By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
theprof00 on 05 May 2011
Edit Thread
vlad321 said:
theprof00 said:

"How are you statements not mutually exclusive? You explain how a person can be a member of anon without anon even knowing, and then say, "then why did anon not know about it"?"

"Let me spell it out for you then. Random group of people gets together. They want to achieve 1 specific goal. Any time a situation like this happens, where there is one common specific goal, a "leader" will emerge, in this case it's probably Random Guy #732 who knows what he is talking about when it comes to the given situation. Next time it could be Random Guy #17. When they are done said leaders, or Random Guy #673 who knows how to make a statement without getting caught, goes out and gloats about how some company got screwed or not."

"2. Again, you're bringing a leader into this. You're once again creating a group context for a lone gunman."

"2. Except that you don't seem to understand that your "lone gunman" would be Random Guy #59, and in the end if a given end was the goal of the current set of people who associate with Anonymous at the time, they would be gloating about it. Anonymous is the label given to the group of people behind the current effort, and if a result is reachd, the group will gloat about it. The Anonymous that hacked into Gawker, is probably not the same one that hacked HBGary. If they gloat in the next few weeks, I wouldn't be surprised, however since they haven't gloated yet, it is just plain stupid to think it's them."

 

At the beginning I asked how you could explain the stateless entity that is anon, and yet treat them like a group of people who are all on the same page. You've done it 3! THREE times now, and your only tiny little acceptance that you may be wrong is "haven't gloated yet"- "yet", followed by "it's just stupid to think it's them".

It's stupid to think it's them, and by your own logic, it's smart to think it's Sony.

 

OH OH OH, by the way, you also said, "So wait, are you implying that Anonymous wouldn't gloat until the victims found out it was them? If not, then there is no point to your argument."

You used the following three posts to support your claim by saying that anon would have claimed it by no, and that they have "failed to claim", so it can't be them.

And now you say you won't be surprised if they claim in the next few weeks.

 

 

I don't care to continue the argument. You are practically admitting that you are wrong, but your ego is too fragile to outright say it.


Maybe your formatting is terrible, but I am still not quite clear which part of what I explained is it that you don't understand.

1. Is it how you can have an amorphous group with a purpose, which leads to temporary "leader" figures? Because I am fairly sure I explained that.

2. I also fail to see how someone can deduce from what I said that Sony hacked themselves, but weirder things make sense in peoples' heads.

"So wait, are you implying that Anonymous wouldn't gloat until the victims found out it was them? If not, then there is no point to your argument."

3.No problem here either. If it wasn't anonymous who put the text there I doubt they were expecting Sony to just blame them out of the blue. If they did put the text file there and announced it was them, it would be the same as if they had gloated, except all the ridicule. Not how Anon rolls given previous hacking jobs they have done.

4. The only point of failure of this argument comes down to your lack of understanding.

1. There is that. You say anon should've gloated. The only way that could be possible is if other anons knew about it. Or the hacker did it himself. You imply that there was social structure to this hack. You imply that this was a group of people. You imply that claiming the hack is REQUISITE. You imply that finding the .txt is not ridicule.

2. You fail to deduce that because it was never said.

3. Again, attributing past anon actions despite your own explanation of "temporary leaders". You keep attributing them as singular entities with singular habits. It is complete contradiction.

4. The only misnderstanding comes from multiple contradictions on your part.

And now you're ingnoring the contradiction that you first said, "it's not anon because it hasn't been claimed", and then you say you wouldn't be surprised if it happened a few weeks from now.

Like you said, avoiding the issues, back at you.