Which makes him dumb enough to rise to the bait. Real skill there. Of course the entire mess was an entire fucking trap so they could try to sue Anonymous in the first place. So yeah, real skillful there.Chatboy 91 said:They hacked the website after a member was provoked, primarily to prove a point, the original hacks had nothing to do with it.
Research is your friend. You should get some experience with it. But here [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/17/hbgary_hack_redux/]'s a quick cheat sheet for you. Anon was provoked by Barr's announcement that they would disclose information about Anon's leadership at the BSides San Fransisco conference.Chatboy 91 said: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.
No, that's like a man dangling a small child in front of a pitbull and then kicking the dog. Sure, you can blame the dog for what followed, but it wasn't the dog's fault, and no court will agree with you.Chatboy 91 said: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.
And this is not a case of before and after. Anon pissed people off. Anyone who thinks that DDoSing a state website in the middle east will contribute to the collapse of the regime is either insane, so egotistical as to be capable of generating their own gravity well powerful enough to sucking their own head out their sphincter, or too stupid to live. Pick one.
As for "feeding information to protesters"? The only places I've seen information about this outside of Anon's own circle jerk sessions claimed that anonymous individuals were working to feed information around, the same as the anonymous individuals working to circumvent the internet lockdown, but not Anonymous members. Anonymous doesn't get to pick and choose like that, they don't get to include people that aren't part of their membership to make themselves look good.
Depends who it is. In this case it's someone who carried real weight in the organization, even if you didn't realize it at the time.Chatboy 91 said:In the case of Owen, the words of one do not out weigh the words of many.
I took an oath long ago not to rest while people were making irrational arguments and claiming it was their opinion, and that was all that mattered, because clearly their opinion was worth more than a rational logical argument.Chatboy 91 said: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.
At the rate their leadership is being vanned, and the effectiveness of their movement falters in the face of prosecution? No, their time is passing, all they can do now is flail about and claim that someone was hacking their wireless routers all this time.Chatboy 91 said: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.