A New Threat To ATS has emerged

Originally posted by h0rror
Good that the laws outside US are not made by Pentagon. You see this being a international website and all people from different countries also visit here which do not follow the laws made by pentagon.

Laws outside of the US also consider certain plants to be LEGAL yet we cannot discuss them here on ATS. It's obvious the rules here are trying to mirror the rules that the government uses to suppress it's population. You'd think the admin here would at lease be consistent with it's censorship.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

 

I'm just thinking the threat of them saying so is dangerous on a site this size.

Well if you really are worried about danger perhaps you shouldn't be on a dangerous website you know. Since several members of ATS and ATS itself was named in report by ADL last year on which even a thread was made on ATS: ADL releases Report Similar to SPLC. It may make surfing ATS dangerous to your wellbeing you know, since Pentagon doesn't much like or care for consipracy theory forum members.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by backinblack

 

In the old testament, god was a vengeful, grumpy old bastard.

Am I allowed to call him that?

How do you know it's a He?
Seems I remember something along the lines of "Let us", plural, as in a group.

But you are correct, Old Testament = "eye for an eye", New Testament = "turn the other cheek"

reply to post by Alxandro


LOL, our Creator's gender.....

she is definitely a "he", isn't she?

A "1" and a "2". Monad and Duad.

The rules here at ATS baffle me. It's so ironic that a site that brags about it's motto "deny ignorance" that the rules are so blatantly IGNORANT.

Too bad i cant give you a star for that one, but well, im just a pimple faced kid like someone said earlier.

PS somes cant even realize how many peoples are actually targeting ATS seriously, but as somes said, nones in his right mind would brag about it

Maybe its true, maybe not, or maybe im just totaly retarded

But dont try to rationalize something not working in a logical manner

Originally posted by eNumbra
Good, good.

Let's go after the communists next.

Which ones? The secular atheist muslim ones? Or the Socialist radical liberal homosexual Nazi ones? I get them confused these days.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Work with me here, Compadre, I never referred to Dios as being female.

Gender has nothing to do with it because the focus should be placed on plurality.
Since "THEY" made Man in "their" image, this tells me there was more than one entity involved.

Maybe something similar to some type of under-graduate experiment on a Universal scale.

Modern Acadamia, I just don't get u these days. Its like you've been thru some kind of gub'mint brainwashing or something. You keep saying the same things over and over about Wikileaks and Anonymous in every thread you can.

Like telling a lie, are you hoping that said enough times people will just believe you?

I don't, and never will unless there is some kind of proof. It is much more likely that those groups are simply "used" or taken advantage of by the CIA et al. That still doesn't make them one and the same.

In my opinion this is getting worse!

There are even some claiming to be part of this hacking group
This cannot be good for ATS

Since the discussion of anonymous is now tabboo, I have reported this thread.

Since the discussion should be neutral, neither pro or against.

If you don't want pro-anon supporters here, then in all fairness, the anti-anon crowd should follow the same rules.

Let's see how fair ATS really is.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I think that their intentions are good... However, there is only so much information and revelation you can get out of hacking a website and / or database!

Anonymous in my opinion pose no threat to a website like ATS as it is primarily user based content! Every bit of information on this site is displayed publicly and open to all, even guests / visitors to the site!

reply to post by mr-lizard


Where did you get that idea?

Originally posted by Theoretician
I think that their intentions are good... However, there is only so much information and revelation you can get out of hacking a website and / or database!

That's not the point though
See here's the thing
It wouldn't be so much of a big deal to me if people didn't pretend to be part of Anon
They are saying they are part of a group that hacks govt. websites
Intentions may be good but come on

I am not against Anon threads, i've created some myself
But I am against some saying they are part of Anon

What if members said they were part of Al-Qaeda?
Would that be acceptable?
Not the same thing? It's an e-version of Al-Qaeda

And since I believe these hacking attacks will be used as false flags to further deter our freedoms I then oppose such statements

I'd wish no one supports Anon like me but hey everyone is in title to their opinion
but claiming membership... that's another topic

reply to post by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
reply to post by mr-lizard

 

Where did you get that idea?

Since I am not allowed to discuss private u2u's, I will politely request I remain silent on the issue. However I request fairness.

I believe neutrality is the best course of action we take. If we cannot discuss such topics with bias towards the pro side, then I also believe the anti crowd should also remain silent.

I have noticed many members and threads have been silenced, however when reporting other violations of the T&C I have received no feedback or repies.

Thus I propose absolute neutrality. This should hopefully keep everyone happy and remain within the guidelines and rules.

Regards, Mr L

Originally posted by mr-lizard
I have noticed many members and threads have been silenced, however when reporting other violations of the T&C I have received no feedback or repies.

Are you mistaking thread management -- removing new threads that too-closely match existing threads -- as an attempt to silence discussion of the Anonymous "group?"

As far as I can tell, that's what's happening. And any global content/topic restriction would come from myself or Springer, and no such thing has happened relative to "Anonymous."

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
The government would assign maybe a janitor to monitor ats..... i think some people give themselves a weee bit too much credit on what they are capable of 'exposing' making their posts a threat to national security.

I do hope we stop using the term e terrorist.... don't fall for that manipulation....first they sold you the reds under your beds, your next threat were the muslims, and now you want to label yourselves e terrorists so it gives the government excuses to monitor and control free speech on the internet....Patriot act 2.1 where you can only subscribe to certain places, bit like china.......its coming your way if you all buy into the latest scaremongering sales pitch.

I agree 100%. They only want to control something else, DON'T BUY INTO IT. There will be NO pat downs here.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Are you mistaking thread management -- removing new threads that too-closely match existing threads -- as an attempt to silence discussion of the Anonymous "group?"

As far as I can tell, that's what's happening. And any global content/topic restriction would come from myself or Springer, and no such thing has happened relative to "Anonymous."

Well said.

How different is Anonymous from any other 'group' discussed on ATS?

Just sayin' ...

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
I consider Anon to be e-terrorists, I do not like them because it's not non-violent protests, it is violent and costs businesses money and maybe even jobs and also they help deter liberties.

I consider those who operate under the banner of "Anonymous" who use a computer to uncover corporate and government malfeasance to be the equivalent (if not slightly more lazy equivalent) to the dumpster-diving activists who did the same, some years ago. But with a caveat -- those using illegal means to break into secure computer networks are criminals... but not "e-terrorists" where the term, terrorist, is a knee-jerk bogey-man exaggeration.

Wait... what? Seems like a contradiction.

Not really. Insecure computer networks and servers are everywhere. Guessing a directory structure of an unsecured folder on a server connected to the Internet is the equivalent to opening the lid of an unlocked dumpster. Using bruit-force password hacks and denial-of-service attacks are illegal.

One can argue till the face turns blue that the intentions of "Anonymous" are altruistic with the "greater good" in mind. And I don't doubt there are those who work under the Anonymous Flag that have altruism in mind. But their "announcements" are a bit too grandstanding, individuals pretending to be Anonymous using "we" as if it's some scary pronoun, the Guy Fawkes mask (someone with murderous intent), the videos, and all else amount come across as more attention-seeking than altruism.

Sorry... that's how I see it.

I hope good comes of their efforts. I hope society changes for the better. I hope the public awakens.

But I fear their efforts will backfire, and we all see some degree of change for the worst as a result.

This isn't a "threat to ATS," it's a threat to all if something goes wrong.