On Anonymous

iDoom46

New member
Dec 31, 2010
268
0
0
Clipclop said:
iDoom46 said:
Clipclop said:
they attack everything from children to governments and everything in between. Just because somebody pissed you off online doesn't give you the right to send hundreds and hundreds of your buddies in his direction. You wouldn't do it in real life, but of course your keyboard warriors can gang up on single targets online.

No one deserves to have a mob at their door step. If you had any grasp on reality anymore you'd probably realize this for half a second.
If you've EVER seen how the group works, then you'd know that simply isn't true.
You have to do something OVERTLY CRUEL OR OFFENSIVE (or, in some rare, unfortunate cases, extremely stupid) on the internet to warrant them attacking you. Otherwise, the typical response is "Not your personal army, GTFO."

You obviously don't understand Anonymous, what the group stands for, or how it works.

And Anonymous isn't the only group that does these things. Anonymous internet vigilantism happens all over the internet ALL THE DAMN TIME. Its just that most of the big instances in the western hemisphere get associated with Anonymous, by virtue of their name.
I'm going to actually respond to all of you here. because your voice is singing the same tune. "a 12 year old child deserves to be harassed by grown adults from hundreds of miles away."

I know you 3 are in the monitory. everyone has pretty much completely disproved and shoved aside that whole "freedom of speech" "we do this for YOU!" bologna, perfect example is they guy flooding my e-mail box right now with racial slurs because i "dared" attack anonymous. Not sure why he's doing it either cause its just a trip to ban town.

This proves again my point that you can't say anything negative about the group unless you want to be attacked.

You guys have some really screwed up morality issues if you think attacking children is ever justified. But its pretty obvoius you 2 hang with the group so its arguing against a wall of thugs again. Seriously, you both are extremely transparent.
While I can't speak for the others you may be arguing with, or that fellow emailing you, I'd like to reassure you that I was not in any way attacking you. There's no need to be so defensive. I was just letting you know that you have some misconceptions about Anon.

On the topic of misconceptions, you appear to be under the impression that all trolls from 4chan = Anonymous, and this simply isn't true. I can assure you that most of the people who were pestering that poor Jessie girl were not the same people who helped find that kid who lit his pet cat on fire.

Anonymous is a big group that anybody can join, obviously you're going to get some bad apples. The same is true for any group of equal size. Anon only seems worse because you can't tell the difference from the good and the bad, and its so much easier to be bad on the internet.

I won't try defend the parts of Anonymous that tell random girls to strip online or ruin the lives of people like Ms. Slaughter as some kind of "social justice" because that simply isn't true. There is no equality, what these poor people get in "retaliation" is far worse than what they had done.
But I will say that, at the very least, the experience is a lesson, not only to the victim, but to future people who might say or do something inflammatory or stupid on the internet to think twice before they do so. After all, Anonymous isn't the only group of people who can ruin your life if they find you post "I hate niggers!" all the time.
A perfect example is that kid Casey from (I think it was) Australia. Sure, he over reacted when he pile-drived his bully into the concrete floor, but that bully is going to think twice about picking on other kids in the future.

I'm not saying its right. I'm saying its effective.

Finally, Anonymous doesn't attack people who disagree with them. One of their mottoes is "I may not like what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it!", after all. They attack people who say negative, hurtful, inflammatory things, or people who they see as hurting others by their actions. Its an entirely subjective mindset, to be sure, but it works for them.
People who disagree with Anonymous get attacked by people who idolize Anonymous, usually the lower peons, new members, and people who aren't even actively part of the group.

Anonymous is just a group of pranksters, and treating them as anything more (be it bad or good) is pointless and just asking for trouble.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Clipclop said:
Therumancer said:
Clipclop said:
[
wait wait wait wait WAIT.


wait.


Your telling me the guy who wrote this article frequents 4chan. the place where all this started in the first place? NOW it all makes sense. I bet the EC guys also hang there as well.

Good lord this pretty much wraps up everything. Neutrality, oh how we knew ye.
Well, to be fair, pretty much everyone with an internet capable computer has probably visited 4chan at some point, just to see it for themselves if nothing else, and the high amounts of traffic mean a lot of people are going to visit it frequently if they are interested in certain subjects, especially seeing as there is a lot more to it than just /b/ even if it's the most infamous section.

