Slashdot Mirror


Griefers Assault Epileptics Via Message Board

An anonymous reader tips us to a story up at Wired reporting on what may be the first computer attack to inflict physical harm on victims. Last Saturday, griefers posted hundreds of bogus messages on the support forums of the nonprofit Epilepsy Foundation that used JavaScript and strobing GIFs to trigger migraines and seizures in users. For about 3% of the 50 million epileptics worldwide, flashing lights and colors can trigger seizures. "'I don't fall over and convulse, but it hurts,' says [an IT worker in Ohio]. 'I was on the phone when it happened, and I couldn't move and couldn't speak.' ... Circumstantial evidence suggests the attack was the work of members of Anonymous, an informal collective of griefers best known for their recent war on the Church of Scientology. The first flurry of posts on the epilepsy forum referenced the site EBaumsWorld, which is much hated by Anonymous. And forum members claim they found a message board thread — since deleted — planning the attack at 7chan.org, a group stronghold."

621 comments

  1. May or may not be the same Anons by TheSpoom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The members of Anonymous that did these hacks, if, in fact, that is who planned them, are likely not the same people protesting the Scientology organization.

    One of the things about Anonymous that makes it different than most groups is that there are no real leaders and that, due to its very nature, nobody really knows anyone else in the group short of a few people that they might know outside the anonymous forums (this is because on a lot of the boards that Anon originated on, posters are forced to post anonymously, hence the name).

    So it's really impossible to tell whether the people doing this are the same ones behind the masks at the protests.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
    1. Re:May or may not be the same Anons by athdemo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The fact that these Anonymous blamed it on ebaumsworld makes me think that almost beyond a shadow of a doubt it's the same people. Blaming ebaums is standard practice for the *chans. If you're trying to imply that the CoS is impersonating them to give them bad PR, I find it extremely unlikely they would've spent enough time researching 4chans raiding habits enough to know this, and even if they did, I doubt they would have done so. It wouldn't fit their purpose.

    2. Re:May or may not be the same Anons by couchslug · · Score: 1

      It could be that Scientologists joined the group and perpetrated the attacks to discredit it.
      It isn't too sophisticated a ploy for them to pull off.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    3. Re:May or may not be the same Anons by athdemo · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Modding an unmodded post as overrated is a great way to have a discussion, Anonymous mod.

    4. Re:May or may not be the same Anons by ninjapiratemonkey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The fact that the group "Anonymous" actually has no goal or objective that they strive for means that anyone can claim to do anything under the groups name, and hence be a "member" of the group. Now from this, any Scientologist could have caused these attacks, and then claim to be doing it for the "Anonymous" group, with no one ever going to dispute that claim. Anonymous is not really a group; it's more of an identity to hide behind all things internet-like.

      --
      01110000 01010111 01101110 00110011 01100100
    5. Re:May or may not be the same Anons by HappySmileMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Quite possibly this, all they'd really have to do it post on /i/ saying "LOL lets raid these forums" along with a link and a lot of people would do it without any serious work from CoS

    6. Re:May or may not be the same Anons by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1, Insightful

      >are likely not the same people protesting the Scientology organization.

      So wait, youre telling that vigilante hackers (thats what anon is) cant be responsible for this? Err, theyre fricking vigilantes and when theyre done with scientology its back to spamming for profit and managing the bot networks. I think its time to bury whole 'righteous hacker' mythology once and for all.

    7. Re:May or may not be the same Anons by seebs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can't speak for the rest, but:

      * I don't post to the chans, and never really got the point.
      * I think this is pretty lame behavior, and wouldn't do it.
      * I am active in protests and activism against the CoS.

      I feel about this a little like I feel about the discovery that some Americans torture people to death. It's true, and I can hardly claim they're not really American, or that I'm not American. I also can't stop them or do anything about them, even though I really don't think they should do that.

      I'm more inclined to blame it on the people who think they're "oldfags" (most of whom, it seems to me, are a bit newer to this than the people who wandered into the anti-CoS stuff) than on the CoS. It would be a very effective false flag attack, though, a great way to raise awareness that "Anonymous" is full of crazy-mean people.

      On the other hand, it's also a way to remind people that there are things worse than even the worst Anonymous has to offer, and the CoS is one of them. There are thousands of folks out there who looked at the history of Anonymous doing stuff like this, looked at the CoS, and decided to show up with a mask and a sign for the protests.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    8. Re:May or may not be the same Anons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The leaked Scientologist documents on procedure for combating "suppressive persons" put a heavy emphasis on knowing your enemy. I'm sure that the Church of Scientology is studying Anonymous very closely. They may be evil, but they're not stupid.

    9. Re:May or may not be the same Anons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand why people like to think of me as if i were a group. Or as if i were a person. Anonymous is the same as saying people. 'People DDOS the CoS', 'People assault epileptics'. You think if there was a murder and the cops get an anonymous call it was from me? No, because anonymous is not a group name. It is an english word which means the person has 'an unknown or unacknowledged name'. I have no idea where this confusion came from but i would like to blame fox news. 'Anonymous' cannot do anything there is no anonymous, just anonymous posters. God damn people can be dumb (not referring to you in particular)

    10. Re:May or may not be the same Anons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to not post anonymously, retard.

    11. Re:May or may not be the same Anons by seebs · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And I care why? I'm not anonymous. I'm just anti-CoS.

      I'm no more required to hide my identity than I am required to participate in harassing epileptics.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    12. Re:May or may not be the same Anons by EthanV2 · · Score: 1

      They are from the same collective, but have a different mentality.

    13. Re:May or may not be the same Anons by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, they are evil and also stupid, but they have a lot of time on their hands, and not much to do.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    14. Re:May or may not be the same Anons by linest · · Score: 1

      One of the things about Anonymous that makes it different than most groups is that there are no real leaders and that, due to its very nature, nobody really knows anyone else in the group short of a few people ...
      :%s/Anonymous/Al Qaeda/g
    15. Re:May or may not be the same Anons by maxume · · Score: 1

      So, is it still a group then? Or is it some sort of silly badge that you might not want to use because who knows what someone is going to use it for later?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    16. Re:May or may not be the same Anons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Circumstantial evidence suggests the attack was the work of members of Anonymous, an informal collective of griefers best known for their recent war on the Church of Scientology. In other news, Unidentified Attacker robbed a bank in Chicago. Five minutes later, a man in Kyoto was shot. Circumstantial evidence suggests that this was also the work of Unidentified Attacker.
    17. Re:May or may not be the same Anons by jkells · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "One of the things about Anonymous that makes it different than most groups is that there are no real leaders and that, due to its very nature, nobody really knows anyone else in the group short of a few people that they might know outside the anonymous forums"

      HAHAHA so anonymous has basically the same structure as Al Qaeda.

    18. Re:May or may not be the same Anons by jpdzahr · · Score: 0

      "The members of Anonymous that did these hacks" I'm confused was this a hack or was it an Anonymous posting? If it's a hack then there could be some criminal charges and prosecution for hacking a server and plus causing assaults - physical attacks on Epilepsy Patients via Computers. This could very well be a serious case and if enough people were assaulted that have an epileptic condition it could be criminal and civil case. See Epilepsy Doctors at http://www.healthfindershub.com/

    19. Re:May or may not be the same Anons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      <snip>

      Summary: I don't want to believe it, so I've convinced myself it's not true.

      And the slashtards think this is "Insightful".

    20. Re:May or may not be the same Anons by NickCatal · · Score: 1

      Or is COULD BE that there is no 'group' 'Anonymous', but simply a bunch of people who visit the *chans and Encyclopedia Dramatica and feel that they are not responsible for their actions because they are 'anonymous.'

      They feel they have no responsibility to anyone. And that lack of responsibility means they are free to act out what they would otherwise never do if it could be linked back to them. In some people this allows regressive behavior, in others it makes them feel powerful, and to some (most?) it is just entertaining to watch...

      With the CoS it is like the ultimate anonymous 'entertainment experience'. If people knew that Scientology was not taping them or keeping records less people would show up... They aren't protesting the CoS because they dislike the CoS, rather they are entertained by the idea of protesting something that really wishes it was not in the public spotlight...

      Now this does not apply to everyone in the CoS 'Anonymous.' Some people showed up because they agree that CoS is ruining peoples lives. But lets face it, CoS impacts next to nobody in this country... the Catholic Church teaches people that a guy 1980 years ago pulled off the ultimate 'suicide by cop' and rose from the dead 3 days later and almost nobody protests them... theatens story, absolutely everything created in just over a workweek, xenu, flying zombie... I mean seriously, CoS it is just a 'fun' target...

      And I mean no disrespect to the people in Anonymous whatsoever... the more time you spend trying to get the tax exempt status off of CoS the better...

      --
      -nick
    21. Re:May or may not be the same Anons by makomk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not like the fact that they always blame ebaumsworld is obscure or hard to find out. Also, there are almost certainly Scientologist members of Anonymous, have been since before the CoS raids. Even if it wasn't for this, I'd be very suprised if they hadn't put effort and time into investigating and monitoring the *chans.

    22. Re:May or may not be the same Anons by Entropius · · Score: 1

      When the anon stuff started going down I learned about the ebaumsworld calling card in an hour of reading encyclopediadramatica.

      Count on it that the Co$ has done the same. They're not stupid; they're just crazy.

    23. Re:May or may not be the same Anons by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      I don't frequent any of *chans, nor am I part of Anonymous, nor do I have any interest in raiding. I do, however, know that Anonymous has a habit of framing ebaumsworld when it does raid. I'm sure CoS people can find the same information with being just somewhat tuned into internet subculture. This means absolutely nothing.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    24. Re:May or may not be the same Anons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As has been said, there are very few unifying principles within anonymous. Contrary to increasingly popular belief, anonymous as a whole is absolutely NOT a group, just a whole range of diverse people that happen to post on the same forums. Violent disagreements are common, especially since the anti-CoS raids which some anon actively oppose due to perceived lack of amusement value and an influx of newbie posters. There has always been a dedicated troll / griefer element which has gained prominence since habbo demonstrated the power of /i/nvasions, but most anon are not actually malicious, they just have a dark sense of humour and enjoy being spectacularly politically incorrect.


      That said, I totally believe that some anons would do this. Other than the fact there are still threads on 420 about it similar things have been done before, e.g. spamming cutting images on self-harm forums. (Similarly, our very own trolltalk was responsible for a protracted assault on the mosaicminds multiple personality disorder forum.) The moral stance the CoS raids have taken on is out of character and partly due to the involvement of non-chan groups such as SA. Not all anonymous are nice people, and this raid seems to have been conducted largely to demonstrate that.

    25. Re:May or may not be the same Anons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So wait, youre telling that vigilante hackers (thats what anon is) cant be responsible for this?
      No, I think he's saying that a bunch of people posting on a forum can not be held responsible for the crimes that their fellow anonymous posters commit. Let's take slashdot for example, should you be held responsible for the crimes of someone else who posts on Slashdot? No, that would be insane, right? You wouldn't want to be held responsible for the crimes of others. At the very least, you would want the individual perpetrators to be caught for the individual crimes and the individual conspiracies they took part in (and from the looks of their chat log, it seems like it was a very very small conspiracy with really really sick people).

      There are definitely some sick-sick people on slashdot too (no offense guys, I'm not talking about all of you, just some of you). That's one of the reasons I browse most the comments with a minimum threshold of +3 only. And if any of you slashdotters commit crimes, I would hope that the police/FBI would be smart enough to only go after you guys -- not me.
    26. Re:May or may not be the same Anons by Lobster+Quadrille · · Score: 1

      ...which has the same structure as a P2P network.

      Your point?

      --
      "The cup is in turn designed for holding hot or cold liquids, and has an open rim and closed base." --US Patent #5425497
    27. Re:May or may not be the same Anons by l0cust · · Score: 1

      There are definitely some sick-sick people on slashdot too (no offense guys, I'm not talking about all of you, just some of you). That's one of the reasons I browse most the comments with a minimum threshold of +3 only. Hi there. Welcome to the internet. You will need a written permission from your parents before you can proceed to actually surfing the intarbutt. We look forward to your participation in this great medium. However, you won't need any such permission if you simply wait for 6 more years and hit 18 before coming back here. Have a nice day.
      --
      Politicians and Pedophiles: Two groups of exploitive bastards who are most dangerous when they're thinking of children.
  2. Cruel and unusual by Izabael_DaJinn · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I admit I usually think it is funny and appropriately rebellious when hackers set out to make a point. When they picked on the Scientologists it was funny. But this? Why this? It's like torturing your goldfish. Where is the challenge? What's the point?

    --
    Careful What You Wish For....
    1. Re:Cruel and unusual by MikeFM · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's not even new. I remember a virus in about the mid 90s that would attempt to cause the victim to have a seizure in the same manner. Also there was some Japanese cartoon that accidentally caused seizures in som watchers and it was popular for a while for people to post clips of the offending scenes on their websites. Not much a hack.

      I am surprised that sufferers of this condition can't get filtering software for their computer though that analyzes what is happening on the screen and blacks out, or otherwise makes safe, dangerous content. Looking for strobes should be a fairly easy thing. Hell, I'd be surprised if a lot of ad banners don't cause seizures.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    2. Re:Cruel and unusual by FudRucker · · Score: 4, Informative

      with Firefox open about:config search for image_animation_mode and set to none

      with Seamonkey in preferences > Privacy & Security > Images select Never to Animated images should loop...

      not sure about Opera as i don't have it currently installed, and as far as Internet Explorer i have no clue since i do not have or use windows...

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    3. Re:Cruel and unusual by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      Also there was some Japanese cartoon that accidentally caused seizures in som watchers and it was popular for a while for people to post clips of the offending scenes on their websites. Not much a hack.
      It was Pokemon. But the reason may be different: since that episode was never aired in the US, I guess some people wanted to try their luck, "russian roulette lite".
    4. Re:Cruel and unusual by trytoguess · · Score: 5, Informative

      To disable animation in Opera you go to Tools > Quick Preferences > uncheck "Enable GOF/SVG Animation"

    5. Re:Cruel and unusual by SilentChasm · · Score: 0, Redundant

      For Opera:
      Press F12 and deselect "Enable GIF/SVG animation"
      or go to Tools - Quick preferences F12 - Enable GIF/SVG animation

    6. Re:Cruel and unusual by wiredbuddy · · Score: 0, Redundant

      In Opera, F12 and uncheck "Enable GIF/SVG Animation"

    7. Re:Cruel and unusual by uglyduckling · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yup, and in fact the stupid London 2012 olympics logo trailer could trigger epilepsy and had to be removed from the web site. The fact that it is uniquely offensive in its own right without being combined into a mind-wrenching flashing animation makes the whole thing even worse.

    8. Re:Cruel and unusual by Looce · · Score: 1

      In Internet Explorer (version 6, anyway):

      Tools > Internet Options > Advanced > Multimedia: Play animations in web pages (uncheck).

    9. Re:Cruel and unusual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Opera just hit F12 and there's an option to disable GIF/SVG animation.

      ralph

    10. Re:Cruel and unusual by PMBjornerud · · Score: 1

      with Firefox open about:config search for image_animation_mode and set to none Or just hit [ESC] to instantly stop any animated gif on the page.
      --
      I lost my sig.
    11. Re:Cruel and unusual by binarybum · · Score: 1

      it was called "Japanese Seizure Robots" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z94jSRCCH-s

      --
      ôó
    12. Re:Cruel and unusual by Obsi · · Score: 1, Informative

      'Japanese cartoon... caused seizures"
      Pokemon. Episode #038. "Electric Soldier Porygon". http://www.serebii.net/anime/epiguide/indigo/038.shtml

    13. Re:Cruel and unusual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      To disable animation in lynx you go to ... uh... carry on.

    14. Re:Cruel and unusual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      with Firefox open about:config search for image_animation_mode and set to none
      Correct name is image.animation_mode, and it only disables animation in GIFs and (I guess) APNGs. It doesn't block flashing induced by Javascript, Java, inline videos, Flash (duh), SVG, CSS, page reloads, ...

      So, really blocking anything that could possibly flash is nontrivial and should probably be implemented at a lower level, in the rendering engine.
    15. Re:Cruel and unusual by QuietObserver · · Score: 1

      For Java, simply get NoScript, and be careful what you give scripting permissions to.

    16. Re:Cruel and unusual by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      I think it should be done at the video driver level probably. All you'd need to do was create a filter between the real video driver and the rest of the OS. I'd be surprised if nobody offers a solution for people with these kind of medical conditions. You couldn't stop all dangers, someone trying to avoid the filters could still figure out how to bypass them, but you could detect common issues such as strobbing sections of the screen.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  3. ebaums did it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    it was ebaumsworld... they hate us for our freedoms.

    1. Re:ebaums did it! by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 0, Troll

      ebaums did it! (Score:1)
      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 29, @05:07PM (#22907052)
      it was ebaumsworld... they hate us for our freedoms.


