There is a very clear difference between what you say which is eminently reasonable and what Mr Manuel has which is IMO not.
Put simply you speculate and couch your words clearly as supposition and opinion 'it seems to be' ' if they are' Rob's words are clearly and unambiguously claims and assertions.
There is a very clear difference between /b/ and the 'moralfags' that get involved in hacktivism indeed it's arguably the wild west nature of /b/ that is coopted as rebels without a cause. As such Manuel's assertions about the nature of anon fails the initial laugh test, as he either doesn't realise or fails to acknowledge that anon is not just /b/
As for comparing the student protests with operation payback in my view I disagree with the comparison. The student protests have seen wanton, mindless and chaotic violence wrought on targets mostly not associated with the cause of their grievance. Anon hacktivism OTOH has been very precise in targeting the specific sites complicit in the economic 'sanctions' launched against wikileaks.
(,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:17,
archived)
Put simply you speculate and couch your words clearly as supposition and opinion 'it seems to be' ' if they are' Rob's words are clearly and unambiguously claims and assertions.
There is a very clear difference between /b/ and the 'moralfags' that get involved in hacktivism indeed it's arguably the wild west nature of /b/ that is coopted as rebels without a cause. As such Manuel's assertions about the nature of anon fails the initial laugh test, as he either doesn't realise or fails to acknowledge that anon is not just /b/
As for comparing the student protests with operation payback in my view I disagree with the comparison. The student protests have seen wanton, mindless and chaotic violence wrought on targets mostly not associated with the cause of their grievance. Anon hacktivism OTOH has been very precise in targeting the specific sites complicit in the economic 'sanctions' launched against wikileaks.
it's very tricky - I got a phone call from a newspaper and I told them what I thoughtI haven't even read what they wrote up about it - but it's unlikely to represent the whole of my views. Being as I didn't write it.
edit: more coming - accidentally pressed submit halfway through
(edit: more coming - accidentally pressed submit halfway through
rob,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:20,
archived)
i know anon isn't entirely /bI live on the same internet as the rest of us.
( rob,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:25,
archived)
I state againas above. You are keen on free speech and information. But you want Rob to keep his mouth shut. The defence rests.
Edit; the defence is bored and naffing off.
(Edit; the defence is bored and naffing off.
TheSundaeLunch I'm a fucking shrub, alright?,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:22,
archived)
RE:The student protests have seen wanton, mindless and chaotic violence wrought on targets mostly not associated with the cause of their grievance.
In the past, Anonymous has attacked things such as an epilepsy website. Do you not think that the press would pick up on things like that and tar any new cause with it?
In reality, I know it's more blurred than that, but the nature of Anonymous means that they can only be seen as "good" as the sum of their parts, which does seem to feature a lot of twats in their ranks.
(In the past, Anonymous has attacked things such as an epilepsy website. Do you not think that the press would pick up on things like that and tar any new cause with it?
In reality, I know it's more blurred than that, but the nature of Anonymous means that they can only be seen as "good" as the sum of their parts, which does seem to feature a lot of twats in their ranks.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:41,
archived)
In the past /b/tards have attack the epilepsy website and yes the demarcation is blurred and yes the purpose of the attack was both unjustified and offensive. But should the possibility of the press using past transgressions to attempt to tar a cause stop those involved in arguably positive cause activism from taking part due to these prior transgressions by others
Should the WWF shut up shop because phil the Greek is a bit of a racist?
(,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 0:26,
archived)
Should the WWF shut up shop because phil the Greek is a bit of a racist?
No, but they should perhapsdrop the Anonymous banner and put their names to the cause they believe in.
Shit sticks, and Anonymous is forever going to be tarred with trolling of quite a nasty nature.
(Shit sticks, and Anonymous is forever going to be tarred with trolling of quite a nasty nature.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 0:33,
archived)
As demonstrated amply by assange and manning associating your name with politically and legally questionable activities no matter how admirable the objective is fraught with risk
(,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 1:12,
archived)
But it alsogives an organisation legitimacy and shows someone's convictions.
Anonymous seem to use bullying and threat, rather then discussion, and so could never gain the respect that an organisation like Wikileaks has.
(Anonymous seem to use bullying and threat, rather then discussion, and so could never gain the respect that an organisation like Wikileaks has.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 1:23,
archived)