Personally though I'm wondering right now why we're seeing all this "love" being given to Anonymous anyway, as opposed to more discussion about Lulzsec... which is taking credit for the current activities. Even if that discussion is to ask the obvious question, especially given the "lulz" involved, if it's Anonymous or a spin off using a differant name.
because like it or not, they are a extension of anonymous. A splintered off horrible chaotic extension, but a extension all the same. People can blame one or the other because at any time "pieces" of anonymous can break off to do something terrible. For anon to sit back and say 'welp it wasn't us." and devolve themselves of all blame is complete insanity.



You know that Anonymous is not, and never was a group of white knights, right? You talk about horrible offshoots like Anonymous was some kind of heroic group to begin with. This is a group that singles out little girls like Jessie Slaughter and pretty much ruins their lives (even if she was kind of a twit). I just mention here because she's old news, but still pretty recent and I believe was mentioned on this site.

Anonymous was never a free speech, hacktivist group, they WERE an elemental force of chaos, and made no bones about it. Sure, they did some positive things here and there, but they were (or I should say they are) always primarily out for "the lulz" above and beyond anything else.

Anonymous by it's very nature would never say "we didn't do it" and that in of itself raises some questions about that denial... but that really isn't the subject here.

Anyone who thinks that this was against the standards of Anonymous, or against their creed, or whatever else, really has no idea what they are talking about, or who they are talking about, and I'm not just talking about Anonymous' own statements... I'm talking about their deeds. They have a body of work going back many years now, even if many people are just now becoming aware of them.


Lulzsec might be an Anonymous offshoot, but then again Anonymous claims typically claims to be itself irregardless of whatever else is going on.

The point here being that right now a differant group/name is taking responsibility here, and that does seem to imply that Anonymous is not involved in the most recent chaos. That by no means says anything about Anonymous overall... I very much doubt if Anonymous as a whole cares what anyone thinks about them. I just think that if we're going to talk about this issue we should at least be clear about the guys who are claiming responsibilit
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,877
0
0
Clipclop said:
If I wasn't browsing one of the /i/ boards right now, I would actually consider whatever your saying. I am looking right now at a 140 post thread of a group of anons just railing this black guy... and guess for what? for nothing basically the thread consensus is "he's a ****** and does ****** things" Its a lynch mob without ropes. And there is nothing warranted about it, there is nothing to be learned its just bullies being bullies. They already dropped his dox, they already harassing him with racist calls they apparently smacked down his myspace page. For. no. reason.

he's just a guy who they settled on for nothing. Sure is justice in here.
Yeah, that's the 4chan we all know, love, and want to pull out and nuke the site from orbit just to be sure. Kinda puts a damper on the whole "we're the good guys" bullshit.
 

Nick_Snyder

New member
May 20, 2011
30
0
0
iDoom46 said:
Clipclop said:
iDoom46 said:
Clipclop said:
they attack everything from children to governments and everything in between. Just because somebody pissed you off online doesn't give you the right to send hundreds and hundreds of your buddies in his direction. You wouldn't do it in real life, but of course your keyboard warriors can gang up on single targets online.

No one deserves to have a mob at their door step. If you had any grasp on reality anymore you'd probably realize this for half a second.
If you've EVER seen how the group works, then you'd know that simply isn't true.
You have to do something OVERTLY CRUEL OR OFFENSIVE (or, in some rare, unfortunate cases, extremely stupid) on the internet to warrant them attacking you. Otherwise, the typical response is "Not your personal army, GTFO."

You obviously don't understand Anonymous, what the group stands for, or how it works.

And Anonymous isn't the only group that does these things. Anonymous internet vigilantism happens all over the internet ALL THE DAMN TIME. Its just that most of the big instances in the western hemisphere get associated with Anonymous, by virtue of their name.
I'm going to actually respond to all of you here. because your voice is singing the same tune. "a 12 year old child deserves to be harassed by grown adults from hundreds of miles away."


I know you 3 are in the monitory. everyone has pretty much completely disproved and shoved aside that whole "freedom of speech" "we do this for YOU!" bologna, perfect example is they guy flooding my e-mail box right now with racial slurs because i "dared" attack anonymous. Not sure why he's doing it either cause its just a trip to ban town.

This proves again my point that you can't say anything negative about the group unless you want to be attacked.

You guys have some really screwed up morality issues if you think attacking children is ever justified. But its pretty obvoius you 2 hang with the group so its arguing against a wall of thugs again. Seriously, you both are extremely transparent.
While I can't speak for the others you may be arguing with, or that fellow emailing you, I'd like to reassure you that I was not in any way attacking you. There's no need to be so defensive. I was just letting you know that you have some misconceptions about Anon.