      No. YOU did it. Just look at your name. Anonymous Coward. That says it all!
    2. Re:ebaums did it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it wasn't him. He was too scared to do anything.

      We are legion, We are Anonymous, We are Cowards.

  4. Smear campaign by Scientology by the_skywise · · Score: 4, Insightful

    count on it.

    1. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by dosius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some Anons say there is but one Anon.

      I express solidarity with the Anons who fight the CoS, but I refuse to accept the Internet Hate Machine as being the same Anonymous. It is why I said before and I say again: There are TWO Anonymous.

      -uso.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    2. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Wavebreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not necessarily, however keep in mind that Anonymous is not a single organization but a collective of people who have different morals and values. Technically the Anonymous that griefs forums and social networking sites etc. shouldn't be considered the same entity as the Anonymous that's protesting scientology. Of course, this kind of thing is the downside of having no leadership or any kind of hierarchy whatsoever. In any case, I don't think it's fair to imply that these are the same people (altho in the interests of full disclosure, some might well be).

      --
      Nobody expects the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.
    3. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While it's certainly convenient timing for Anonymous to be linked with such a pr-unfriendly event, that's the only reason for Anonymous not to have done so. Face it, the people on the *chans, 4chan in particular, like griefing people, and there's no reason to think they wouldn't do something like this. Sure, a lot of Anons, maybe even a majority, might not do something like this, but when have any of the *chans been some kind of moral haven? The idea of Anonymous "standing up" to the CoS is outright ridiculous. I've been on 4chan for a long time and I would never associate myself with these people. These people are going to protests to "stand up to the CoS" and then go back home to surf 4chan and start threads like "I'll post CP if you can count to 5 Anonymous." This is just a massive joke.

    4. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by WhodoVoodoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      this is not true. There is not One or Two anonymous, there is NO anonymous.

      It's not useful to associate "anonymous" as a group or entity. "Anonymous" is a completely chaotic, anarchistic, loose association. It is akin to race. There are (excuse this analogy) white people, and there are other white people who do bad things, and there are yet more white people who do good things. It is not useful to say "white people" are anything, except that "white people" came from europe and have a history of colonialism.

      It is exactly the same with "anonymous". Anonymous is simply a subset of most people in the world who use the internet, and there is a subse tof them who do other things, and a subset of THEM who attack things, and a subset of this which may have assaulted an epilepsy board. But none of them are really related beyond circumstance.

      The point is "anonymous" does not have any goals or means or anything. They don't even share interests, the only real connection is a mode of communication (and often web sites). Some anonymous coalesce to do things, like protest scientology or mess around on the internet, but they are not related except by modes of action. Attributing causal notions to this Anonymous is fallacy.

    5. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by ins0m · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You bet. This sounds exactly like a false-flag attack to discredit Anonymous. They have already struck back once after Anonymous sandbagged their servers with DDoS and Gigaloader attacks. Co$ has been twisted up since the 2/10 and 3/15 peaceful demonstrations. Now that the /i/nsurgents are under the tutelage of Gregg Hagglund, Tory Christman, and Mark Bunker, it's only going to be a matter of time before OSA kicks it into high gear to start tracking these kids down.

      This is just a salvo of an upcoming battle, the likes of which Co$ hasn't ever seen before. So long as Anonymous can remain decentralized and have more than one forum to communicate, this could be interesting to see play out.

      --
      Never attribute to Hanlon that which can be adequately attributed to Heinlein.
    6. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by CyberData4 · · Score: 5, Informative

      ...Says the Anonymous Coward. Grow up.

    7. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by alex4u2nv · · Score: 1

      Anonymous is relative to how well detectives could trace the breadcrumbs.

      The whole "hack" comes off as a juvenile prank, and unless anonymous is impersonating anonymous, then I bet it was more l33t than elite.

    8. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Bert64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or could it be that, due to the original anonymous group against scientology being well, anonymous, they are easy to impersonate...
      Thus, the second anonymous group attacking epileptics is actually compose of members of the church of scientology seeking to discredit the original anonymous group?

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    9. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by arstchnca · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "and there's no reason to think they wouldn't do something like this." How about the fact that this isn't, well, that funny? It isn't very "troll" to post flashing gifs etc. It's not like the people seizing are going to make hilarious angry posts about how successful you were. This seems utterly different.

      --
      -- arstchnca
      --
    10. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by stinkytoe · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Man i wish i had mod points right now. As moot a point as it is for me to say so, i'd spend all 5 on you and the GP. You''dve gotten 3 positive, and the GP would've gotten 2 flaimbait, and id've felt my mod duties would have been achieved.

    11. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This was largely my thought, how exactly do we know that these are actually people that are affiliated with that movement, and not just Scientologists looking to smear their adversary.

      Or equally likely a random collection of griefers that hit on the idea of doing a threefer.

      The "evidence" that they've cited at the end is extremely tenuous. It could be related to the Anonymous effort to end Scientology, some Scientologists themselves or just a random assortment of people looking to cause as much trouble as possible.

      The thing that I kind of have to wonder about is why people with epilepsy would be cruising the net without pop up, javascript and gif blockers on. Even if there weren't an attack of this sort, there are plenty of sites on the net with animations and such which could very easily trigger these sorts of symptoms.

    12. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by FredFredrickson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mod parent up- Fact is that "anonymous" means nobody knows who did it. So blaiming the people who are attacking scientology for an anonymous attack is the same as blaiming every crime whose perpetrator is unknown on the group protesting scientology.

      It seems the only ones looking to benefit from making this connection would be the church of scientology itself, and this "article" just helps the scientology propaganda.

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    13. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Derosian · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily true, anonymous is also based strongly on anonymity. In fact anonymous describes people who try and draw attention to themselves in a very negative light, the only defense againt criticism from anonymous is to be anonymous. Thus why there are Anonymous and anonymous and those they call 'newfags'.

    14. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by HairyNevus · · Score: 3, Insightful
      So, basically true Anonymous are asshole douchebags?

      Oh noes! I guess I'm gonna get pizzas delivered to my homepage now?

      --
      You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
    15. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      "Camsluts" and "Attention Whores" are not drawn in a negative light. They're terms of endearment.

      Also, tits or GTFO.

    16. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah. The ones protesting the CoS are not true Anonymous. They can do what they want, but they're not what they claim to be.

    17. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by STrinity · · Score: 3, Funny

      These aren't the real Anons. And no true Scotsman wears underwear beneath his kilt.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    18. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Not necessarily, however keep in mind that Anonymous is not a single organization but a collective of people who have different morals and values. Technically the Anonymous that griefs forums and social networking sites etc. shouldn't be considered the same entity as the Anonymous that's protesting scientology. Of course, this kind of thing is the downside of having no leadership or any kind of hierarchy whatsoever. In any case, I don't think it's fair to imply that these are the same people (altho in the interests of full disclosure, some might well be).

      Down side? That's a strength.

      We have no values. What we do are our values. We need no leader to tell us what to do. It's not our business to tell each other what to do. We do what we do because we want to.

      Scientology can try to slander us all they want. Fox has tried, and failed. Because we are Anonymous.

    19. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Wavebreak · · Score: 1

      By 'this kind of thing' I meant the media saying that Anonymous did this or that Bad Thing. I've no issue with Anonymous myself.

      --
      Nobody expects the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.
    20. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 0

      You think some names would be handy at this point?

      Oh wait...

    21. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by dosius · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hence my "two Anonymous" comment. From my perspective, and I'm not a channer, most of the Chanology Anonymous reject the rest of Anonymous. The rest of Anonymous mostly rejects Chanology.

      And I know that Chanology started from the *chans, hence the name, but the *chans have rejected it since it took the high ground.

      -uso.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    22. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Those of us that reject Chanology know that Anonymous are not internet superheros. We are the internet hate machine.

    23. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I get an AMEN!? Preach it brotha!

    24. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Normally, I would say that's an interesting theory, but come on. Anonymous doesn't need any help in that department.

    25. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by popmaker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All this might mean however, that people make the connection between "anonymous", the group that protests scientology, and "anonymous", the internet assholes that cause epileptic seizures. People might not stop to think about all this "no-organization-no-values" ideology and simply make the mental connection that "Anonymous" is just like any other group of people, and they just might now make the conclusion that they are BAD. Thus the whole anti-scientology effort is undermined. Because if a group of assholes protests something - do we have any idea if what they were protesting was bad or not?

      It's the message that gets compromised, not the group, which - like you said - isn't really a group anyway.

    26. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Are you effing kidding me? Discredit Anonymous?

      Have you ever BEEN to 4chan or 7chan?

    27. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by dosius · · Score: 1

      Us Chanologists are just a relentless tidal wave of blank faces. The CoS doesn't know what to do with that. But that's not the real heroism. The Internet superheroes are people like Magoo, WBM, and other people who have been directly attacked by the CoS.

      -uso.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    28. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah lets discredit the people who post and make fun of kiddie porn, defiled corpses, brutalized animals, shitporn, and just about anything else you can think of.

      This is why the Co$ protests are retarded. You shouldn't bring attention to 4chan, especially not by a bunch of litigators that even made google bend to its will.

      And this is coming from a guy who lurks /b/ all day. /b/ is not your personal clubhouse. We'd reject you like every other group you've tried to belong to if we could, but we can't. That doesn't mean you belong or you should ask others to invade that girl you like's myspace. Fucking newfags.

    29. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by YukiCuss · · Score: 1

      Anonymous is not a group, it's a label.

    30. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by emilper · · Score: 2, Insightful

      awesome ? this was kind of lame, you know ... like taking candy from children, stealing crutches from the crippled and painting the faces of the blind; if they are so great and powerful, they should organize duels among themselves.

        more likely stupid than "awesome" , if they are the same group that took on the CoS.

    31. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by aurispector · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think we can all agree that this incident is utterly and completely reprehensible. It's one thing for griefers to screw around with overly serious gamers or troll/flame discussion boards - no real harm done at the end of the day. To deliberately attempt to induce a seizure may be a criminal act.

      Considering recent events it does not seem likely that "Anonymous" would do it - their campaign is meant to expose CoS's alleged misdeeds; an altruistic motive. Blaming "Anonymous" doesn't make sense in this context.

      In these days of never ending spin and propaganda, the *first* thing to do when analyzing an event like this is to look carefully at who's ends are served by the fallout. The most likely culprits are either 1)some random asshole or 2)CoS. Of the two, who's ends are best served by this event?

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    32. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by K8Fan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Smear campaign by Scientology...count on it.

      Agreed. Anyone who doubts that they are capable of doing this needs to read about "Operation Freakout" a campaign to destroy the career and mental health of journalist Paulette Cooper. Scientology's goons stole her stationary and sent bomb threats. She was only cleared after voluntarily submitting to questioning by the FBI under sodium pentothal.

      --
      "How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
    33. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Wavebreak · · Score: 1

      Thank you for bothering to be more eloquent about it than me.

      --
      Nobody expects the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.
    34. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by guywcole · · Score: 1

      That's just what the actual perpetrator would want you to think. It must be an anti-CoS group.
      No, wait, that means the CoS did it since it would discredit the anti-CoS people!
      No, wait, that's just what the actual perpetrator would want you to think. It must be an anti-CoS group.

      This logic is somewhat... circular. I think the answer is that we just don't know who did it, until someone comes up with some convincing server logs.

    35. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      no true Scotsman wears underwear

      I once had an american female soldier ask me about this when our territorial (reserve) unit was in the USA. She was very pretty, so I told her...

    36. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, exactly, is your point?
      This thing went above and beyond 4chan quite some time ago.

    37. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by TheSpoom · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is more common than you might think; it has, in fact, been demonstrated that Scientology faked a bomb threat against themselves by Anonymous on YouTube earlier.

      An extension of their most certainly not dead Fair Game policy, which states that Scientology critics, or "Suppressive Persons (SPs)", "may be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."

      Scary stuff, especially for a group claiming to be a religion.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    38. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, what you are saying is that anonymous is a group just like not collecting stamps is a hobby?

    39. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by brusk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except that one can choose to identify with anonymous or not; one has less choice about one's race (one can control one's own sense of identity somewhat, less how others perceive one).

      --
      .sig withheld by request
    40. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      my Anonymous head-asplode!!!

    41. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by eat+here_get+gas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      **posted anonymously to avoid a hit on my karma ^_^**

      fsking pussy

      --
      the significance of a signature is insignificant
    42. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by RevDobbs · · Score: 1

      The main thing about annonymous... anonemouse... anonny...


      The main thing about ftp is that you cannot associate it with any one thing. Anyone who has posted anything to /b/ is a member of the 1337 haXing gr0up.

    43. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha the only way you get called a newfag is if you don't lurk and lack social integration skills. Took me a week and I had people accusing me of being an oldfag. Really...it's really really easy when nobody knows who you are and you're not a raging moron...jeez

    44. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by GXTi · · Score: 1

      Seconded... it's a fun theory to say that this is a "false flag", but it's highly unlikely. Raiding an epilepsy board is exactly the kind of thing /b/tards do, and claiming to be from ebaumsworld pretty much seals it.

      Anonymous is not an entity. Anonymous is a state of mind. There is no logic in saying "Anonymous would not do that", because if it could be construed as funny in a twisted manner, someone will do it.

    45. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by geekinaseat · · Score: 1

      You mean Anonymeeses right? Or should that be Anonymice?

    46. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      It does look like some deadagenting going on. It could be the church or some faction of the church or just a member.

      I'm waiting for them to target the TV billboards during rush hour right when it will do the most harm.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    47. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by zoips · · Score: 1

      Dude, wait what? Anonymous is all about fucking people over for lolz; who it is is largely irrelevant. This sounds exactly like channer shit. Stop looking for conspiracies where there aren't any.

    48. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by orangesquid · · Score: 1

      Note: I'm hoping to spark some discussion with this post; I'm not trying to present a self-consistent theory.

      I'm trying to wrap my head around those individuals labeling themselves as Anonymous or griefers.

      Let me state that I'm assuming that there exists some 'Anonymous' that speaks truly when claiming to have been a responsible party.

      The idea of some distinct yet nonrecognizable (featureless, nondistinct) group that can be labelled as 'Anonymous' is a literal contradiction in terms, meaning that 'Anonymous' is almost meaningless as far as names go. The best approach so far in metaphysics to the topic of proper names is probably the Kripkean causal-story model. Names for presumably-new-and-unnamed things are chosen and passed down to other individuals, with the possibility of modification (the whisper-down-the-lane phenomonen we all know from grade school games); this is in opposition to the older Russell-Frege descriptive model of evaluating a name based on sets of learned properties. In the descriptive model, naming conflicts are rather hard to handle; Kripke's ideas offer a number of potential solutions. For example, we can have conflicts in naming if there are differences in semantics. Let's try to examine the problem of "Who is Anonymous?" and "Which Anonymous is the referent?"

      Proposition: There are sets of individuals (call them A1 and A2) to which we can ascribe the property of they-call-themselves-Anonymous. We'll let A1 be the antiscientologists and A2 be the seizurists. For any further actions by some group calling itself Anonymous, we can postulate additional A3, A4, etc. We have no way of knowing much about the membership or intersection of these sets, although we could make some educated guesses about future actions (the 'goals' of Anonymous) of a union of all such sets with a statistical model. We might also be able to logically suppose that A1, A2, etc. can be constructed as subsets of a larger, whole, collective 'Anonymous' by means of selecting functions. For example, the selector for A1 would be individuals who have acquired* an opposition to the Church of Scientology, and the selector for A2 might be individuals who find epileptic seizures amusing. Note that there may be many different functions that could yield nearly-identical (and possibly exactly identical) subsets.

      Now, I'm thinking about two situations. (1) It could be that A1 and A2 have a small or negligible intersection (two effectively distinct 'Anonymi', to use another /.-er's cute term). (2) Or, A1 and A2 could have nearly the same members. As the parent post indicated, the individuals vary in their behaviors.

      Isaac Asimov's Foundation series talks about a future mathematical model that can predict the behavior of large groups by considering the behavior over time of persons to be a stochastic process. This would be an interesting approach to studying the actions of Anonymous. (Are there any similar sociological theories at present?)

      Anonymous seems to be in favor of individualism and against groupthink, but at some level a group has to act coherently to have a net effect, and in a large enough group I would suspect to find an overall groupthink even though there are drastic variations for particular persons' stances on the issue of study. Each person participates in the groupthink even if nobody has thoughts that are synonymous with the groupthink: the thoughts or actions may just add (approximately) as a linear superposition. By this way, if A1 and A2 are similar, we could end up with a set of ethics that would look rather queer: the group at large is opposed to cult-like religions, showing an ethical attitude of promoting-the-individual; and, since medical conditions are intrinsically individualistic in nature, the group at large is showing an ethical attitude of harming-the-individual. (Promotion and harm aren't literal inverses, but they are arguably close inverses.)

      * =

      --
      --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
    49. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous seems to be in favor of individualism and against groupthink lol.

