It's a Hoax: Anonymous Did Not Threaten Westboro Baptist Church

Originally posted by stealthsurfer

Originally posted by MindSpin
So which is it Anonymous fanboys...is Anonymous an official "group"...or not?

Since anyone can claim to be "Anonymous" when wreaking havoc on someone or some website, unless they in some way come out and state that "we are a group and we are responsible for all these things" with some low quality video like the supposed Osama video's who knows. And even then who's to say the video's would be legit and not created by a third party just to have a scapegoat.

Maybe, as a group, they can agree on a set of core principles, like a constitution, and then all leadership can disband. If something happens outside the scope of their constitution, then it is not anonymous. If it does, then it is.

Originally posted by ossminid
reply to post by MindSpin

 

Nice man, you win the semantics game! Now go challenge Anonymous to a duel, see how much of what you just wrote matters.

To a duel??? Are we using swords or pistols???


Or maybe you are suggesting that Anonymous should shut me up...huh? Is that what they do...shut people up who don't think exactly like they do?


Well I only post on ATS...so to shut me up (and others that don't speak highly of them) they would have to take down ATS....would that be a cause you Anonymous fanboys support???

Originally posted by MindSpin

No no...I'd much rather be laughing at them getting caught in their own "we aren't a group" philosophy than watching them DDoS a private citizens website.

Because it's much easier, sitting back and judging something you don't understand isn't it?

I just think you are upset because you spent so much time defending them and champion their "cause" against WBC.

Nope. I'm grand and happy. Radiant almost

Incidentally, have we gotten any further to discovering whom, posted that original message to the baptists yet?

Originally posted by MindSpin
But...but...but....I thought we were all Anonymous??? I thought we were all Legion???

And hence, you see the issues with having a group that says they are not a group at all. So which is it Anonymous fanboys...is Anonymous an official "group"...or not?

It would seem that they can come out and claim that the WBC "threat" didn't officially come from Anonymous...then that makes them an official "group".

And if WBC did create this "hoax" themselves...it just further shows how stupid it is to have a "group" that you say isn't a "group". If you have no representation for said "group"...then ANYONE can come out and claim responsibility or issues threats and say they are from that "group".

edit on 21-2-2011 by MindSpin because: (no reason given)

You are being far too concrete in your thinking. "Anonymous" is conceptual. Is there a "group"? Sure. It is anyone who follows the ideals and directions of the first people to "market" the concept of "Anonymous".

It is a philosophical idea that follows the concept of "I am Spartacus." When you talk about "Anonymous", you have a juxtaposition of a group that follows an idea, a concept. It is far to abstract to deal with in the black and white that you seem to be dealing with it in.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


If what you say is true...then how can Anonymous say they didn't issue the WBC "threat"???


If it is how you describe it, that anyone who wants to be part of Anonymous is part of Anonymous...then I just don't see how they can distance themselves from anyone claiming to act on behalf of Anonymous.


That is why the concept fails.

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

If what you say is true...then how can Anonymous say they didn't issue the WBC "threat"???


If it is how you describe it, that anyone who wants to be part of Anonymous is part of Anonymous...then I just don't see how they can distance themselves from anyone claiming to act on behalf of Anonymous.


That is why the concept fails.

But it didn't fail.

IF they had fallen for the bait. I would have called that a fail.

But they didn't. It's a near-miss sure. But not a fail.

reply to post by mr-lizard


The concept fails because Anonymous claims they aren't a "group"...but they turn around and say "this threat didn't come from our group".

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by mr-lizard

 

The concept fails because Anonymous claims they aren't a "group"...but they turn around and say "this threat didn't come from our group".

If they're not a group, what are they then?

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by mr-lizard

 

The concept fails because Anonymous claims they aren't a "group"...but they turn around and say "this threat didn't come from our group".

Well, they don't have a TIN or anything.

If your only beef with them is such a simple matter of semantics, then I can assume you really don't have a problem?

Well, by the replies I've seen so far "they" are doing a good job of living up to their name. No one is sure who they are or how many there are or even if there is more than one Anonymous group, which plays in their favor of course. But I would think someone or a group of somebodies would have to be in charge to make decisions and to write these press releases. You can't just have anyone making decisions on who to attack or who updates their AnonNews website. I know they say we are all one or whatever it is, but there has to be agreement somewhere and somehow on what they do and who they do it to, or it would just be chaos, and it is definitely coordinated.

Originally posted by MindSpin
But...but...but....I thought we were all Anonymous??? I thought we were all Legion???

And hence, you see the issues with having a group that says they are not a group at all. So which is it Anonymous fanboys...is Anonymous an official "group"...or not?

It would seem that they can come out and claim that the WBC "threat" didn't officially come from Anonymous...then that makes them an official "group".

And if WBC did create this "hoax" themselves...it just further shows how stupid it is to have a "group" that you say isn't a "group". If you have no representation for said "group"...then ANYONE can come out and claim responsibility or issues threats and say they are from that "group".

edit on 21-2-2011 by MindSpin because: (no reason given)

Its a good point however anyone who really knows what anonymous is knows it is not one group but an idea and ideals. "and ideas are bulletproof."

There are several creeds for the anonymous ideals floating around the internet. May I suggest you watch or read them to gain a better understanding.

The whole idea of anonymous is that it is not one leader, not one group not one target. Without those ego based limits it is more than the accumulation of its parts it is an idea and well if history has taught us anything...

reply to post by Shirak

There are several creeds for the anonymous ideals floating around the internet. May I suggest you watch or read them to gain a better understanding.

Why not just post them here to educate me?

The whole idea of anonymous is that it is not one leader, not one group not one target.

So how can Anonymous as a whole say they didn't make this threat??? What if it was just one small group of Anonymous...if there are many groups???

Seems to me that Anonymous has an identity crisis.

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by Shirak

 

There are several creeds for the anonymous ideals floating around the internet. May I suggest you watch or read them to gain a better understanding.

Why not just post them here to educate me?

The whole idea of anonymous is that it is not one leader, not one group not one target.

So how can Anonymous as a whole say they didn't make this threat??? What if it was just one small group of Anonymous...if there are many groups???

Seems to me that Anonymous has an identity crisis.

Not my job to educate you Brotha I can see though that you have already bought the label the media is trying to box the idea under. I came to my own conclusions about anonymous by doing my own research not waiting for others to package it for me in a convenient happy meal based on their recipe on what they thought I should be consuming. May I suggest you do the same and you will get it friend...

reply to post by Shirak


You know, when I get a response like this, to me that says that you really don't know what you are talking about.

If you had done your research and already have all this information compiled...why not just share it???

Seems silly to direct me to go on some wild goose chase while you are holding the information already...wouldn't it just be easier to share the information you have already gathered??? At least post some links to resources.


I know you won't...because that was just an easy way to dodge...because I doubt you have any information or have done any research.

reply to post by MindSpin


Typical Strawman defense. I don't think projecting your skewed outlook of reality on me is going to have the effect you anticipated. The information is out there look for it. You have completely missed the point I made in that this is an idea not an authoritarian group. Me providing you a source for the information that is already out there only provides you a focal point to attack it. I feel this is beyond your current comprehension.

REPLY TO DEVILJIN:

Funny, I don't remember addressing you, but I guess thats forums, right? People not minding their own business. Oh well, I can live with that