On the topic of misconceptions, you appear to be under the impression that all trolls from 4chan = Anonymous, and this simply isn't true. I can assure you that most of the people who were pestering that poor Jessie girl were not the same people who helped find that kid who lit his pet cat on fire.

Anonymous is a big group that anybody can join, obviously you're going to get some bad apples. The same is true for any group of equal size. Anon only seems worse because you can't tell the difference from the good and the bad, and its so much easier to be bad on the internet.

I won't try defend the parts of Anonymous that tell random girls to strip online or ruin the lives of people like Ms. Slaughter as some kind of "social justice" because that simply isn't true. There is no equality, what these poor people get in "retaliation" is far worse than what they had done.
But I will say that, at the very least, the experience is a lesson, not only to the victim, but to future people who might say or do something inflammatory or stupid on the internet to think twice before they do so. After all, Anonymous isn't the only group of people who can ruin your life if they find you post "I hate niggers!" all the time.
A perfect example is that kid Casey from (I think it was) Australia. Sure, he over reacted when he pile-drived his bully into the concrete floor, but that bully is going to think twice about picking on other kids in the future.

I'm not saying its right. I'm saying its effective.

Finally, Anonymous doesn't attack people who disagree with them. One of their mottoes is "I may not like what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it!", after all. They attack people who say negative, hurtful, inflammatory things, or people who they see as hurting others by their actions. Its an entirely subjective mindset, to be sure, but it works for them.
People who disagree with Anonymous get attacked by people who idolize Anonymous, usually the lower peons, new members, and people who aren't even actively part of the group.
iDoom46
Anonymous is just a group of pranksters, and treating them as anything more (be it bad or good) is pointless and just asking for trouble.

(Crap, sorry, my computer screwed up on the quoting thing. The above portion is from iDoom46. I'm sorry about that one.)

I'm referring to the kid from Australia, Casey. He solved his problem personally. I can't really see any one person that belongs to "Anonymous" or even says they are actually solving a problem first hand. Person to person. I know about the Guy Fawkes incidents in front of the Scientology Churches.

As for being "just a group of pranksters". I'd say they go above and beyond being a group of pranksters.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,877
0
0
Therumancer said:
You know that Anonymous is not, and never was a group of white knights, right?
You know that "white knights" used to be a Klan rank or an epithet for their members?

Sorry, it's not that I don't disagree with you, it's just, in context, alternately either very clever or... something.
 

Nick_Snyder

New member
May 20, 2011
30
0
0
Clipclop said:
Nick_Snyder said:
iDoom46 said:
Clipclop said:
iDoom46 said:
Clipclop said:
they attack everything from children to governments and everything in between. Just because somebody pissed you off online doesn't give you the right to send hundreds and hundreds of your buddies in his direction. You wouldn't do it in real life, but of course your keyboard warriors can gang up on single targets online.

No one deserves to have a mob at their door step. If you had any grasp on reality anymore you'd probably realize this for half a second.
If you've EVER seen how the group works, then you'd know that simply isn't true.
You have to do something OVERTLY CRUEL OR OFFENSIVE (or, in some rare, unfortunate cases, extremely stupid) on the internet to warrant them attacking you. Otherwise, the typical response is "Not your personal army, GTFO."

You obviously don't understand Anonymous, what the group stands for, or how it works.

And Anonymous isn't the only group that does these things. Anonymous internet vigilantism happens all over the internet ALL THE DAMN TIME. Its just that most of the big instances in the western hemisphere get associated with Anonymous, by virtue of their name.
I'm going to actually respond to all of you here. because your voice is singing the same tune. "a 12 year old child deserves to be harassed by grown adults from hundreds of miles away."


I know you 3 are in the monitory. everyone has pretty much completely disproved and shoved aside that whole "freedom of speech" "we do this for YOU!" bologna, perfect example is they guy flooding my e-mail box right now with racial slurs because i "dared" attack anonymous. Not sure why he's doing it either cause its just a trip to ban town.

This proves again my point that you can't say anything negative about the group unless you want to be attacked.

You guys have some really screwed up morality issues if you think attacking children is ever justified. But its pretty obvoius you 2 hang with the group so its arguing against a wall of thugs again. Seriously, you both are extremely transparent.
While I can't speak for the others you may be arguing with, or that fellow emailing you, I'd like to reassure you that I was not in any way attacking you. There's no need to be so defensive. I was just letting you know that you have some misconceptions about Anon.