      Anonymous is a herd. Oh, sorry, "legion". fags.
    50. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by efuinhsduilak · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your assertion would have more validity if this were a new or isolated event, but the hooligans at 7chan target epilepsy forums periodically. They hit one of the sites I visit last November too.

    51. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Miseph · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yeah, you can even say fuck if you aren't a spineless anonymous twat.

      Congratulations bootlick.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    52. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know some of us "protestfags" come from somethingawful. Remember that, the forum that's better than you?

    53. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by DigiShaman · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      "may be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."

      Sounds like a corporate version of Islam.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    54. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's amazing is how not-new this lame adolescent misanthropic posturing really is.

    55. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      This is the sort of thing that Anonymous does normally, though. Anonymous was not created for this anti-scientology crusade. It has been around long before, and this is perfectly in-character. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ4HSwb59IA

    56. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by LrdDimwit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is not a juvenile prank. This isn't anything close to a juvenile prank, the same way swatting isn't. A juvenile prank would have been subliminal flashing penises, not iterative deployment of effects specifically designed to be highly effective against many types of epilepsy. Thousands of people were affected, it was an ongoing attack that received several refinements to make it more effective, so it wasn't spur-of-the-moment either.

      Someone not only came up with the idea of forcing people to have epileptic fits, but was evil enough to follow through with it. This is a serious disease, with serious detrimental effects, and it was perpetrated in a way designed to maximize exposure.

      The perps need to be found, and need to be prosecuted. Bury them with one seperate count of (at the least) assault for every person who says they suffered epileptic attacks. If law enforcement can't nail these guys, then they may as well throw in the towel, because it means they lost. The bad guys win.

    57. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up- Fact is that "anonymous" means nobody knows who did it. So blaiming the people who are attacking scientology for an anonymous attack is the same as blaiming every crime whose perpetrator is unknown on the group protesting scientology. I think people here would prefer a car analogy. This is like the guy who got the personalized license plate that said "NOPLATE", and was suddenly deluged with thousands of parking tickets in the mail because parking enforcement personnel were putting "NOPLATE" in the license box when the car they were ticketing had no license plate. "Anonymous" is the equivalent of no license plate. It doesn't mean anyone or any group in particular at all.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    58. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Gee, a few minutes ago I was thinking about how miserable I am and how much my life sucks. Now I see you, and I feel pretty smug about myself. I can't possibly be as poorly off as you are. I guess that makes me just like you, except that I get my schadenfreude without working for it and without the damage of inflicting pain on other people... which is undoubtedly just one of many ways I'm better and happier than you.

      ** posting anonymously because you have a dangerous amount of time on your hands, and you don't understand your own self-interest well enough for me to count on that holding you back :-P **

    59. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by K8Fan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is the sort of thing that Anonymous does normally, though. Anonymous was not created for this anti-scientology crusade.

      I know. It wouldn't make any sense to do something awful and attribute it to an enemy if the action is not plausible. But from what I understand, Anonymous' targets have been people who "offended" them in some way, or people so loathed by the general public that the majority will not object.

      Anonymous attacking the "Church" of Scientology makes sense. Anonymous attacking random epileptics does not. Also, it's worth remembering that most epileptics are dependent on pharmacological treatment, and the "Church" claims that they can treat epilepsy without drugs. They are wrong, of course and have a body count to prove it.

      --
      "How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
    60. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's lulz dammit.

    61. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Cruelty commands respect. Men may hate us. But, we don't ask for their love; only for their fear. Heinrich Himmler-goes to show scumbags never change,huh?


      Seriously,WTH was the point? Ooh,you can kick a cripple,we are all impressed,not a bit.You anons want to do something impressive? Make all the machines with Vista Basic go boom,or cook up a bug that makes those ripoff Best Buy internal websites say everything is 80% less,now THAT would be funny.There are plenty of giant asshat corporations that think they rule the world that could use a good humble pie.Kicking the cripples=epic fail.Just too damn easy a target,and smells like the waft of 14yr old shitheads to me.But hey,that is just my opinion,and just like assholes,everybody has one.And now we have proof that a lot of them hang out at anon boards.Why am I not surprised.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    62. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by try_anything · · Score: 1

      If law enforcement can't nail these guys, then they may as well throw in the towel, because it means they lost.
      That's a bit of an overreaction. As far as I know, nobody even died in this case. People get away with murder every day. Law enforcement doesn't show any sign of giving up. That would be pretty childish, even for the police.
    63. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The catch with that logic is the anti-Co$ group is very clear about not wanting to attack or harm believers of Scientology, but to prevent harm coming to further victims. Co$ on the other hand has a well documented history of petty vindictive attacks, and having a total disregard for the harm it causes to others.

      So based upon past patterns of behaviour, the anti-Co$ anonymous would be very unlikely (discounting no fixed members or control over members) to have attacked a third party, where as Co$ based upon it's history would basically be very likely to do it.

      Now of course the nature of the attack itself, a physiological and psychological attack, hmm, does that not sound like a group well versed in psychology and with a pathological hatred for the psychiatric profession and it's patients, and in fact this group claims to be the worlds only true experts in the human mind. Seriously could any one consider this to be the work of a bunch of ill informed, mal adjusted script kiddies, oddly enough, complete with carefully planted evidence in public forums prior to the event.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    64. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by try_anything · · Score: 1, Troll

      Fair Game policy, which states that Scientology critics, or "Suppressive Persons (SPs)", "may be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."
      So on one side, you have assholes trying desperately to pretend they aren't evil, while on the other side, you have assholes trying desperately to take pride in being evil. I have to give the edge to the Scientologists. They have a shitload of money, a huge organization, and some seriously good-looking people. From the pictures I've seen of the anti-Scientology protests, Anonymous seems to have (at most) a couple hundred chubby kids who really should have brought enough masks for everyone.
    65. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed.

      "Psychotology" absolutely WOULD do something like this.

      Anonymous has probably been declared "fair game" which is a "Psychotology" policy that anyone they declare to be an enemy, all bets are off, they can do anything they can think of regardless of the law, to destroy them.

    66. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      But from what I understand, Anonymous' targets have been people who "offended" them in some way, or people so loathed by the general public that the majority will not object.

      You don't understand correctly. Yes, they often attack those who offend them. But that isn't all; they're perfectly happy to attack unprovoked ... such as in their campaign to ruin the ending of Harry Potter for all Harry Potter fans?

      We'll never really know which group was responsible, but as a frequent viewer of 4chan.org and sometimes-contributor to Anon's antics, I wouldn't be surprised if Anon was responsible for the lulz that were had here.

    67. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I bet the attack on the epilepsy forums were orchestrated by CoS, who would stand to gain from the discredit of Anonymous.

      That's the big drawback of their (anon) crusade - it is extremely easy for one to don their mask and do damaging work in their name.

    68. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      In these days? The expression is old: cui bono?, "Who benefits?"

      Mart
      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    69. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...do you not know the difference between fsck and fuck, then?

      Ouch.

    70. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Interesting analysis.

      I must object to your use of the word groupthink though. It is a laden term, specifically negatively laden. Mores or shared social values are more neutral, while describing the same phenomenon, that of multiple individualists acting in a coherent manner as a group. Groupthink, as used today, implies the individuals giving up their individual judgement in favour of the socially acceptable judgment, whereas it is quite possible that a group consensus can be formed on mutually supporting individual judgements, without requiring submission of the individual.

      Mart
      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    71. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by eat+here_get+gas · · Score: 0, Troll

      why is it the biggest mouths here are anonymous cowards? at least i have the balls to post under my name.

      ah yes, can't let the karma take a hit 'lest all your internet friends think your a fuckwad. cuz you don't have any friends in real life do you?

      --
      the significance of a signature is insignificant
    72. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You anons want to do something impressive?
      No. Like every other shitstick in this place, you haven't got the first fucking clue.
    73. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by europa+universalis · · Score: 1

      That's a bit of an overreaction. As far as I know, nobody even died in this case.
      It's all fun and games until someone <del>loses an eye</del> dies.
    74. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by BrunBoot13 · · Score: 0

      > at least i have the balls to post under my name.

      Hmmm. "Eat Here Get Gas" sure is an interesting name. Your parents must have been comedians.

      --
      I understand that English is a living language, but I object to changes arising merely from repeated errors.
    75. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by eat+here_get+gas · · Score: 0, Troll

      looking at your name, im thankful i had the parents i did, which orphange did you evolve from?

      --
      the significance of a signature is insignificant
    76. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by ultranova · · Score: 1

      You don't understand correctly. Yes, they often attack those who offend them. But that isn't all; they're perfectly happy to attack unprovoked ... such as in their campaign to ruin the ending of Harry Potter for all Harry Potter fans?

      Posting spoilers for a book is hardly the same as causing someone to have epilectic seizures. Besides, are you sure that that attack was aimed against Potter fans rather than Rowling herself ? After all, there was that episode where people who had received a Potter book ahead of its official publication date were prohibited to speak of the plot details, which was an outrageous insult to freedom of speech and almost certainly very offensive to the generally anti-censorship /b/-tards.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    77. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by acidrain69 · · Score: 1

      You're completely right, it's completely inappropriate, but for some reason I laughed. Sorry!

      --
      -- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
    78. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by guywcole · · Score: 1
      But, you enter circular logic yourself.

      complete with carefully planted evidence in public forums prior to the event You suggest that the evidence was probably planted to suggest that CoS probably planted evidence?

      Are we to assume that any enemy of the CoS is innocent in any case, since the CoS is malicious? I don't think that's a good idea. I'm not saying that I think CoS is innocent; I just don't know that they're guilty either, and I don't think anyone else here has a good way to know, either.

      (BTW, I think the CoS is a mix of malicious con-men and malicious fools, but you still have to judge the situation fairly.)
    79. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Talk about drinking the anonymous koolade. All I can is wow, just wow.

    80. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by fbjon · · Score: 1

      It may actually achieve something (and has already, somewhat). That would be new.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    81. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. This will certainly be duked out.

    82. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by rrkap · · Score: 1

      Have you ever BEEN to 4chan or 7chan?

      Yes, and it seems infinitely saner and more wholesome than the Church of Scientology. For one thing, I don't think 4chan has ever killed anyone.

      --
      I like my beverages with warning labels!
    83. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      It "achieves" something all the time, if nothing but the relentless downward social mobility of its practitioners punctuated by occasional spasms of quasi-sociopathic violence.

    84. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey hey, calm down Hideo Kuze.

    85. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by XNine · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the fake Anthrax they sent to their own churches back in February. Not to mention all the crying to the courts and media that they're "scared for the protection and lives of the members of the church." The CoS is losing not only in the media war but in Real Life as well. Perception is reality, as they say, and no one buys into their bullshit anymore.

      --
      Never monkey with another monkey's monkey.
    86. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      Organizations that live by a completely lack of accountability die by a complete lack of accountability. I hate Scientology like anyway, but if you didn't see this coming a light-year away, you're naive.

    87. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by budgenator · · Score: 1

      why is it the biggest mouths here are anonymous cowards?
      It hasn't always been like that, but the signal to noise ratio has been going down slowly around here for a while. The fact is that AC troll posts have been getting pretty shrill in Thread that even remotely deal with Anonymous vs. Scientology; I think a nerve has been hit in Co$. It's far to easy to flash-crowd a group so it would only take one person watching the RSS feeds from several sites to alert the whole group, and in the blink of an eye a hundred Scilons could be posting on /. anonymously.
      As far as the attack on the Epileptics, if someone told me that Scilons did the deed posing as Anonymous to make Anonymous look bad, the burden of proof would be on someone refuting it it.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    88. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by DarkSkiesAhead · · Score: 2, Informative

      But from what I understand, Anonymous' targets have been people who "offended" them in some way

      Anonymous attacking the "Church" of Scientology makes sense. Anonymous attacking random epileptics does not

      I've gotta jump in here. There's a slew of slashdot posters defending Anonymous who are really ignorant of what's happened here.

      Please look at the message boards being targetted. Gaiaonline.com. Go read the *chan message boards and read up on the longcat issue. Anonymous is pissed at Gaiaonline.com. They've attacked Gaia in other ways lately too. This is just one of many /i/ "raid" activities against the site.

      I hate Scientology as much as the next guy, but lets not be naive here. This has been planned on the message boards used by Anonymous very thoroughly. Go start reading the chans and other places used by Anonymous. You'll see a bunch of directives and plenty of explanation as to why they are pissed.

    89. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      The most likely culprits are either 1)some random asshole or 2)CoS. Of the two, who's ends are best served by this event?

      Difficult to tell unless you know the random asshole in question.

      In these days of never ending spin and propaganda, the *first* thing to do when analyzing an event like this is to look carefully at who's ends are served by the fallout

      Agreed, not only in "these days" though ... this is a valid historical technique. However the *second* thing has to be to find evidence that the said interest being served is actually responsible. Otherwise you end up with a conspiracy theory version of History. The mere fact that CoS interests are being served, though it raises the suspicion, is hardly conclusive of their involvement.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    90. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anything that encyclopediadramatica.com tracks is already hate material. Go see if someone took credit for this yet.

    91. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://not420chan.com/i/
      http://not420chan.com/i/
      http://not420chan.com/i/
      420CHAN.ORG DID ENTURB, THE EPILEPSY RAID, 315CHAN, AND DELETED 711/XENU, and POSTED MAGOO&BEARDFAG'S DOX
      They're uber 1337 hax0rz who can teach you how to hack your friend's myspace and aren't afraid to tell you how much cooler this makes them. They call themselves "INTERNET HATE MACHINE" because they got 70,000 myspace passwords, because they're that fucking cool. It's the chan not everyone knows about but they say they know their shit.
      http://not420chan.com/i/
      http://not420chan.com/i/
      http://not420chan.com/i/
      http://not420chan.com/i/
      Hey /i/ enjoy your cancerous wave of AIDS you fucking assholes. Trolling you exactly the same as the Co$, exposing the same BS, and getting mah lulz.

    92. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      Now interestingly enough after a bit of further investigation, there are articles and forums all over the web, where the very first posts are all pro scientology, as if part of a complete premeditated plan.

      Now of course the biggest error is the misuse of the term 'griefers' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefers, however, it is clear that the term was not chosen by the scientologists for it's accuracy but for it psychological stigma, to try to create the impression that anonymous is not trying to save people but harm them.

      So overall, with the anonymous postings on forums prior to the attack announcing it, the psychological nature of the attack, combined with a concerted 'first post' posting effort on forums and blogs blaming anonymous and defending scientology and finally the misuse of the term griefers for it's psychological stigma. It is pretty obvious the only thing circular about this in the nature of the arse holes who attacked a group of innocent people, of course Co$ (the corporate executives not the believers) just tried to hard and overplayed it.

      Of course the benefit of this overplayed hand, is they will have left a trail of evidence all over the web so that it can be tracked down and the culprits prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    93. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cruelty commands respect. Men may hate us. But, we don't ask for their love; only for their fear. Heinrich Himmler-goes to show scumbags never change,huh?
      Losers never change. This rhetoric is typical of the Nazis, who struck a chord in a humiliated nation. People who feel beaten down and treated like garbage become fixated on that relationship between people. To them, there are only tormentors and the tormented, so they fantasize about becoming tormentors. These Anonymous 'tards are just a bunch of stereotypical losers -- like the Columbine losers, like the Virginia Tech loser, like every whiny little moron who thought "Oldboy" was a psychological masterpiece. Sadly, some of them will actually grow up to be prison guards or child rapists or mass murderers. Their wish to be feared will not be granted, though, not in any meaningful way. Sure, a certain segment of the public is always eager to be whipped up into a frenzied, irrational fear -- Gack! Gasp! I can't let my child out of my sight, because someone might abduct her, immunize her, give her an LSD-laced temporary tattoo, or post gory pictures on her MySpace page! Congrats, griefers, you're now in the same category as plane crashes, power line radiation, gas pump fires caused by cell phones, E. coli, stranger danger, and gang initiations involving car headlights -- obsessions of the hysterical and ignorant. And that's only assuming you manage to make it into the mass media someday. Until then, even the hysterical and ignorant won't care about you.
    94. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People need to stop letting the press put ideas in their head, anon spawns from 4chan, 7chan, 420chan, they don't refer to themselves as anonymous either, just anon, the media just stuck that name on them because of the "we are anonymous, we are legion" thing.

      Key point people fail to see here is that it's -not- an organization, the board the people who do these attacks are from are completely anonymous, and completely without rules, hell 4chan's /b/ gets several hundred posts a minute.

      As the poster above said, there are people who do raids, there are people who attack scientology -- all it is is a bunch of people released from status,titles,and the general hinderance of social masks, and set free to do as they please, they are the one and the same, they act as a unit, but what one does is not what another believes in, there are literally thousands of people who can call themselves anon, and no one points them at what to do, one suggests an idea, people latch on, as stated, there are no leaders, but they are the same organization, much as the catholics who go on mission trips to help impoverished countries, and the catholics who went on crusades, raping and murdering their way around are the same.

