERTAIN that he went to them, you shouldn't accuse him of being "opportunistic in his timing and involvement"
And I say that as a reporter...
(I know... needs more Cunt...)
(,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 18:04,
archived)
If he's been called up by the reporter, then they have gone to him and asked his opinion. He's given it.
If he's gone to them, then you have a point.
But until you know FOR CERTAIN that he went to them, you shouldn't accuse him of being "opportunistic in his timing and involvement"
And I say that as a reporter...
(I know... needs more Cunt...)