On the topic of misconceptions, you appear to be under the impression that all trolls from 4chan = Anonymous, and this simply isn't true. I can assure you that most of the people who were pestering that poor Jessie girl were not the same people who helped find that kid who lit his pet cat on fire.

Anonymous is a big group that anybody can join, obviously you're going to get some bad apples. The same is true for any group of equal size. Anon only seems worse because you can't tell the difference from the good and the bad, and its so much easier to be bad on the internet.

I won't try defend the parts of Anonymous that tell random girls to strip online or ruin the lives of people like Ms. Slaughter as some kind of "social justice" because that simply isn't true. There is no equality, what these poor people get in "retaliation" is far worse than what they had done.
But I will say that, at the very least, the experience is a lesson, not only to the victim, but to future people who might say or do something inflammatory or stupid on the internet to think twice before they do so. After all, Anonymous isn't the only group of people who can ruin your life if they find you post "I hate niggers!" all the time.
A perfect example is that kid Casey from (I think it was) Australia. Sure, he over reacted when he pile-drived his bully into the concrete floor, but that bully is going to think twice about picking on other kids in the future.

I'm not saying its right. I'm saying its effective.

Finally, Anonymous doesn't attack people who disagree with them. One of their mottoes is "I may not like what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it!", after all. They attack people who say negative, hurtful, inflammatory things, or people who they see as hurting others by their actions. Its an entirely subjective mindset, to be sure, but it works for them.
People who disagree with Anonymous get attacked by people who idolize Anonymous, usually the lower peons, new members, and people who aren't even actively part of the group.

Anonymous is just a group of pranksters, and treating them as anything more (be it bad or good) is pointless and just asking for trouble.

I'm referring to the kid from Australia, Casey. He solved his problem personally. I can't really see any one person that belongs to "Anonymous" or even says they are actually solving a problem first hand. Person to person. I know about the Guy Fawkes incidents in front of the Scientology Churches.

As for being "just a group of pranksters". I'd say they go above and beyond being a group of pranksters.
You might want to go back and fix your breakdown, you screwed up the quote boxes.
Sorry about that one, I'm new to posting on this website and am not quite used to it yet.
 

wolas3214

New member
Mar 30, 2011
254
0
0
I hate to be the stereotypical /b/tard but this thread is full of lulz. Best advice from anon, about anon. Is to just let it slide. Anon is NOT a personal army and if you give them nothing to work with they lose interest. to people defending jessie slaughter, really? Really?

Anywho.. anon will always be some strange intangible force, only reappearing "for the lulz" I wouldnt try to explain it, it cant be done.
 

Chatboy 91

New member
Feb 25, 2011
101
0
0
Starke said:
Chatboy 91 said:
By hacking their website ON TV. Yeah, that worked well.

Chatboy 91 said:
Which was, let's review, dumb luck. They didn't go out of their way to uncover HBGary's nefarious plans, they went out there to ***** slap someone for daring to reveal who they actually were. Along the way, they got lucky and secured a data cache they shouldn't have. That's a black eye to how shitty HBGary's internal security was, but it wasn't a positive gain.

It's like breaking into someone's house to steal their TV because you don't like what they're saying about you. Along the way you find out they were planning to murder someone. That isn't a net positive, you still committed a fucking crime getting in there in the first place, and you can still be charged with that.

Chatboy 91 said:
Well, one of these things never happened... the rest... well, the rest never happened either. Let's take this apart. Tunisia happened first. Anon "noticed" the protests after they'd been going on for weeks, and decided to jump in ass for brains first. They launched DDoS attacks against the State sites. Tunisia went batshit, and cracked down harder on the protesters. We had people being disappeared, we had an internet crackdown, we had people dying. After the dust cleared, Anonymous patted itself on the back, told themselves they'd done a great job and rolled onto the next target.

In Egypt we had another anonymous instigated crackdown. You can say they aren't connected, and there is a legitimate fallacy: post hoc, ergo proctor hoc, but at the end of the day, this was cause and effect, not just before and after. Anonymous got people killed.

A group of anonymous hackers did work on getting around the internet lockdown in Egypt, but it is seriously doubtful that they were affiliated with Anonymous for a simple reason: they were competent. To date all of anon's attacks have been pathetically low tech, low skill intrusions or DDoS attacks on a compromised utility.