      The organization is neither benevolent nor malevolent, it acts on whim alone, doing whatever it finds fun at the moment, be it attacking boards like this, or protesting scientology.

    95. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by ins0m · · Score: 1

      Only gaiafags bitch about newfags and "/b/ is not your personal army!" incessantly.

      The mentality of /i/ is different from that of /b/, and hell, I miss Soviet Russia, sUPERFAGGOT, and most of /z/ for it being what it was. Random, stupid bullshit that wasn't even acceptable in /b/. Try to separate the two.

      --
      Never attribute to Hanlon that which can be adequately attributed to Heinlein.
    96. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by yuna49 · · Score: 1

      Sure, let's blame the victims.

      It was the Epilepsy Foundation site, not some random locations around the Internet.

      Perhaps I'm just too old to understand any of this, but if this kind of idiocy is the future of the Internet, I'll have to disconnect.

      And, to the person above who said, "we do what we do because we want to," that sort of juvenile attitude went out of fashion about, oh, three or millennia ago.

    97. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, they do have some responsibility in this as well. And pretending like they shouldn't have been taking steps in case they came into this sort of content is quite innaproprate.

      Why exactly does the fact that this was a Epilepsy foundation site have any sort of bearing on this? There are any number of ways that a person could inadvertently end up staring at this sort of content, even from there.

      I personally have some health conditions which require me to avoid certain types of stimuli, but I don't blame other people for it. It isn't like these people don't have access to technology which would allow for them to avoid this sort of mess in the first place.

  5. Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by Naughty+Bob · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I am no supporter of Anonymous, but isn't it convenient for the Scientologers that their new-found enemy should suddenly be suspected of a such certoonishly evil assault.

    Two particular L. Ron Hubbard quotes are especially instructive in this regard-

    We are slowly and carefully teaching the unholy a lesson. It is as follows: We are not a law enforcement agency. BUT we will become interested in the crimes of people who seek to stop us. If you oppose Scientology we promptly look up - and find and expose - your crimes. If you leave us alone we will leave you alone.
    And-

    Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown.
    Certainly makes you wonder...

    Also, Epileptics need to build themselves a Firefox plugin that'll detect any harmful behaviour, and block it Adblock-style. As the tech progresses this plugin could even be integrated into special sunglasses....
    --
    "Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
    1. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      "Anonymous" has always preyed on the weak. They are not activists, at least, not originally. The activism associated with "Anonymous" recently via the Scientology raids is very new, and was not appreciated by many who had been channers for some time. This is just the same group of people getting back to their roots, griefing the weak. I doubt Scientology had anything to do with this.

    2. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by Naughty+Bob · · Score: 1

      You are currently 1+ Interesting, when you should have been marked 5+ OT.

      As in, Operating Thetan.

      --
      "Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
    3. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by Naughty+Bob · · Score: 1

      Not to feed the trolls, but 'psychological reactions', as you put it, are no less valid than physical ones.

      It's just that we should appreciate that they are psychological, and tailor the treatment accordingly. Not that I necessarily agree with your assessment of Epilepsy- I don't even play a doctor on TV.

      --
      "Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
    4. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but isn't it convenient for the Scientologers that their new-found enemy should suddenly be suspected of a such certoonishly evil assault.
      very. it really wouldn't surprise me if it was either a frame job to discredit COS's opponents or a group of arseholes completely unrelated to anonymous.
    5. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FAIL REPEAT THE QUESTION.

    6. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I have no love for Scientology, they have certainly done many fucked up things in their time. However, this impression people have of "Anonymous" as moral crusaders is patently false. They are much closer to nihilists. They laugh at suicide, death, and those with any type of debilitating condition. They get their jollies disrupting kid's forums and games such as Habbo Hotel. They cheer people who choose to neuter themselves via butcher knife. They see the VT slaughter as a new high water mark to be surpassed. And so on. I'm not sure how "Anonymous" ever got associated with noble causes but it may have originated with the Hal Turner raids. Most were doing it because Hal Turner was a good target to grief, but others interpreted this raid as a noble cause against Turner's racist views.

    7. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Epilepsy is traditionally analysed with an EEG. That makes it a neurological condition.

      And yes, I do have epilepsy, but not the photosensitive kind. Back in the days when the only way to make a rapid strobe light was with xenon or neon there was a lot of attention paid to pulse rates, intensity and containment. You were not supposed to just set it up anywhere. You had to warn people.

      Now that anybody can make a strobe with an array of cheap LED's the photosensitivity issue is being ignored. This is a problem because it goes beyond people with recognised seizure problems. We should not be feeding pulse trains into our eyes which mimic signals which always run inside our brains.

    8. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by Naughty+Bob · · Score: 1

      I have no love for Anonymous, but I see most of the actions you describe as positive for society, even if that wasn't the intention.

      Disrupting kids' forums only points out how poorly implemented the security model is.
      Cheering self-harm removes the cachet associated, in the harmer's mind, with harming, as he/she doesn't get the shocked reaction they were angling for (I know that's not the only motivation, but it's certainly a fashionable one).
      etc. etc.

      --
      "Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
    9. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by Naughty+Bob · · Score: 1

      Now that anybody can make a strobe with an array of cheap LED's the photosensitivity issue is being ignored.
      We should devise a fitting punishment.
      --
      "Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
    10. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by Brett+Buck · · Score: 4, Informative

      Idiot troll. Epilepsy is absolutely *not* a psychological reaction. It's purely physiological - its no different in principle than a knee-tap reflex.

                Brett

    11. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Anonymous has been romanticized as a morally driven vigilante group. It isn't. I have followed various /b/ and /i/ boards for a long time. /s/ brings me to the chans---I am a shameless porn addict. Image boards have been a major component of my daily life. I enjoy the depravity.

      Anonymous taking on Scientology is more akin to the delight of knocking down a beehive, pissing on a crazy homeless person, or spray painting a swastika on a Jewish community center. I wouldn't do any of those things, but I can appreciate the humor in those actions when someone else does. Gather together thousands of anonymous people and their collective incongruent moral standards will make any atrocity possible. People like me encourage and feed the destruction. It doesn't matter if I appreciate everything, so long as I appreciate and encourage any one thing.

      I don't feel guilt. I understand why I should, but if I am not the one making a prank phone call to the parents of some recently deceased child---I can disassociate enough from the act to sit back and laugh.

      It is scary, real, and a major force on the rise.

    12. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by athdemo · · Score: 1

      Anonymous is the same group of people that regularly engages in raiding http://habbo.com/ , a site full of young children, with avatars that are always black with an afro and usually attempting to replicate a swastika with their respective avatars.

      Not that causing seizures is the same thing as using obscenities and generally harassing children, but it's not a wholesome activity.

    13. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real question is why is Kevin Paulson pro-scientology ?
      Maybe because he worked as a cracker for them ? ???

    14. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Epilepsy has many different forms and variations of severity. Some aren't lucky and suffer from seizures triggered by sound, light, etc. For others its a non-stop thing where they can convulse many times per day.

      I have epilepsy. Mine isn't triggered by rapidly blinking lights at all. Mine is caused by sleep deprivation and didn't develop until my late teens-early 20's. I'm on a very low dose of anti-seizure meds. Fortunately mine are under control. I have a driver's license and I remain very active. I don't think anyone will ever realize I have epilepsy. I'm thankful I'm fortunate enough.

      Epilepsy can be caused by a genetic disorder (there's no family history) or a traumatic brain injury (very mild to very severe). Getting in a car accident, playing hockey, falling off a bike that sort of thing, if it hits the right way with no protection, you could end up with brain damage which *could* lead to epilepsy.

      If there's any particular thing I want to give as a message, get your kids to wear a helmet. You seriously do not want to fuck around with risking a traumatic brain injury. I had one probably while playing sports and I think this is what's caused my problem. Bones can heal but your brain won't.

      That said, this incident is highly irresponsible. If the hackers are in the US, I hope they get the full brunt of an FBI investigation.

    15. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by kesuki · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Anon and CoS activity really isn't fundamentally what Anon was founded for, it was founded for griefers.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer the thing is Anon took griefing from video games into real life. before we called people who did that pranksters but the term griefing is much better since some people are so malignant towards their fellow human being that every way of causing others pain and suffering is 'cool' and 'hip' to them.

      so you can take your tinfoil hat off about CoS making Anon look bad, the people trying to show the evil of the CoS have mistakenly taken the name 'Anon' without understanding that these are the kind of people who never grew out of giving nerd wedgies, they're the kind of people who thought 'fight club' was a wussy movie... they're the kind of people who get a kick dying their dead grandmothers hair blue for the open casket...

      they feed off of doing wrong for the sake of doing wrong, that's the mark of a true anon...

      however the CoS may well be behind Anon's darker side getting press online... I had never heard of them until today...

    16. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do NOT get it. Anonymous are a bunch of assholes unrelated (or tangentally related) to Chanology.
      See partyvan.info and 711chan/i/ for details.

    17. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by schon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anonymous has been romanticized as a morally driven vigilante group. This, and the fact that you're posting as an AC made me wonder if you're a cult member.

      Anonymous taking on Scientology is more akin to [...] spray painting a swastika on a Jewish community center. This made me sure of it.

      It isn't. I have followed various /b/ and /i/ boards for a long time. This is a clear debunking of the rationale present in this post.

      If you know anything about the cult, you know about "Fair Game".

      Considering the amount of AC posts here (like yours) that are pro-cult, it's pretty obvious that this is a *VERY* lame attempt at framing their detractors.
    18. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, PLEASE.

      Any good thing achieved by a bunch of bored idiots disrupting anything they can is merely happenstance and in no way a reflection of their true motives.

    19. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by Naughty+Bob · · Score: 1

      Err, that's why I said "even if that wasn't the intention".

      --
      "Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
    20. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by joyfeather · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your post, even if you posted it as anonymous. You expressed what I was thinking perfectly. I hope your condition will improve in time, although I bet the doctors tell you it won't.

    21. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by athdemo · · Score: 1

      This is a clear debunking of the rationale present in this post.
      Or he actually has been on /b/ and /i/ for a long time? I like that you're only looking at it from the side that you want to believe in.

      I don't know anything about the CoS to be honest, but you obviously don't know anything about the chans. Ever since the very beginning of these protests, plenty of anons have absolutely hated them, like I do. I do because I see them as a representation of the influx of all the kids from myspace or gaia or wherever that have found 4chan and tried to fill it with all of this pro-moral nonsense. Anyone that has lurked on 4chan for any length of time can tell you that is not what 4chan is about.

      I don't care about the CoS at all, but I do care about the media attention these protests are getting the chans. I like 4chan the way it used to be, it was hilarious. Full of stupid shit, no question, but funny. I don't want all this crap coming in. Not that it'll happen, I mean, I want lithursday back too but that won't happen.

      If you look at my userpage you'll notice I've posted on this discussion more than anything else, and you know why? Because this pisses me off. People like you acting like you know anything about 4chan, and just trying to get behind some anons protest of CoS because it makes you feel like you're part of something or whatever. You can take that somewhere that isn't 4chan.
    22. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not anonymous, not GNAA, not usenet trolls. None of them has EVER specifically targeted the weak.

      They have always targeted the stupid.

      Epilepsy forums don't sound like the style of any existing troll group there. That's harm, and the troll groups aim to irritate, to make fun of - not to harm.

      Then again, Scientology, the new enemy of Anonymous, is no stranger to harm to people in pursuit of their goals.

      I think the conclusions are obvious.

    23. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Informative

      pissing on a crazy homeless person, or spray painting a swastika on a Jewish community center. [...] I can appreciate the humor in those actions
      [...]
      I don't feel guilt. I understand why I should, but if I am not the one making a prank phone call to the parents of some recently deceased child---I can disassociate enough from the act to sit back and laugh. Antisocial personality disorder (psychopathy)
      Diagnostic criteria

      Three or more of the following are required:
      1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.
      2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
      3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
      4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
      5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others
      6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honour financial obligations
      7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    24. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Laughing at those with deformities or pics of kittens being tortured or crushed with high heels, I'm not sure how you could characterize those targets as anything but "weak". It's true that targets aren't necessarily weak. But the weak are certainly not safe.

      And those who keep saying this is some Scientology job to frame "Anonymous" don't know much of the history of the chans. The chans don't need any help from Scientology to look bad. Not that Scientology deserves any breaks, and it's certainly within the realm of possibility that they would frame some group. In this case, however, they just don't need to. Nihilists vs. a money grubbing cult--there really isn't anyone to root for.

    25. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by jd · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are many forms of epilepsy, ranging from spurious signals being sent down neural pathways through to what used to be called "brain storms" (massive, violent electrical impulses across large swathes of the brain). They are most definitely neurological and experiments have shown how to induce temporal lobe seizures with high magnetic fields. They are dangerous and can be a progressive condition (ie: every seizure causes damage and can lead to increased risk of worsening seizures.) It doesn't help that a lot of anti-seizure medication is now associated with higher suicide risk. Because these epileptic seizures suffered by people witnessing these images caused actual damage to the brain, this is not merely an inconvenience or harassment but grievous bodily harm, an act of violence that caused brain damage to victims.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    26. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Now that anybody can make a strobe with an array of cheap LED's the photosensitivity issue is being ignored. This is a problem because it goes beyond people with recognised seizure problems. We should not be feeding pulse trains into our eyes which mimic signals which always run inside our brains.
      Any idea if they test police lights for this on the new cars where they just flash LEDs instead of spinning a light around? I always worry they're going to give someone a seizure when I see some of the more extreme versions.

    27. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by Zedekiah · · Score: 1

      You can take that somewhere that isn't 4chan.
      Dude, Slashdot .
      --
      What I wouldn't do for the ability to mod "-1, Plain Wrong"
    28. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by schnipschnap · · Score: 1

      Tell you what. If there are people who use some site for idiotic things, they don't deserve better than to be pushed out. I don't go to 4chan, but now that you said that I might just troll around there and get some more idiots to abandon the site.

    29. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by athdemo · · Score: 1

      Waste of time, 4chan trolls itself.

    30. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pissing on a crazy homeless person [] or spray painting a swastika on a Jewish community center. [] I can appreciate the humor in those actions []. People like me encourage and feed the destruction. []
      I don't feel guilt.

      I think you do, otherwise you wouldn't advertise your feelings in such a coquettish way.

      It is scary, real, and a major force on the rise.
      You are scared of your own shadow.
    31. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just in case you're unsure whether it's physical or not: it's possible to see on a PET scan what parts of your brain have abnormal electric activity. I have seen such a scan of my brain and know where the problems are (I have epilepsy).

    32. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The activism associated with "Anonymous" recently via the Scientology raids is very new

      Oh bullshit. Anonymous just gets pissy whenever someone else is a bigger asshole than they are, for instance Fred Phelps, who's had a run in or two with them.

    33. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by zoips · · Score: 1

      I take it you don't actually know anything about /b/tards, anonymous, or anything to do with the chans? They don't need Scientology to make them look bad; the chans are a vast wasteland, a cesspool, and it is good. It's fucking hilarious. This protest of Scientology is meaningless drivel that they'll get bored with soon enough and move on looking for new and more interesting lulz.

      For fuck's sake, you make it sound like Anonymous is some sort of Captain Planet or some stupid shit...

    34. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by schon · · Score: 1

      I like that you're only looking at it from the side that you want to believe in. So you're claiming to be psychic now? Why don't you tell me exactly what I *want* to believe, and I'll tell you if you're right.

      I like that you're completely ignoring the rest of my post, but I guess if you had an actual argument, you would have presented it.
    35. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I happen to know someone with epilepsy who discovered that she had it and that it could be triggered by police lights when a cop pulled her over for speeding. she was in town and travelling at a low-enough speed (though exceeding the limit) that her seizure didn't cause much of a car wreck. she said the officer was at least as surprised and upset as she was - he thought he'd killed her.

    36. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      You are, I hope, appreciating the irony of a morally indignant 4chan fapper?

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    37. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      can be a progressive condition

      I took a low dose of Carbamazepine from the age of 19 to 25. Looking back, I think the progressiveness of epilepsy could be a learning process. You can learn behaviours which encourage seizures, or learn to avoid those behaviours. In my case the condition was associated with the stress of starting at college, and late nights study sessions, etc.

      Since then I have become a more calm, laid back person. This may be a consequence of ageing, the side effects of the drug, or the result of a decision I made to avoid the state of mind which was causing me problems. Over a long time it is difficult to extract cause and effect.

      In any event, I believe the seizure disorder I had at the age of 19 is still there, and I avoid problems by "not going there"

      a lot of anti-seizure medication is now associated with higher suicide risk

      Yes I saw that article too. I know that scientists go to great lengths to do controlled experiments but I really doubt that a solid statement can be made about cause and effect. People with serious disorders take a lot of medication. Is the suicide risk caused by their condition? Or the drugs?

