It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Arm Of Geddon
Originally posted by Anonymous13
Anon does not have common ideals. And it cannot be twisted.
We wouldn't have this thread if anonymous didn't have at least one common ideal (aka stop the alleged abuses by Co$).
The second sentence is opinion and I would also label it as wishful thinking. To absolutely believe that the direction of a bunch of people cannot be steered is just willful blindness. The possibility exists and has many examples in history.
Originally posted by Anonymous13
Ah. You are talking about real-life protests. Well, that is not really an anonymous affair.
I just watched a video of an "Anonymous" protest. Unless CGI has taken some quantum leaps I do believe it was real-life.
It would be a simple task for the media to use the name as a means of molding public perception against the non-group known as "Anonymous". Public perception is geared to the lowest common denominator.
You seem to be forgetting that no one is truly anonymous. You may be anonymous to me because I don't have the technology to find you. But the technology is out there. They told us they have it.
RE: Tom Cruise and the Cult of Scientology
since we already know from past history
that people cannot be forced into a particular religious belief, we know
also that what he was promoting, happily, was genocide on a global
scale.
Originally posted by another anon
you hope tom starts playing WoW?
Originally posted by Anonymous13Were you to visit one of our forums, you would soon discover that you are very, very wrong.
Originally posted by Anonymous13Not in the history of anonymous on-line communication. As my colleague above noted, Anonymous has no loyalty. There is nothing to steer with. And if you think there is, then I would ask you to demonstrate this.
Originally posted by Anonymous13But here, I am not anonymous...We just use the name out of affection for the on-line forums.
Originally posted by Anonymous13Remarkable that it hasn't happened. One of the interesting things about the Church of Scientology is that media loathe them. Were you expecting Anonymous to try to extend the workweek to six days, or something unpopular like that?
Originally posted by Anonymous13Irrelevant to the point, but I would ask that you not assume too much about what I remember and forget.
Originally posted by helatrobus
I mean who would want another arm of geddon?
Originally posted by helatrobus
I mean who would want another arm of geddon?
Originally posted by Arm Of Geddon
LoLz
Here's a question...
Who doesn't want the NWO to come to power?
I mean wouldn't it be easier to reform 1 world government than 192 separate ones?
Originally posted by Arm Of Geddon
Originally posted by Anonymous13Were you to visit one of our forums, you would soon discover that you are very, very wrong.
That sentence isn't meant to be taken to the extreme of me suggesting that everyone on those forums is on the anti-Co$ thing. But action has been taken on a common ideal. There is a group of people that took part in that action. That group has given themselves a title. The individuals can be tracked and possibly compromised. Utilizing the joke of the name "anonymous" as a way to deny the possibility that there is more going on, doesn't work.
I get it. There actually is no anonymous but yet there is, but there isn't, yet there is, ad infintum. I really do get it. But angular semantic navigation does not discount the points raised. In other words, it has nothing to do with what we think the definition of is, is.
Originally posted by Anonymous13Not in the history of anonymous on-line communication. As my colleague above noted, Anonymous has no loyalty. There is nothing to steer with. And if you think there is, then I would ask you to demonstrate this.
The very fact that there are videos, protests, and an ongoing debate in this forum show something different. After years of alleged Co$ abuse, only now does this obscure non-group of non-loyal netizens jump to action? It fits a pattern. I know the "internet control" pattern is deliberate. I do not know if the "AnonCoS" event fits the pattern deliberately or is unintentional. But it does have the possibility of fitting in nicely and with great timing to boot.
You ask me to demonstrate this possibility to you. And if I can't then it's impossibility stands? That doesn't follow. My inability, due to lack of resources, has nothing to do with it being possible.
Originally posted by Anonymous13But here, I am not anonymous...We just use the name out of affection for the on-line forums.
Why is this point constantly rehashed? I understand where the name comes from. It does not refute the points though. I find it interesting that some will absolutely and completely deny the possibility that this event could be more than meets the eye.
Originally posted by Anonymous13Irrelevant to the point, but I would ask that you not assume too much about what I remember and forget.
It's not irrelevant to my point. And the second sentence was just a figure of speech. Please don't attempt to make it look like I'm getting personal.
Originally posted by Prophet-Ezekiel