In the end, they hid behind anonymity, claimed success and glory for the victories regardless of their influence in them, and ignored their failures.

Chatboy 91 said:
Ars Technica article said:
"Owen has not only told me that he doesn't really give a shit about freedom of speech, he's also moderately against the action that's being taken on Sony," this Anon said.
... Right. You were saying?

For those not keeping score at home, "Owen" was one of those ShadowAnons who functioned as an actual leadership structure while hiding behind the masses claiming there was no underlying structure.

Link [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/the-hackers-hacked-main-anonymous-irc-servers-seized.ars]
They hacked the website after a member was provoked, primarily to prove a point, the original hacks had nothing to do with it.

I would love to know where you heard that they decided to infiltrate HBGary's website solely to prove a point and not find information. The stealing metaphor doesn't exactly work when you consider that they were trying to simply undermine HBGary through information.

Anonymous not only took down state websites but also supplied information to protesters, which helped topple the government. As you say it is a fallacy to link the death or disappearance of individuals to Anonymous, blame the corrupt government, not the individuals seeking to help those in a fight, the same goes for Egypt.

In the case of Owen, the words of one do not out weigh the words of many.

But, let's face it we're arguing on the internet. You're set in your current beliefs, I'm currently set in mine. Let's just agree to disagree and stop wasting each other's time.

I will be the first to admit that Anonymous isn't perfect, but they have done good, and they certainly still have the potential to do far more good. I'll wait and see if they can.
 

wolas3214

New member
Mar 30, 2011
254
0
0
Nick_Snyder said:
wolas3214 said:
I hate to be the stereotypical /b/tard but this thread is full of lulz. Best advice from anon, about anon. Is to just let it slide. Anon is NOT a personal army and if you give them nothing to work with they lose interest. to people defending jessie slaughter, really? Really?

Anywho.. anon will always be some strange intangible force, only reappearing "for the lulz" I wouldnt try to explain it, it cant be done.
You're a newfag aren't ya.
Mostly a lurker, I like to post on these anon threads however.
 

wolas3214

New member
Mar 30, 2011
254
0
0
Nick_Snyder said:
wolas3214 said:
I hate to be the stereotypical /b/tard but this thread is full of lulz. Best advice from anon, about anon. Is to just let it slide. Anon is NOT a personal army and if you give them nothing to work with they lose interest. to people defending jessie slaughter, really? Really?

Anywho.. anon will always be some strange intangible force, only reappearing "for the lulz" I wouldnt try to explain it, it cant be done.
You're a newfag aren't ya.
Damnit, double post.
 

Nick_Snyder

New member
May 20, 2011
30
0
0
wolas3214 said:
Nick_Snyder said:
wolas3214 said:
I hate to be the stereotypical /b/tard but this thread is full of lulz. Best advice from anon, about anon. Is to just let it slide. Anon is NOT a personal army and if you give them nothing to work with they lose interest. to people defending jessie slaughter, really? Really?

Anywho.. anon will always be some strange intangible force, only reappearing "for the lulz" I wouldnt try to explain it, it cant be done.
You're a newfag aren't ya.
Mostly a lurker, but i've been lurking for quite some time. However i like to post on these anonymous threads.
I was enjoying it too. There are some things that need to be clarified and people need to accept responsibility for their actions. But sticking up for a group that doesn't really "exist" is really stupid.
 

draythefingerless

New member
Jul 10, 2010
539
0
0
Nick_Snyder said:
Hristo Tzonkov said:
Clipclop said:
Gonna make this as simple as possible for you. Its a 12 year old acting stupid online. a bunch of mostly 21+ year olds completely wrecked her shit in the HUNDREDS. NOTHING she could have done would warrant this.

Nothing. And guess what? if they had come out from behind their keyboards, instead of being completely slimy poeple dispensing "justice" from hundreds of miles away. They would have all been arrested and put into INTENSIVE THERAPY for harassing in mass a 12 year old girl because she "deserved it"

This is not the way functioning humans adults are supposed to work. This is SICKENING.
Neither should a 12 yo girl function that way.It's her retarded kind that invented the kiddy cyber bullying.Running around fb posting shit on slightly chubby children further ruining their self esteem.You probably don't even know about that problem around the internet and it's not for the lulz or spawned from 4chan/anonymous.

PS:She did deserve it.And I lold when I saw it.