      Having a minor seizure disorder, and having known a few people with more serious conditions, I think this is a complicated issue. I know of one person who eventually had brain surgery to treat his problem. He took a lot of medication and had a lot of seizures. He definitely had major psychological issues as well.

    38. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      Also, Epileptics need to build themselves a Firefox plugin that'll detect any harmful behaviour, and block it Adblock-style.


      That is a very interesting idea, and probably a fascinating challenge for pattern recognition. Although it'd be beyond the scope of a browser plugin, the pattern recognition program could be integrated in a number of browsers using plugins.

      Wikipedia says that .02% of people are diagnosed with photosensitive epilepsy, but I've heard from several otherwise healthy people that they also feel discomfort when looking at such trigger images. So there could be wide demand for such a protection tool.
    39. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by schon · · Score: 1
      I think you need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

      you make it sound like Anonymous is some sort of Captain Planet or some stupid shit Care to point out exactly where I made this comparison - because it's not there.
    40. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by mike_diack · · Score: 1

      Trust me as someone who suffers from it, it's no act.

      --
      Linux fan and Win32 developer
    41. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by mikey1134 · · Score: 1

      I don't know if any tests have been done officially, but I can tell you from personal experience that those lights can cause a reaction in photosensitives. I have epilepsy with photosensitivity, and I have once or twice had problems with those lights if I get stuck around them...

      --
      <gir voice> I love this sig... </gir voice>
    42. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by LordSnooty · · Score: 1

      Wow, so now "being an asshat" is a certifible condition and it has a name.

    43. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by athdemo · · Score: 1

      So you're claiming to be psychic now? Uh, no, but there are only two ways to look at that. Either he's some CoS impersonator like you think, or he actually goes to /b/ and /i/. It's that simple.
      You don't really have an argument in the rest of your post, but I'll go through it line by line if you'd like.

      This, and the fact that you're posting as an AC made me wonder if you're a cult member.
      What? Why? Him posting as AC doesn't mean anything, as a channer he might just want to post as anon, or maybe he read the threads about this /. story on 4chan. Those threads are probably still up on /g/, and from what I saw of them everyone was pissed off at /. for getting everything so blatantly wrong. Go look if you'd like. http://zip.4chan.org/g/imgboard.html

      This made me sure of it. That just proves to me that beyond any shadow of a doubt you don't know anything about 4chan. 110% positive. 4chan posts exactly those kinds of things about themselves constantly. It's like a mantra or something. If that made you think it's someone trying to give them a bad name, you're just an idiot trying to pretend to know something, period.

      This is a clear debunking of the rationale present in this post. Like I said before, no, it's not. It may mean he merely does what he says. If you can't see that, you're blind.

      If you know anything about the cult, you know about "Fair Game". I don't know anything about CoS. At all. I don't care. In my opinion, it's not 4chan's place to care.

      Considering the amount of AC posts here (like yours) that are pro-cult, it's pretty obvious that this is a *VERY* lame attempt at framing their detractors. Why is that pretty obvious? Why can't a group of people that call themselves Anonymous post as AC's? A lot of them probably don't have /. accounts, and even some that do might just choose to post as AC. I don't understand why this is so obvious to you.
    44. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by athdemo · · Score: 1

      That's my entire problem with the protests! Where does 4chan get off protesting something? 4chan is a moral cesspool! I don't know how you got me being morally indignant out of my post, all I'm indignant about is people that are trying to push their morals coming to 4chan. Looking at /b/ for 10 minutes should clear this up. But yes, I agree, a 4channer being morally indignant is laughable at best.

    45. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      count me in. as well as 90% of the people on this planet.

    46. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by sonciwind · · Score: 1

      That is startling. So Scientologists defend themselves from people who attack them? Diabolical indeed!

    47. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by sohare · · Score: 1

      Suppose that Co$ was one of those pig-nosed trouble makers, and you caught them stealing some school bake-sale money. Now let's say you cry out, "Hey, look! That asshole is stealing our bake sale money!". Saying Co$ is "defending" themselves is like saying the trouble maker is defending themselves when they then proceed to beat the living shit out of you for pointing out their shady behavior.

    48. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You dipshit, do you really think that only "cult members" stand up for religious freedom, or just doubt that anyone attacking a religion is not GOOD? So the fuck what if scientology profits off of their members, so does the catholic church. 10% tihting, remember?
      Does anyone remember "Anonymous on Fox 11" on youtube? Same people. Hackers on steroids.

    49. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also thank you for your post. I have a rather mild form of epilepsy, though two of my sisters have it worse. My trigger is extensive reading, particularly out loud. Lights have never done it for me. I also have a driver's license and live an otherwise normal life. Only my family and my SO know about my condition.

      On the whole, I'm rather pleased with the serious and supportive tone of the posts on this article. I'm glad that most Slashdot readers know when to be serious.

    50. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Epilepsy has many different forms and variations of severity. Some aren't lucky and suffer from seizures triggered by sound, light, etc. For others its a non-stop thing where they can convulse many times per day Or, as in my case, taking Wellbutrin to help stop smoking. I have a family history of Epilepsy, and Wellbutrin seems to have pushed me over the edge.

      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wellbutrin+seizure+

      Just a FYI, I have found that taking Benadryl when I feel crappy will take the edge off of an attack. I don't get seizures anymore, but I have days where my brain feels like it is having an out of body experience. In the past, this feeling tended to be a precusor to a seizure.

      As for flashing lights, I tend to get agitated and pissed off, but I realize what is going on and I adjust to it.
    51. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by neminem · · Score: 1

      "That said, this incident is highly irresponsible. If the hackers are in the US, I hope they get the full brunt of an FBI investigation."

      Given the likelihood that it was actually driven by the CoS, I'd like nothing more than that, as well.

      Then again, if it actually was a bunch of hooligans appropriating the convenient Anon label, I'd be happy to see the FBI on their trail, too.

  6. Redundant. by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why did they go through all that trouble? They could have simply redirected 'em to Myspace.

    1. Re:Redundant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd suspect that RGB would be more the more likely culprit though. Although there's also some anime episodes that would qualify too.

    2. Re:Redundant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I LOL'd. Seconded friend.

    3. Re:Redundant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Looks like You found Acid4 test page.

    4. Re:Redundant. by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Just because it's called Acid doesn't mean it's meant to LOOK like you're on acid when you view it.

  7. Assholes by Renderer+of+Evil · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    There is not much to say, really. These people lack any form of human decency. Attacking objectively bad groups like Scientology is somewhat justifiable, but to target people with disabilities is the lowest of the low. Fuck them.

    1. Re:Assholes by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And so, the Scientology strategy of blaming their detractors through a blackbag job worked. They got you to believe this was by Anonymous.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:Assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      There is not much to say, really.

      Yes, there is. They are recklessly and intentionally inflicting physical harm on other people. This is assault, and they should go to prison for it.

      If you build a robot with a remote control and use it to shoot people, that's the same as holding the gun yourself. Likewise, if you intentionally set out to use your computer to cause seizures in others, specifically taking action because you know that this will be the result, then you are guilty of assault.

      Find them, and lock them up.
    3. Re:Assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You sure accept they did it fast. But your not alone, and that's what scares me.

      This is the 21 century, we shouldn't have mob justice or lynchings anymore.

    4. Re:Assholes by c_forq · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And they are completely in the clear by their own code, sense according to scientology there are no psychological problems and epilepsy is a psychological disorder.

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    5. Re:Assholes by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      Did we read the same post? The one I read never even mention Anonymous specifically. There is more than one group attacking Scientology. I hope I'm not drinking what you are drinking.

    6. Re:Assholes by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      If course he accepted "they" did it. It was clearly more than one person. Who exactly is "they"? You are implying "they" is Anonymous, but Anonymous is not the only group attacking Scientology.

    7. Re:Assholes by athdemo · · Score: 1

      It was. There was a thread about it on both 4chan and 7chan at the time.

      Yes, I know scientologists could've made those topics as well, but you have to realize the argument you're trying to make. They could've been anyone, that's the point of being Anonymous. Choosing when they're scientologists and when they're not to fit what you want them to be is not very compelling.

      Mod this down however much you want, but you need to understand there's no reason that it could not have been these same people.

    8. Re:Assholes by a+whoabot · · Score: 1

      Have you ever seen any Anonymous statements? They clearly say they have no remorse or compassion for anyone, they do everything for the lulz, you know, like an internet hate machine, why would they not cause epileptics to seizure? That's plenty lulzy enough for them. If Scientologists did this, then Anonymous would probably congratulate them for hurting people.

    9. Re:Assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you have only 68 comments to your name, there is no reason not to believe you have fabricated your claim to have seen said threads under instructions from your supervisors at CoS.

      GB2 Clearwater

    10. Re:Assholes by Deanalator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hate scientology as much as the next guy, but yes, this is the same Anonymous.

      1. I saw this last week on 4chan, it was fucked up then, and is fucked up now.

      2. Anonymous is not a group. It is not even an agenda. Anonymous is a way to rally for a cause, whatever that cause may be. I have been a part of many invasions, and if it is a cause I believe in, I will do more. Obviously I sat this one out.

      3. Almost every anonymous invasion has the theme of "getting the word out". This is exactly in the MO of anonymous. In this case, I believe the message is that no one, not even a web forum designed to help the sick, should be ignorant of security. Anonymous was able to inject CSS to get the theme to flash random colors, and do various XSS attacks to redirect users to all sorts of malicious visuals. The epilepsy board also apparently had no sense of incident response. Some people are willing to hurt innocent people to make this point.

      I think this attack also brings up an interesting point. For my day job, I do security testing for networked medical devices attempting to get HIPPA or iso13485 compliance. Should web based tools like this forum be forced to meet the same security standards? Just a thought.

    11. Re:Assholes by athdemo · · Score: 1

      I don't see how me having more comments would make a difference. My account is relatively new, so even if I had 1000 comments, you'd just say I was reg'd for this (though that would be ridiculous, unless you think the CoS regs accounts on /. in preparation for these kinds of things). Anyway, that's my point. You can't pretend to know who is telling the truth here, and given the kind of things that go on at the various chans, you can't exactly say this is beyond Anonymous' means.

    12. Re:Assholes by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      It does match the usual *chan/SA sense of humor perfectly. Anonymous are griefers and that's what they do - cause grief. It's supposed to be funny. Of course, Anonymous would never do that but Anonymous has never cared about what Anonymous does. Anonymous, on the other hand, does anything that seems like a good idea, much unlike Anonymous, who tries to actually make a point.

      ("Anonymous" describes a lot of mostly unrelated people, most of which find some other part of the "group" higly repulsive. They do lots of different, contradicting things all the time. Doesn't matter if some of them are Scientologists; some are just griefers and some don't think about consequences. That's enough for a subset of them to do something stupid like that. In the end Scientology can't label them anything because any label both applies and doesn't apply.)

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    13. Re:Assholes by schon · · Score: 1

      Who exactly is "they"?

      Why are you asking the AC? Why aren't you asking Rendeder of Evil?

      You are implying "they" is Anonymous, but Anonymous is not the only group attacking Scientology. But Anonymous is the only group mentioned in the summary.

      Or hadn't you noticed?
    14. Re:Assholes by Wavebreak · · Score: 1

      Getting the word out? Almost every anonymous invasion has the theme of "lulz". Scientology being the notable exception, and probably mostly done by people who have no part in all the other invasions.

      --
      Nobody expects the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.
    15. Re:Assholes by Deanalator · · Score: 1

      True that there is not much social righteousness in messing with tom green or girl talk (although I think they do point out some of the inherant "flaws" in voip), but plenty of invasions go after racist websites, hatemongers, or corporate fuckups like walmart.

      That said, I did get in plenty of lulz with chanology :-)

    16. Re:Assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More government regulation! Yes, that always fixes EVERYTHING.

    17. Re:Assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous is ANONYMOUS you stupid fuck. Look at what the definition of it is. Good god, it has nothing to do with 4chan, it has nothing to do with any chans. Die in a fire.

    18. Re:Assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think this elecptics board is going to wait for government regulation? You think other sites might also start thinking about there own vulnerabilities? It was a callous and stupid move, but it certainly got the message out.

    19. Re:Assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who participated in this I can tell you that yes, "Anonymous" did this. The error you and people unfamiliar with the chans seem to make is that you think we're the cDc or some other organized group. Like >>22907390 said, there are people who will attack scientology, there are people who will attack epileptics and there are people who will do neither. When you talk about anon you don't get the caped crusader who's looking out for your rights online. You get people who post gore on kids' forums, you get people who "raid" Hal Turner and other neo nazis and ruin their lives, you get people who make terrorist threats against the NFL and you get people who just like talking about anime, cooking and comic books. Saying we're being framed because there's no way anon could do this it just shows your lack of knowledge on what we really are.

    20. Re:Assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      epilepsy is a neurological disorder, not psychological. There is a fine distinction between them.

    21. Re:Assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact of the matter is, you simply attack what you believe is my intellectual level, merely because you don't agree with me. How can you possibly judge a person by a mere sentence or two? It says a lot about you.

      The fact of the matter is, life isn't fair. Evolution worked because the weak died and the strong propagated. As time goes on, this means of improving falls further and further to the wayside. You don't like the idea, because you think that providing people opportunities to live, where nature would have terminated them, is somehow better. Obviously, this is very short sighted. Ultimately, there ARE going to be millions dying of starvation and famine, because the economy of things can't feed them, can't shelter them, can't save them. How fair is that? And what is the price we pay? Genetic inferiority, and people who don't deserve it end up dying. So what it really comes down to is, you want to defer the suffering of the people around you because it suits you, only to have it pushed off to inevitably be taken out on someone in the future. You have... not only solved nothing, but you have made yourself part of the problem. I hope you sleep well.

    22. Re:Assholes by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      How is the CoS "objectively" bad? By what "objective" standards? Now, I feel the CoS is bad, but that's an opinion based on and influenced by my upbringing, surroundings, and genetics. I don't think that's objective at all. I'm not trying to attack you here, I'm honestly curious.

    23. Re:Assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact of the matter is, life isn't fair. Evolution worked because the weak died and the strong propagated. As time goes on, this means of improving falls further and further to the wayside.

      You see yourself as a proponent of natural selection, when what you are advocating is a lot closer to eugenics.

      You don't like the idea, because you think that providing people opportunities to live, where nature would have terminated them, is somehow better.

      Evolution is about survival of the species, not some vague notion of 'improvement'. There is no end goal other than surviving, and clearly, our propensity for taking care of our own has helped the species propagate.

      Ultimately, there ARE going to be millions dying of starvation and famine, because the economy of things can't feed them, can't shelter them, can't save them. How fair is that? And what is the price we pay? Genetic inferiority, and people who don't deserve it end up dying.

      A misanthropic sociopath such as yourself is arguably less deserving of life than some cripple. I'm not going to make that argument, but I would if I bought your premise that "inferior" people deserve to die.

      So what it really comes down to is, you want to defer the suffering of the people around you because it suits you, only to have it pushed off to inevitably be taken out on someone in the future.

      No. Overpopulation is not an insurmountable problem, there are technological solutions. You're no humanitarian, you're just an asshole.

    24. Re:Assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Earns Scientology plenty of new-found respect from me - they must have used time travel to go back and make these people look like assholes even before they first attacked the CoS. If OTs can travel through time through the power of their minds, sign me up!

    25. Re:Assholes by makomk · · Score: 1

      Have you ever seen any Anonymous statements? They clearly say they have no remorse or compassion for anyone, they do everything for the lulz, you know, like an internet hate machine, why would they not cause epileptics to seizure? That's plenty lulzy enough for them. If Scientologists did this, then Anonymous would probably congratulate them for hurting people.

      Funny you should say that. There's a subgroup of Anonymous who disagree with protesting Scientology, not because they're a valid religion who do good in the world - pretty much all Anonymous think they're a bunch of evil, scamming bastards - but because anyone who can scam people and destroy lives on the scale Scientology do is a source of epic lulz. In fact, I'd bet that (if the attacks on epileptics are by Anonymous) it's this type of people who are behind it.

      Of course, you shouldn't believe anything that Anonymous says, since they're a bunch of lying bastards (except the anti-Scientology movement, who seem to have dropped that and a lot of the other stuff in aid of the greater cause). They're not really pure evil, and they usually have some other reason for doing things than "for the lulz", even if you'll never catch them admitting to it. The whole "internet hate machine" thing, in particular, was from a really overblown local news segment on Anonymous that they were particularly proud of. (Unfortunately, some of the newfags actually seem to believe this stuff themselves...)
  8. Definitions please by Matt+Perry · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What the hell is a "Griefer?"

    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    1. Re:Definitions please by garylian · · Score: 5, Informative

      See Wikipedia for a pretty complete explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer

      In a nutshell, it's someone that does a deliberately obnoxious or destructive thing to another person, simply for their own personal entertainment.

      So, it's not exactly being used correctly. If it was done by Anonymous in response to a supposed threat, that was a premptive strike, not a griefing. If it wasn't anonymous, but simply someone that thought it would be funny, then griefing is a correct term for it.

    2. Re:Definitions please by r00td43m0n · · Score: 1

      Someone who does something on the internet or in a video game just to cause someone else grief. Team killers, posting goatse randomly, general douchebaggery, etc.

    3. Re:Definitions please by Lord_Sintra · · Score: 1

      It's what the people who know nothing about the internet call a troll, or, if ingame, a lamer...

    4. Re:Definitions please by driftingwalrus · · Score: 1

      It seems very similar in concept to a troll.

      --
      Paul Anderson
      "I drank WHAT?!" -- Socrates
    5. Re:Definitions please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trolling is one way to grief, but "griefer" encompasses many more antisocial activities, such as defacing web sites, harassing people in games, disrupting the use of forums, etc. (Note that trolling in the classic sense only applies to inciting arguments, not general forum abuse.)

    6. Re:Definitions please by QRDeNameland · · Score: 1

      In other words, Web Asshole 2.0.

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    7. Re:Definitions please by markdavis · · Score: 1

      There is already an English word for that. It is "sadist".
      "Griefer", however, is not a [accepted] word.

    8. Re:Definitions please by glwtta · · Score: 1

      In a nutshell, it's someone that does a deliberately obnoxious or destructive thing to another person, simply for their own personal entertainment.

      That's almost, but not quite, correct. It's actually a made up word that a few mumorpuger players use in lieu of perfectly appropriate, already existing words to describe such a person. Why? I don't really know, I think it has something to do with pretending to be some kind of "subculture"; I guess the more words you make up, that only you and your friends know, the cooler you feel.

      If it was done by Anonymous in response to a supposed threat, that was a premptive strike, not a griefing.

      A threat from whom? Photosensitive epileptics? I didn't RTFA, but that seems highly unlikely.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    9. Re:Definitions please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can be a griefer withouth inflicting pain on others. An action that is extremely annoying yet does not inflict anyone actual pain, such as (quoting another AC: ) 'defacing web sites, harassing people in games, disrupting the use of forums, etc'. Persons doing such stuff for their enjoyment are griefers, but calling them sadists is stretching the meaning of that word quite a bit.

    10. Re:Definitions please by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

      It seems very similar in concept to a troll.

      Similar but with more asshat. As a practicing troll, the goal of a well-crafted troll post is humor and entertainment with possibly just a bit of agitation of those who are either a) overly self righteous, or b) clueless. Generally, both groups think they are crushing the troll poster with their insightful or reactionary posts, so it's hard to claim they're harmed - they're quite pleased with themselves. And their responses provide good entertainment for those who get the joke.

      With griefers, the balance is 99% pain to 1% sadist fun. For trolls, it's the reverse.

    11. Re:Definitions please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it was done by Anonymous in response to a supposed threat,
      Please specify. What kind of threat could epileptics as a group be to anyone?
    12. Re:Definitions please by markdavis · · Score: 1

      Oh, I don't know.... I think the meaning is the nearly same. Just don't focus on the literal word "pain". Getting enjoyment from irritating, inconveniencing, harrassing, embarrasing, or angering others seems sadistic to me. Some of the worst hurting and injury doesn't necessarily come from physical/nerve-based pain.

    13. Re:Definitions please by RAM_Doubler · · Score: 1

      In a nutshell, it's someone that does a deliberately obnoxious or destructive thing to another person, simply for their own personal entertainment.

      Ah, gotcha. A Griefer is a teenager...
    14. Re:Definitions please by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      I guess the more words you make up, that only you and your friends know, the cooler you feel.

      Pardon me, sir, but I do not understand how making up words lowers one's temperature. Oh, wait, you wanted to use the word 'cool' in a "slang" fashion, not to mean its accepted literal definition. You used the words "RTFA" and "mumorpuger", for which I can find no dictionary definition. They seem to be made-up terms that few know, signifying some sort of membership in some group, possibly a "subculture". You freely use things like "slang" and made-up terms that one must be a part of some group or "subculture" to understand, yet you wish to disallow others the same expression. I am not an expert, sir, but that seems to be the height of hypocrisy. Would you be so kind as to elaborate for me on why it is not?

    15. Re:Definitions please by glwtta · · Score: 1

      Would you be so kind as to elaborate for me on why it is not?

      Certainly.

      As far as American slang goes, the use of the word "cool" is about as widespread as it gets. I had a reasonable expectation that just about every American, as well as most English speakers in general, would understand what I mean.

      On the other hand, "RTFA" is just an acronym for a commonly used expression here on Slashdot. But you are absolutely right, were I posting anywhere else I would not have used it.

      Mumorpuger is just my guess at how or pronounce MMORPG, are you saying that's not correct?

      I don't want to "disallow" anyone anything, nor do I have any problems with the concept of subcultures. What I find annoying is when people use expressions from their tiny cliques when talking to a general audience, knowing perfectly well that most people will not understand what they mean. Particularly, as in this case, when they use them to replace perfectly appropriate, commonly used words. Needlessly exporting your needlessly distinct vocabulary just seems like a really weak attempt to legitimize your little group as a subculture.

      On second though, maybe you are right, maybe I just dislike really, really lame subcultures.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
  9. In future news... by Spartan+Niner · · Score: 5, Funny

    Newbie griefers pretending to by Anonymous are caught posting from IP addresses associated with Scientology.

    1. Re:In future news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "pretending to by Anonymous"? Careful, you're starting to believe in your own bullshit.

    2. Re:In future news... by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      "pretending to by Anonymous"? Careful, you're starting to believe in your own bullshit.

      Well, if they were identified, then they weren't actually "anonymous", now were they?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    3. Re:In future news... by Sethus · · Score: 1

      Anonymous, not 'anonymous'. It's a name, a title, a noun, not an adjective. Regaurdless of how it's defined beyond that, in this case it's members of a disorganization of people. Read some of the rest of the comments to get the gist of what Anonymous is. (I don't identify with them at all, I think the protesting a religion is bad news on general principle.)

      --
      Posting with out proof reading since 2001.
    4. Re:In future news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Newbie griefers pretending to by Anonymous are caught posting from IP addresses associated with Scientology.

      That wouldn't be 127.0.0.1 now, would it!?

  10. The Internets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [blockquote]And forum members claim they found a message board thread -- since deleted -- planning the attack at 7chan.org, a group stronghold.[/blockquote] Careful! The internets are serious business!

  11. Of course by PakProtector · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Obviously 'Anonymous' did this, because the Church of Scientology is so moral as to never stoop to breaking the law and framing others to remove a detractor.

    Just how they would never try to drive a critic to suicide or cause the death of one of their own due to denial of basic medical treatment.

    --

    Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
    man: no entry for woman in the manual.
    "Qua!?"

    1. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. The "War on Scientology" is arguably the best and most humanitarian endeavor to be undertaken by anonymous, but don't discount the very real history of these kinds of pranks such as the aforementioned raid on the epileptic. Since there is no leadership structure and no coherency to speak of we don't have to take responsibility for any of the negative things, that's just some rogue nuts doing there own thing and slapping the Anonymous label on it. When we do something great though, we're seen as a mighty and ubiquitous gestalt force from the internet fighting for righteous justice. It's a genius way to run things.

      Anonymous IS indiscriminate hate and irrational preference. Only rarely does the will of the mob (and that's all anonymous is) align with goals that could be considered helpful to society; the rest of the time it's all just for fun, lulz as we say.

    2. Re:Of course by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Well, their names are not known, it was on the internet and it was discussed on 4chan/7chan. Seeing as Anonymous is pretty much defined as "any person or group of persons not being easily identifiable nd having some kind of conection to 4chan or similar boards" it's pretty safe to assume that Anonymous is involved. If I steal an old woman's purse and boast about it on 4chan then Anonymous has stolen an old woman's purse. Dosn't mean that anyone but me was involed.

      Anonymous is meta-anonymity. Not only does the label obfuscate who someone is but it also obfuscates how many people there are and which opinion (if any) they hold. All you can say is that soneone is there. Everything else is speculation.

      There's nothing that says the CoS was involved, but there's also nothing that says it wasn't. My money is on them not making up 100% of the griefers TFA talks about. There's a lot of bored people or questionable morality out there.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    3. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny thing is that, if the CoS were behind this and do not publicly claim to have done it they become 'members' of Anonymous.

  12. Sickening by wwwgregcom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As an epileptic, I find this absolutely sickening. Although I have a very mild form that is not photosensitive, this is a terrible act. For some, seizures do have a small risk of sudden death. When I was first diagnosed, I found these and similar message boards to be an absolutely invaluable resource in finding comfort and support for what is an often incurable and sometimes still stigmatized disease. For me, these forums will never feel like the same safe haven that they used to be.

    --
    What signature defines me as a person?
    1. Re:Sickening by taustin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Given how trivial it was to conduct this attack, I have say that this forum didn't "used to be" a safe haven, it only seemed to be. Now, you have a clearer understanding of how the world really works.

    2. Re:Sickening by MADCOWbeserk · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately I don't have mod points to repair the wrong. But whomeever modded your post "flamebait" should have their account deleted.

    3. Re:Sickening by JustShootMe · · Score: 2

      Trolling those with a disease? Your genes aren't much better. Go crawl back into the primordial muck.

      Oh, hey! Looks like they changed the commenting to work inline. That's cool. So at least your comment had some redeeming value, in spite of your best efforts.

      --
      For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
    4. Re:Sickening by jmv · · Score: 2, Informative

      Install noscript, set the FF option to disable animated gifs, disable flash. It's save again.

    5. Re:Sickening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who is not an epileptic, I find this absolutely sickening. It's very disturbing indeed, for exactly the reasons you listed.

    6. Re:Sickening by khallow · · Score: 1

      Flamebait is a pretty standard mod for this sort of post. It does after all encourage flames and other irrational posting (just look at the other replies).

    7. Re:Sickening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      slashdot was broken for a few minutes and let me comment AC and mod you fuckers down and my brothers-in-arms up. unfortunately it appears fixed and my mods have been undone. you are still an epileptic-loving piece of shit and you dont know the first thing about ebaumsworld, asshole.

      --ebaumsworld

    8. Re:Sickening by vertinox · · Score: 4, Funny

      Given how trivial it was to conduct this attack,

      Did someone forget to disable the [img][/img] tags on their PHPBB forum?

      To be fair, imagine what Slashdot would look like if you could post images.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    9. Re:Sickening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      inferior, epileptic genes.

      Apart from your eugenic approach, which I don't comment on, because it is in its general form not based on facts, but on superstition: May I please be allowed to mention that the pure symptom of epilepsy has no relationship whatsoever with genetic predisposition? Thank you.

      There are many different reasons which can cause one or some of the symptoms we collectively call "epilepsy". One of them is accident, for example a car accident caused by others. No genetic predisposition here, please move along. So, generalizing really doesn't cut it.

      On a personal note, the most funny epileptic I ever met was a young Nazi (and a great believer in the genetic superiority of the master race he supposedly belonged to) who felt extremely unhappy to be medicated together with all those inferior epileptics he had to live with in the hospital ...

    10. Re:Sickening by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Funny

      As an epileptic, I find this absolutely sickening. That's the point ;-)
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    11. Re:Sickening by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Flamebait is a pretty standard mod for this sort of post. It does after all encourage flames and other irrational posting (just look at the other replies). Getting flamed is not an indicator of flamebait: Flamebait refers to comments whose sole purpose is to insult and enrage. If someone is not-so-subtly picking a fight (racial insults are a dead giveaway), it's Flamebait.

      The replies wich flame him are flamebait. The insults are dead giveaway.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    12. Re:Sickening by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      Don't worry about his genes being passed on tho, you can't pass on you have no cojones.

    13. Re:Sickening by wwwgregcom · · Score: 1

      Give me a break man. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that a forum for support of a disease be a safe place regardless of the security level. They don't need to put metal detectors at the door to a physical disease support group.

      --
      What signature defines me as a person?
    14. Re:Sickening by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Funny

      imagine what Slashdot would look like if you could post images. I'm thinking "goatse as a repeating background image"... DAMN YOU! You made me think of a mosaic of goatses!

      *cries*
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    15. Re:Sickening by popmaker · · Score: 0

      It might encourage him. We don't feed the trolls for a reason. But I agree that this person should indeed go f*** itself.

    16. Re:Sickening by AySz88 · · Score: 1

      To be fair to the original post, he said the boards would never feel like a safe haven as they used to. He never said what you're claiming he said.

    17. Re:Sickening by jd · · Score: 1

      Anyone with seizures has that risk, it's just thankfully so small for many that it can be overlooked. It's also a lot more common than is often portrayed. Seizures aren't just grand mal. Anyone who gets regular severe nightmares (no, not from reading Slashdot) should get themselves checked. Anyone on lithium should also get checked, as lithium reduces the brain's seizure threshold. Personally, I'm not even convinced all seizures are detected by EEG - they're 8-bit devices, if I'm reading the plots correctly, and only a very few sections are ever examined. They're infinitely better than nothing, but I would think we could have much better medical imaging of the electrical activity by now.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    18. Re:Sickening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you fucking cry baby. i hope you die before spreading your inferior, epileptic genes. Let's see... even if he died next week, he's more likely to spread his genes than you are if you lived to 150. Simple numbers really- he stands a small chance of getting laid in the next week; you stand no chance of getting laid- *ever*.

      It's a form of genetic selection really; the human race doesn't really need Cheetoh-scoffing, pudgy, charisma-free losers who've got nothing better to do than troll Slashdot from behind a keyboard in their Mom's basement. Seriously, do you have a girlfriend? Are you ever likely to get one in the foreseeable future?

      I wouldn't expect you to admit it online, but I know that when you read this you won't be able to deny the truth to yourself. And that's all that matters really- I know that you're a pathetic loser, and (more importantly) *you* know that you're a pathetic loser.

      All the best!
    19. Re:Sickening by taustin · · Score: 1

      I agree. It's not unreasonable to expect that. However, expecting it doesn't make it so. What you have said is that the people who run the forum have failed utterly in their responsibilitie to run the forum in a respsonsible way. What kind of fool allows uploading unmoderated images on a fourm?

    20. Re:Sickening by scaryjohn · · Score: 1

      Given how trivial it was to conduct this attack, I have say that this forum didn't "used to be" a safe haven, it only seemed to be. Now, you have a clearer understanding of how the world really works.

      Wow. That logic applies to so many other "That movie has warped my fragile little mind" scenarios. But I've never seen it put so succinctly before.

      --
      One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.
    21. Re:Sickening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah. My first lol of the day. Always a special moment for an all-day lurker.

    22. Re:Sickening by gzipped_tar · · Score: 1

      Or try Opera's "Accessibility Layout" stylesheet. It turns off image display and turn the page into a mild green color. Opera can disable images without changing the CSS too.

      And there is Lynx...

      --
      Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    23. Re:Sickening by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For some, seizures do have a small risk of sudden death.

      Actually I seem to remember there were two women posting on that message board who got killed by status seizures within weeks of each other, just a few months ago.

    24. Re:Sickening by Prune · · Score: 1

      It would look like a slightly geekier version of 4chan's Random board

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    25. Re:Sickening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just had a cool idea. Let browsers have an epileptic setting that throttles all animations (gif, mng, swf, etc..) to 2 frames per second or less. Safety feature!

    26. Re:Sickening by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it "used to be" that when you posted to Slashdot people "used to be" able to distinguish between a social statement and a technical one. As in Safe Haven = an place were people could go post with out fear about their condition NOT safe haven = a safe technical spot. It 'used to be" That people that couldn't discern the difference between the two got moderated down, not up. "Used to be" that those handing out tough love of the "now you know how the world works" variety had some actual damn experience in the area they were spouting off about. "used to be" that people with low UIDs actually had a clue. I really don't know who is dumber, you, or the people that moderated you up.

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    27. Re:Sickening by khallow · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is incorrect here. Intent isn't necessary.

    28. Re:Sickening by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is incorrect here. Intent isn't necessary. Yes it is. You don't mod someone down because they got flamed: you punish/censor the flamers, not the one being attacked.

      Sheesh.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    29. Re:Sickening by khallow · · Score: 1

      No, I think this is an appropriate use of the "flamebait" mod. Please remember that the original poster wasn't contributing to debate by provoking irrational responses. That sort of post shouldn't be rewarded.

    30. Re:Sickening by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      No, I think this is an appropriate use of the "flamebait" mod. 1- You're wrong
      2- The MODERATION GUIDELINES tell you you're wrong.

      the original poster wasn't contributing to debate by provoking irrational responses. Are you retarded? Are you dense or something? FUCK YOU.

      There, I flamed you, therefore you're flamebaiting.