PSS:Thanks for making it simple.Totally reminded me of the whole ordeal and got me cheered up.
No 12 year old deserves that! She's 12 for Christ sakes! When you were 12 did you ever say anything relatively intelligent?
When i was 12, doing stupid irresponsible stuff got me punished. I fully agree with what she got. She will think twice next time she decides to dance around the internet swinging middle finger at everyone. why dont you go in a mall and do that?

Oh, and, this was NewFags. not Anon ideals. NewFags. google it.
 

wolas3214

New member
Mar 30, 2011
254
0
0
Nick_Snyder said:
wolas3214 said:
Nick_Snyder said:
wolas3214 said:
I hate to be the stereotypical /b/tard but this thread is full of lulz. Best advice from anon, about anon. Is to just let it slide. Anon is NOT a personal army and if you give them nothing to work with they lose interest. to people defending jessie slaughter, really? Really?

Anywho.. anon will always be some strange intangible force, only reappearing "for the lulz" I wouldnt try to explain it, it cant be done.
You're a newfag aren't ya.
Mostly a lurker, but i've been lurking for quite some time. However i like to post on these anonymous threads.
I was enjoying it too. There are some things that need to be clarified and people need to accept responsibility for their actions. But sticking up for a group that doesn't really "exist" is really stupid.
Agreed, unless you somehow thought i was sticking up for them? Although i will admit i am biased torwards anon. They used to be decent people and that spirit does show up every now and again. Frankly, i think it should just run its course. What some people dont seem to understand is that many anons are just unloved man-children. You can appeal to them just like any other person.
 

Nick_Snyder

New member
May 20, 2011
30
0
0
draythefingerless said:
Nick_Snyder said:
Hristo Tzonkov said:
Clipclop said:
Gonna make this as simple as possible for you. Its a 12 year old acting stupid online. a bunch of mostly 21+ year olds completely wrecked her shit in the HUNDREDS. NOTHING she could have done would warrant this.

Nothing. And guess what? if they had come out from behind their keyboards, instead of being completely slimy poeple dispensing "justice" from hundreds of miles away. They would have all been arrested and put into INTENSIVE THERAPY for harassing in mass a 12 year old girl because she "deserved it"

This is not the way functioning humans adults are supposed to work. This is SICKENING.
Neither should a 12 yo girl function that way.It's her retarded kind that invented the kiddy cyber bullying.Running around fb posting shit on slightly chubby children further ruining their self esteem.You probably don't even know about that problem around the internet and it's not for the lulz or spawned from 4chan/anonymous.

PS:She did deserve it.And I lold when I saw it.

PSS:Thanks for making it simple.Totally reminded me of the whole ordeal and got me cheered up.
No 12 year old deserves that! She's 12 for Christ sakes! When you were 12 did you ever say anything relatively intelligent?
When i was 12, doing stupid irresponsible stuff got me punished. I fully agree with what she got. She will think twice next time she decides to dance around the internet swinging middle finger at everyone. why dont you go in a mall and do that?

Oh, and, this was NewFags. not Anon ideals. NewFags. google it.
There is a difference between doing something and getting admonished in public, and doing something in which you are condemned by a group of people that are mostly trying to humiliate you on the net. Once again, I reiterate, she was 12 and being harassed by a group of people that are probably 21 year old basement dwellers that live at their parent's house.
 

Nick_Snyder

New member
May 20, 2011
30
0
0
wolas3214 said:
Nick_Snyder said:
wolas3214 said:
Nick_Snyder said:
wolas3214 said:
I hate to be the stereotypical /b/tard but this thread is full of lulz. Best advice from anon, about anon. Is to just let it slide. Anon is NOT a personal army and if you give them nothing to work with they lose interest. to people defending jessie slaughter, really? Really?

Anywho.. anon will always be some strange intangible force, only reappearing "for the lulz" I wouldnt try to explain it, it cant be done.
You're a newfag aren't ya.
Mostly a lurker, but i've been lurking for quite some time. However i like to post on these anonymous threads.
I was enjoying it too. There are some things that need to be clarified and people need to accept responsibility for their actions. But sticking up for a group that doesn't really "exist" is really stupid.
Agreed, unless you somehow thought i was sticking up for them? Although i will admit i am biased torwards anon. They used to be decent people and that spirit does show up every now and again. Frankly, i think it should just run its course. What some people dont seem to understand is that many anons are just unloved man-children. You can appeal to them just like any other person.
Didn't really mean that, I guess it came out wrong. But, yeah, it used to actually seem like they were getting some things done that actually helped people as a collective. Now not so much.