      And since there's trolls to flame any and every comment out there, everytime a troll attacks someone, that person, in addition to being attacked, should be modded down for the actions of someone else?
      Want to put victims of crimes in prison instead of their attackers? Since by provoking this violent agression they aren't contributing positively to scociety?

      You have large problems with the logic of cause and effect. Work on that.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    31. Re:Sickening by taustin · · Score: 1

      Awwww, somebody need a hug. Or a puppy.

    32. Re:Sickening by khallow · · Score: 1

      Anyone who posts on the internet for any length of time knows how certain posts can incite people. This is why trolls work in the first place. The original poster found the prank "absolutely sickening", claimed he had a "very mild form" of the disease, and then goes on to claim that these forums are no longer a "safe haven". While I think this poster is probably sincere, you have to keep in mind that this is the structure of one of the classic trolls: condemn some action or crime, claim some sort of authority in the matter, and make some cute observation about your supposed loss of innocence. Then you get a zillion replies, virtually all which are emotional and predictably useless in content.

      I don't consider intent of the poster in determining flamebait and my impression is that is typical for slashdot. The reason is because intent is ridiculously difficult to determine. Slashdot guidelines with respect to flamebait are incorrect and useless.

      It is my hope that the original poster (as well as most of the repliers in this thread) will figure out what was wrong with his or her post. Namely, that pure emotional venting on a community forum, while cathartic, doesn't communicate anything that people didn't already know. It just doesn't contribute.

    33. Re:Sickening by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      I don't consider intent of the poster in determining flamebait and my impression is that is typical for slashdot. The reason is because intent is ridiculously difficult to determine. Slashdot guidelines with respect to flamebait are incorrect and useless. No, the guidelines are clear and consice, but you do not understand them. You blame and punish the victim, and inforce an abuse of the moderation system that will kill honest communication in favor of the trolls.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    34. Re:Sickening by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      *Actually*... I happened to discover a while back that Internet Explorer 6 has exactly this. I think it limits GIF animation periods to a minimum of 100ms or something; I discovered this whilst trying to make some animated buttons. This kind of crazy epilepsy shit is only doable on browsers like Firefox that respect the GIF animation speed settings.

    35. Re:Sickening by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The whole point of the moderation system is to decrease the visibility of people who are trolling, flamebait, posting wrong information, etc so that folks reading at the default level get a cleaner feed. By posting insults to the trolls you're only adding more noise and giving the troll the attention he wants but doesn't deserve.

  13. Maybe... by SCHecklerX · · Score: 2, Insightful

    boards for epileptic support shouldn't be written with javascript and image upload ability in the first place? Just a thought. I don't recall ever having strobing marching penises coming out of the monitor at me when I read usenet all those years...

    1. Re:Maybe... by Spudtrooper · · Score: 1

      So is this why they took away the tag?

    2. Re:Maybe... by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      boards for epileptic support shouldn't be written with javascript and image upload ability in the first place? Just a thought.

      I almost bitchslapped you down as Overrated but decided to reply instead. Those boards are using standard PHP BBS packages off the shelf. They're already pretty buggy; on the EFA you keep getting immediately logged out, you keep losing posts, etc. Surprisingly epileptics don't tend to be experts at putting together crackerjack bulletin boards secure from unconventional cyberattacks that nobody anticipates, like asshats uploading strobe light movies. I guess they have to shut down their mailing lists, too, in case a Scientologist uploads an attachment.

      Most of the seizure-induced hallucinations I get while staring at a computer screen happen when I'm using Eclipse. Blocks of code start disappearing into blind spots or they fly across the screen but somehow remain at their home positions. It's actually kind of annoying because I know I have 20 minutes to check the shit in. Although it's visually-related epilepsy, it doesn't seem to be photosensitive so a trick like this probably wouldn't work. It's more shocking and insulting than anything. But one thing I will say about epilepsy is that you have to put up with a surprising amount of shit from people.

    3. Re:Maybe... by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      i wonder how hard it would be to hack a display adapter to prevent seizures, make every frame change spread across enough time that a flashing pattern would instead become just a muddled gray or brown spot

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    4. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying that epileptics cannot be security consultants?

    5. Re:Maybe... by aberkvam · · Score: 1

      Those boards are using standard PHP BBS packages off the shelf. They're already pretty buggy; on the EFA you keep getting immediately logged out, you keep losing posts, etc.

      Yup, that's what it was. I was on the boards during the attack. The admins had disabled HTML in posts but there was a bug in the filter. Various JavaScript and HTML could be written that would slip past the filters. The attackers added a redirect tag of some sort and all of the sudden clicking on a forum topic would send you to an entirely different site. Then put a little JavaScript on that site that pops up endless alerts so you can't quit your browser. For the average web user it was impossible to stop short of not going to the site at all.

      Plus the attack was started early on Easter weekend. I don't know if that was intentional but it meant that the admins weren't reachable for a day or two.
    6. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree - people can be unreasonably cruel to epileptics. I knew a kid in high-school with the condition, and he was the target of jokes and pranks basically everywhere he went in school with no relief.

      However, the point that forum and bulliten board cgi's should be configured to prevent this kind of abuse is correct. That's the essence of cross-site scripting attacks. Go to a forum, post to a topic, and embed HTML that points to a CGI or JavaScript file on another server to deliver the payload. This is Webserver Security 101 we're talking here. Even slashdot, the site were debating on now, has a filter in place to prevent exactly this kind of black-hat behavior.

      The bboard in question needs to be secured to prevent abuse like this is the future. The consequences could be serious! What if a forum member has a seizure due to a prank animated GIF or JavaScript, falls from his chair and fatally cracks his head on the floor?

    7. Re:Maybe... by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      They're using Fusetalk as their forum software. It shows up in the footer on the error page that you get whenever you log in.

    8. Re:Maybe... by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

      I agree, why are epileptics allowed to look at pictures anyway?

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    9. Re:Maybe... by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

      I meant animated images. My bad. I guess that would kill illustrative animations, but if you want them, then you have to assume that risk.

  14. Very Neuromancer by lobiusmoop · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Reminds me of the terrorist attack by the Panther Moderns on Sense/Net in Neuromancer

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    1. Re:Very Neuromancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously you didn't read "Snow Crash"

    2. Re:Very Neuromancer by jwdb · · Score: 1

      And obviously you didn't read Neuromancer. The attack he refers to is a set of flashing and subliminal images in a video feed designed to induce panic and mania in a significant portion of Sense/Net. That's much closer to this event, compared to a digital nam shub from a sumerian god infecting the minds of hackers like a computer virus.

      Jw

  15. Yet another reason javascript should be abandoned. by Dogun · · Score: 1, Funny

    If the past 15 years of strobing pages, CPU gobbling animated backgrounds, looped 'all keys disabled' rickrolling with an endless supply of modal dialogs weren't enough to convince you, perhaps this should be.

    Flash, you're next.

  16. Seen This Before by Ganty · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've already seen this sort of thing before. About six years ago Reuters had a series of flash based adverts for BMW that produced a swirling pattern on the screen. This advert produced an epileptic fit in one of our users and when I sent an emergency email to Reuters the adverts were pulled.

    For someone to do this on purpose is kinda sick.

    Ganty

  17. Hackers? by Aaron+England · · Score: 1, Troll

    The headline of the news article is "Hackers Assault Epilepsy Patients via Computer", yet all the perpetrators did was troll the message board with offensive links not unlike what happens here daily on Slashdot. The media never could grasp the correct usage of hackers (hackers versus crackers, hackers versus script kiddies, etc), and confusing Anonymous for hackers isn't likely to help.

    1. Re:Hackers? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The media never could grasp the correct usage of hackers (hackers versus crackers

      Ok, that battle was lost literally 20 years ago, give it the hell up already. Seriously, you're only deluding yourself on this one.

      hackers versus script kiddies

      I've always assumed that script kiddies are a type of hacker who use only code/exploits written by other people instead of writing their own.

      and confusing Anonymous for hackers isn't likely to help.

      Yes, well, if they're going to be a group, maybe they should get a name that isn't completely moronic.

    2. Re:Hackers? by Yetihehe · · Score: 1

      Yes, we should find another word for hackers, so media would not confuse it anymore. I propose "thinking overlords".

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    3. Re:Hackers? by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      It wasn't just offensive links, it was actual images. How would you like Slashdot if people could post the actual goatse image rather than just linking to it and you knew there was a strong chance you would see it?

    4. Re:Hackers? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Yes, well, if they're going to be a group, maybe they should get a name that isn't completely moronic.
      There is no other name that fits. Anonymous is a meta-group of people whose only defining characteristic is that they're anonymous. Okay, and that most of them have connections to 4chan and similar boards. The Anonymous that campaigns is not the Anonymous that trolls epilepsy boards, but they're both part of the same Anonymous. You can't identify subsets of the group (which is intended), thus you can only talk about the whole group.
      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    5. Re:Hackers? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      The Anonymous that campaigns is not the Anonymous that trolls epilepsy boards, but they're both part of the same Anonymous. You can't identify subsets of the group (which is intended), thus you can only talk about the whole group.

      Thus they are the same people. Pedantry cuts both ways.

    6. Re:Hackers? by try_anything · · Score: 1

      You can't identify subsets of the group (which is intended), thus you can only talk about the whole group.
      You don't have to be Anonymous to be anonymous. Why do people accept the label of Anonymous, organize under that label, and not enable any distinction between themselves and other members of Anonymous? Clearly they wish to benefit from the existing label and its notoriety, which was built on griefing. Just as clearly, their participation in Anonymous helps sustain the meme. It's nothing but wishful thinking to help sustain something and seek to benefit from it while disclaiming moral responsibility for its effects. A structure that obscures responsibility does not erase it.
    7. Re:Hackers? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      They are definitely part of the same group. That group is just completely unpredictable because it's completely anarchic.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    8. Re:Hackers? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      And that's why any member of Anonymous is always firstly perceived as a griefer who preys on easy targets for his personal amusement. It doesn't matter what else they do; the Anonymous "brand" was built on griefing and its nondescriptness ensures that that's what's firstly associated with it. Of course this is reinforces by Anonymous usualy living up to that stereotype (actually, even the anti-CoS campaign can be perceived as attacking someone who already is very unpopular).

      They don't want to distinguish from other members of Anonymous because it allows them to spread responsibility over the whole group. It's like Tor, only for responsibility.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  18. Riiight... by Zocalo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And I am supposed to believe that this is Anonymous branching out from their protest against Scientology, and not some asshat member of Scientology trying to give Anonymous a bad name because...?

    Anonymous has a beef with Scientology, and that is the sole extent of their agenda to date, so there is absolutely no reason for them to suddenly decide to launch an attack against epileptics. On the other hand there is every reason for Scientology to try and smear Anonymous in order to gain a more sympathetic ear in any future court actions against Anonymous. Given the track record Scientology has with the use of smear campaigns against people and organisations that try to stand up to them, I'd say it's pretty obvious what's really going on here.

    Oh, and expect incoming pro-Scientology astroturfers in 3... 2... 1...

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    1. Re:Riiight... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 0

      Err... so if 'Anonymous' does something you like, it's them, but if they don't, it's not them.

      Yeah... right. Get over it. Hiding behind the term 'Anonymous' pretty much labels them as a much of 13 year olds with no life in the first place. They don't *need* smearing - they're perfectly capable of doing it themselves.

    2. Re:Riiight... by dasunt · · Score: 1

      I guess this makes me a pro-Scientology astroturfer (woot, Xenu will be proud!) but just because Scientology has a history of engaging in illegal behavior doesn't mean they did it. (It *does* make them a suspect. It doesn't prove anything.)

    3. Re:Riiight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glad you got modded up. This isn't really typical of the activities of 7ch0n nor 4chn. Does anyone remember pro-ana? Their targets are usually worthy, and very trollable. This seems like an immature attack of potentially noob internet users. How do you verify the attack? "Dude, I bet they're all seizing so hard lul lul lul"

    4. Re:Riiight... by Zocalo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, I was just pointing out that Anonymous has no motive for an attack on epileptics while Scientology has every reason to want to discredit Anonymous and this smacks of Scientology's usual modus operandi. I don't believe I made any statement about my views on either side, other than that I'm not particularly pro-Scientology, but what the hell... For the record I think that the upper echelons of Scientology are a bunch of deceitful scumbags whose sole purpose in the organisation is to manipulate the more gullible members of the organisation into giving them large sums of cash and will do pretty much anything to keep that gravy train flowing. Typical cult in other words.

      Anonymous, on the otherhand, I think has a worthwhile agenda in showing the public at large just what they can expect should they ever be tempted to join, or coerced into joining, Scientology. I do however have a problem with *their* operational methods though - not the peaceful protests, which are harmless to everyone and everything except Scientology's recruitment drive and gravy train, but their more militant activities like launching a series of DDoS attacks against Scientology. That does indeed smack of them consisting, at least in part, of a bunch of 13-year old script kiddies with no life that are perfectly capable of smearing themselves.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    5. Re:Riiight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that you don't recall any previous campaigns by Anonymous officially makes you a newfag. The most famous griefing campaign they've performed interrupted gameplay in Habbo Hotel, but there have been several other major ones. I'm no oldfag, but I've personally seen raids on webcam/chat porn sites where the goal was to make the stripper cry. Another common type of raid has them posting extreme porn on forums frequented by children. I've even seen references to MySpace raids where the victim committed suicide. I'd provide links for proof, but /b/ deletes old threads. Just go and ask. You'll hear stories.

      Just because they've picked a worthy cause now doesn't make Anonymous a noble group. They're the same nasty, brutish netthugs they've always been.

    6. Re:Riiight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're absolutely right. Nobody who carries out actions anonymously can possibly be doing anything good.

    7. Re:Riiight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous has a beef with Scientology, and that is the sole extent of their agenda to date
      No, Anonymous have been around for long enough just trying to fuck with people. It's only recently that one of those people happened to be Scientology, but griefing epileptics is more typical.

    8. Re:Riiight... by fermion · · Score: 1
      Why vigilantes do what they do is mostly unknown. Certainly most vigilante groups start with noble causes, at least in their minds. For instance, it is cool to hate scientologist, so those who want an excuse to commit arguably illegal acts use the notion that the scientologist somehow deserve it, in the same way that some people who say they believe 'thou shalt not kill' created extensive justifications why some people deserve to die.

      The problem is that they then get used to the power of committing these illegal acts, or not getting caught, of having their metaphorical face on TV.

      Justifications for hate are seldom logical. Many they just believe that inclusion is dooming regular kids to mediocrity and hurting epileptics is one way to get back.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    9. Re:Riiight... by HappySmileMan · · Score: 1

      Anonymous have raided Habbo hotels and many other childrens sites just because it was funny, they troll disabled people and make fun of all other races as well as women.

      The protests against Scientology is really the only moral thing I recall them doing, and even that was started because they thought it'd be funny.

      Anonymous probably ARE doing this because they do stuff like it all the time.

      But if it makes you feel better, I'd say 99% of the protesters are completely unrelated to these attacks, they share name only when you look at how it progressed.

    10. Re:Riiight... by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      all other races? so what race is anonymous anyways? all photos i ever saw were green, or simply not available.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    11. Re:Riiight... by Wavebreak · · Score: 1

      Anonymous does have a motive: shits and giggles. However, Anonymous isn't an organized group, simply a label for a collection of wildly different people, some of whom are entirely amoral and do things mostly for their own amusement, at least on the interwebs. Which is why I think taking up the scientology fight under their banner wasn't exactly a bright idea, because it leads to people like me having to constantly make posts like these.

      --
      Nobody expects the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.
    12. Re:Riiight... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Err... so if 'Anonymous' does something you like, it's them, but if they don't, it's not them.

      Some nameless local person stuffs Salvation Army boxes with hundred dollar bills each Christmas. Some other nameless person shot a kid recently. Since they're both anonymous (lowercase "a"), they might be the same person.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    13. Re:Riiight... by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was just pointing out that Anonymous has no motive for an attack on epileptics no motive? What about lulz? no one needed a motive for rick rolling, goatseing, 2girls1cup, any kind of trolling, other than just for laughs, why the need for one now?
    14. Re:Riiight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not necessarily scientology, there is no proof who really did it. Some of the /b/ tards are some sick people and would do something like this too. Most of them quit taking part in the War on Scientology because they think peaceful protests are faggy and want to go back to hacking, prank calling and waving honk if you hate signs. Thus most of them have left the boards for that and are off doing their own things.

      This also seems rather too creative for scientology to come up with. They tend to stick with stuff any dumb shit could come up with like fake bomb threats and screaming OMG TERRORIST. Anyway, it has nothing to do with those who are running the protests. Anonymous means anonymous. Anyone could have done this.

    15. Re:Riiight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you "get" anon.

    16. Re:Riiight... by vikhik · · Score: 1

      As someone who is a /b/tard amongst other internet personae, I doubt that anon is responsible for this attack, this smacks of chaff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_(radar_countermeasure)), much like the corn starch attack of earlier this year upon C0$, something merely to give Anon bad publicity. As many people have mentioned, Co$ is very proficient at defending itself with misleading information/lawsuits/illegal activity. I pose some questions: What does anonymous have to gain from attacking epileptics? For the lulz? - I doubt it, anons ancestors often used "shock sites" to do these things, such as tubgirl, which played upon *user stupidity* for said "lulz" also, anon tends to not take malicious activity without being provoked (see the history of Project Chanology), and how might the epileptic forum have provoked anon?

      --
      GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
    17. Re:Riiight... by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      launching a series of DDoS attacks against Scientology. That does indeed smack of them consisting, at least in part, of a bunch of 13-year old script kiddies with no life that are perfectly capable of smearing themselves. Sure, but at least they've been given a valid target. Using their irresponsible powers for good, instead of "l33t h4x0r1n6" random web sites.
      They want to launch DDoSs, they're looking for websites to mess with. Might as well point them at someone who deserves it.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    18. Re:Riiight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous is not a group that was created to protest Scientology, Anonymous is a bunch of people who like to act retarded on the internet and decided to protest Scientology for some reason. Anonymous doesn't "have an agenda"; if it did, it could be summarized with "We're not happy until you're not happy."

    19. Re:Riiight... by kennyj449 · · Score: 1

      Bear in mind, Anonymous is a label - it is not a true organization. Any group of idiots can decide to vandalize a website in the name of Anonymous. Who's to say they were wrong to make that claim? The only requirement for membership in Anonymous is that one be able to call themselves such.

    20. Re:Riiight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it was a real anon raid they wouldn't have been namefagging. The raid is obviously a $cientology black op.

    21. Re:Riiight... by HappySmileMan · · Score: 1

      I'd say 99% white

  19. More like... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    More like Snow Crash, or even better: the short story BLIT by David Langford. This story immediately brought BLIT back to mind.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    1. Re:More like... by dasunt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The 'War against the Rull' by A. E. Van Vogt had that idea as well.

      "As he turned away, quite incidentally, accidentally, he glanced at the rock behind which he had shielded himself from possible direct fire. Glanced at and saw the lines on it. Intricate lines, based on an profound and inhuman study of human neurons. He recognized them for what they were and stiffened in horror. He thought, Where--where am I being directed?

      "That much had been discovered after his return from Mira 23, with his report of how he had been apparently, instantly, hypnotized; the lines impelled movement to somewhere. Here, on this fantastic mountain, it could only be to a cliff. But which one?

      "With a desparate will, he fought to retain his senses a moment longer. he strove to see the lines again. He saw briefly, flashingly, five wavering verticals and above them three lines that pointed east with their wavering ends. The pressure built up inside him, but still he fought to keep his thoughts self-motivated. Fought to remember if there were wide ledges near the top of the east cliff."....

      That work was from either the 40s or 50s, which would predate Langford. :D

    2. Re:More like... by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      The 'War against the Rull' by A. E. Van Vogt Hypno-rocks, fantastical... I'd read a sci-fi book (long time ago, no details) which had something similar, but more basic: It was a sign that induced fear. It was used to prevent people and animals from leaving a valley.

      The idea was that the fear it induced was so strong, so primal, that once you'd seen the sign, you couldn't even approach it with your eyes closed, knowing it was there was enough to trigger a panic attack if you tried.

      Kinda like Monty Pythons' deadly joke, but different :)
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  20. Will the Authorities Take Notice Now? by ThePolkapunk · · Score: 1

    Many computer security analysts have been screaming for years that there needs to be tighter security in applications and that law authorities need to do more against cyber crimes. As much as I don't want the law breathing down my back when I'm using the computer, it's time someone did something to stop stupid little script kiddies from pulling shit like this.

    Now that the line has been crossed, and hackers are using exploits to cause physical harm to people, I hope that this will be the wakeup call for governments to start doing something about it. They need to start pressing hard on companies who release bug riddled software. Universities and books need to start ingraining careful, methodical programming and security mindedness before they even learn "Hello World."

    And for goodness sake, get those donut eating pigs off of their fat asses and get them protecting people instead of chasing after 7 year old kids downloading songs from the internet!

    --
    Dear diary: Today I stuffed some dolls full of dead rats I put in the blender.
    1. Re:Will the Authorities Take Notice Now? by nevali · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Er, how about this: people who run websites need to be competent at it.

      Many forum software packages have the ability to selectively or globally disable the upload animated GIFs. Given that they're forums for suffers of epilepsy, you'd think it'd be fairly high up on the list given that photosensitivity is a well-known symptom.

      Similarly, a sticky forum post on "How to avoid a seizure when browsing the web" would be helpful. Links to Firefox plug-ins, and the like.

    2. Re:Will the Authorities Take Notice Now? by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1
      Er, how about this: people who run websites need to be competent at it.

      If you run a bank you need to put measures in place to protect against armed robberies. If you run a paysite you need to put measures into place to protect payment details. If you run a school you need to put measures in place to protect yourself against pranks. That's reasonable. However it's not reasonable to expect the organizer of an AA meeting to protect against armed robberies, and it's not reasonable to expect an organization running a kindergarten to protect against tank attacks.

      Intentionally causing physical harm is way over the line, and the perpetrators must be found and brought to justice. It doesn't matter that there is a way to protect against a specific attack - there is no way to shield yourself from any possible attack. Programmers have put in zero effort to make web browsers safe for suffers of epilepsy - they are trying to make it safe for online payments or for playing movies, and they don't even succeed with that. There is no maintained web browser which doesn't have a long history of exploits - if it's a good browser the exploits are fixed quickly, that's all. There is no way to build an attack-proof system from components like that.

      There is a good reason why there are plenty of spam bots, and no history of intentional physical harm to web users - there is no gray area there, no freedom of speech conflicts - people who do that need to go to jail.

    3. Re:Will the Authorities Take Notice Now? by nevali · · Score: 1

      Web browser authors aren't trying to "make it safe" for anybody or anything; it's an impossible and unreasonable goal. There is no way to build "an attack-proof system" AT ALL, and there are a distinctly limited number of "physical attacks" which can be carried out remotely. In fact, I can think of only two possible vectors: visual and audio, and so long as people are wont to have animated avatars, run adverts on their sites, or look at videos of skateboarding cats, you're shit out of luck if you think they're reasonably preventable.

      The Web contains lots of stuff. Browsers let you look at that stuff. What you happen to look at (or be persuaded to look at) is none of the browser's concern. If you run a forum and can't keep trolls off it (whatever their intentions), stop running a goddamned forum.

      How the utter fuck is a browser supposed to determine what's "good" and what's "bad"? Where do you draw the line? Why not just disable animated GIFs and Flash across the board?

      Seriously, the world needs a "switch off port 80" day. We can all go back to Gopher and /etc/hosts. It was easy then.

    4. Re:Will the Authorities Take Notice Now? by gorbachev · · Score: 1

      "Er, how about this: people who run websites need to be competent at it."

      So kinda like how women should never wear provocative clothing to avoid being raped.

      Yea. Makes sense.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
    5. Re:Will the Authorities Take Notice Now? by Os+Wilkes · · Score: 1

      Blaming the victim is always a good idea... Love, Os

    6. Re:Will the Authorities Take Notice Now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No kidding. If someone has epilepsy, they should know to disable animations and possibly even javascript.

    7. Re:Will the Authorities Take Notice Now? by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Or how about this: Bad stuff happens, bad stuff will continue to happen, there are bad people out there, get used to it.

      Prior restraint on coding is useless. Coding is just a form of writing. Are you going to similarly force writers to be licensed and prove a certain "quality" before they can publish anything on the internet or elsewhere? I mean, by your argument they could write hate speech, we don't want that! Licensing would help to contain that just as much as it would help to contain bad code, which is to say, not at all.

      And besides, I like my right to free speech and I like being able to self-teach myself any programming language I choose. Make them require licensing and suddenly you have a handful of "accredited" schools, far fewer coders in the world, and much higher prices to get anything done. Innovation slows to a crawl. Sound good to you?

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    8. Re:Will the Authorities Take Notice Now? by nevali · · Score: 1

      I didn't say the blame rests with the victim.

      However, when the question is hysterically posed pertaining to what we should do to prevent such things from happening, it's pretty simple. With many crimes, the victim doesn't have a lot of choice: with this one, it was trivial to prevent, like locking your doors and windows before you go away for the weekend.

    9. Re:Will the Authorities Take Notice Now? by nevali · · Score: 1

      No, more like how people shouldn't leave their wallets and phones on a bar while they go to the toilet if they don't want them stolen. Any theft wouldn't be the victim's _fault_, but they could have easily prevented it with few in the way of downsides.

    10. Re:Will the Authorities Take Notice Now? by Os+Wilkes · · Score: 1

      There is a normal expectation of getting spammed on a support forum. There is a normal expectation of getting trolled. There is a normal expectation of getting hacked.

      When is it normal to have an expectation of getting ASSAULTED and BATTERED on a support forum?

      This is like saying a rape victim should have taken the precaution of wearing a chastity belt. Shame on her for leaving her vagina lying around where anybody could have penetrated it.

      Love,

      Os

    11. Re:Will the Authorities Take Notice Now? by nevali · · Score: 1

      No, it isn't like saying that at all. I've previously clarified and explained the already very obvious differences.

  21. I have a true Scientology story.... by Izabael_DaJinn · · Score: 5, Interesting
    A few months ago when that crazy Tom Cruise video first appeared I wrote a comment about it on DailyMotion making a joke about Scientology. The next day our office phone number (listed at our registrar) had a call (on the caller ID) from the Church of Scientology the very next day. No one was around to answer and no one called back, but it can hardly be a coincidence since it was the first time before and after we ever had a call from them!!

    In other words, I do believe they would do something like you are suggesting.

    I also would expect another phone call from them tomorrow for this post :~(

    --
    Careful What You Wish For....
    1. Re:I have a true Scientology story.... by Naughty+Bob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was sorely tempted to post anonymously (not the flashing lights kind) when writing the post.

      But bullies don't stop if you run away.

      --
      "Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
    2. Re:I have a true Scientology story.... by JWSmythe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Was it something like...

          How many Scientologists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

          damn, I don't have a punchline for that.

          I'm personally entertained that they *won't* talk to me.

          I was looking for work, and there was a scientologist owned company (the owners were scientologists, they weren't "owned" by the organization). My reasoning was, I've worked for a lot of different people who haven't converted me to or from anything, if they're paying a paycheck, I'll work for them.

          I showed up for the "interview", and was told there were some papers I needed to fill out. Fine. For past interviews, I've filled out application forms, NDA, etc, etc.

          They walked me into their conference room, and put a test in front of me. No big deal, Rackspace gives a personality test as part of their process too. I caught the L. Ron Hubbard name at the bottom, and I had spotted books on Management for Scientologists in the office, but this wasn't quite what I expected for an INTERVIEW. I caught the name of one of the tests on my camera phone while taking the tests.

          I'll summarize the tests as, they were a crappy excuse for personality and IQ tests, almost blatantly testing to if I would be easily converted to their cause.

          After I got home, I started researching what these tests were, both from questions I remembered, and from the name I caught on my phone.

          As I discovered, there are different scoring levels. Basically, the low end is people who are stupid and easily bent, but not worthwhile. The middle 80% is their target audience, with varying levels in the middle. The high end is where I'm sure I landed. While my personality is glowing in person, I'm not easy swayed to things without substantial facts and personal research. :) This high end, they are specifically instructed to have absolutely NO further contact with the individual. Hmmmm, how sad.

          Since they didn't reschedule the actual interview where I could talk to the boss (not just the receptionist/secretary), I emailed a week later just asking for my scores, out of curiousity. No response. Another week later, I asked again, no response. So I gave up.

          Really, it makes sense. If I got the job there, I may let them tell me all about Scientology, but I'm going to start poking holes in it, and eventually some or most of the people working there are going to start questioning things. You don't need blind faith disciples questioning things. Blind faith is a great thing until it's questioned.

          Hey guys, no offense. Everyone believes something, even if they believe in nothing.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    3. Re:I have a true Scientology story.... by Strange+Ranger · · Score: 3, Funny

      How many Scientologists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

      If the lightbulb spends enough money, it will eventually be told that it is already screwed in, everyone else is just too blind to see it.

      --

      Operator, give me the number for 911!
    4. Re:I have a true Scientology story.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I caught the name of one of the tests on my camera phone while taking the tests. [ ... ] After I got home, I started researching what these tests were, both from questions I remembered, and from the name I caught on my phone.

      I like how you roll.

      Congratulations on the serendipitous pwnage. If you ever feel like getting similar lulz, Google for the OCA, which (if it wasn't the test you got) is the standard Scilon "free personality test".

      The test itself is bogus. Typical test takers end up with 7 bars representing some mumbo-jumbo about their personality, and if a lot of them are low, why, you're obviously having some troubles in $lowest_bar, but giving the Scilons your life's savings can help you with that! (If all of them are high but not perfect, why, golly-gee, giving the Scilons your life's savings can make you even more awesome than you already are!)

      Since the "right" answers (i.e. what the Scilons regard as the human ideal) have long since been leaked to the Intarwebs, you can promptly go to any Scilon Basestar and get 100% on the test. Since that's never supposed to happen (i.e. since it's supposed to cost you your life's savings to even get started!), their sales script doesn't have a line for that, and provided you take suitable steps to conceal your identity before taking the test, fucking lulz can ensue.

      Griefing epileptics is teh lame. It's funny, but it's too easy. Griefing idiots with delusions of godhood, and a private army of over 9000 PIs, stalkers, and Sea Org and OSA goons with whom you can subsequently play James Bond on the subway system, now that's teh win. It's free training in tradecraft, and you don't have to join any government's secret police to play!

    5. Re:I have a true Scientology story.... by Mr.+Shotgun · · Score: 2, Funny

      How many Scientologists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
      damn, I don't have a punchline for that.
      • You don't know the history of light bulbs....I do.
      • When I walk by a light bulb unscrewed in I know that as a scientologist, I am the only person who can screw it in.
      • We are the authorities on screwing in light bulbs. We are the authorities on screwing them in.
      • The SP's must have unscrewed it! Implement "fair game" on the janitor. /li>
      The jokes almost write themselves.
      --
      Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
    6. Re:I have a true Scientology story.... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Griefing epileptics is teh lame. It's funny, but it's too easy
      It's funny? About as funny as hitting someone in the head with a tire iron.

      It's funny if you're a neanderthal.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  22. I was wondering when this would happen by mlwmohawk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have a relative in the Fire Alarm business and he tells me about the restrictions on strobe lights on long corridors, they have to flash simultaneously because the random flashes could cause a seizure during a fire. I thought, "wow, that's right. I wonder if they actualy thought about it before hand, or if they wrote the regulation based on a real incident."

    Anyway, having that on my mind, I was looking at some of the more garish web sites and thought to myself, "I wonder if someone would construct a site that could trigger an epileptic seizure. Well, now we know.

    As for "Anonymous" be the same anti-scientology "Anonymous," I would bet with 99% confidence that if there is such an accusation, it is scientology that did it. We know "why" anonymous is going after scientology, whether you agree or disagree, they have a cause. The epilepsy incident has nothing to do with that cause, and furthermore undermines it. It only makes sense that since it undermines the cause of "anonymous," it was likely done by scientology since they are the ones with the actual motive.

    1. Re:I was wondering when this would happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous doesn't need a reason. They do what they want because they can. They don't need a justification to fuck with people. They make fun of suicides and cutters.

      The epilepsy attack and Project Chanology are the same group. I guarantee it.

    2. Re:I was wondering when this would happen by MoogMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or maybe it was "Anonymous" after all, knowing that people would come to the same conclusion as you have, and blame Scientology.

    3. Re:I was wondering when this would happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a relative in the Fire Alarm business and he tells me about the restrictions on strobe lights on long corridors, they have to flash simultaneously because the random flashes could cause a seizure during a fire. I thought, "wow, that's right. I wonder if they actualy thought about it before hand, or if they wrote the regulation based on a real incident."

      My first thought is that's the most expensive way and it was probably written to increase profits for alarm installers. Most city codes are designed to improve the lives of city licensed professional.

    4. Re:I was wondering when this would happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe it was "Scientoloist" after all, knowing that people would come to the same conclusion as you have, and blame Anonymous.

    5. Re:I was wondering when this would happen by notjim · · Score: 1

      Actually we don't know, irresponsible no doubt, but no one seems to have said whether or not this actually caused anyone to have a fit.

    6. Re:I was wondering when this would happen by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

      Or maybe it was scientology after all, because people would come to the conclusion you just posted. What is this? "Get Smart." The simplest answer is usually the correct one.

    7. Re:I was wondering when this would happen by Sanat · · Score: 1

      There is a movie theater in Nelsonville, Ohio that still strobes with the lights appearing to chase each other down the long corridors. It bothers me some maybe it is just annoying, but i can see someone who is sensitive to strobing having a reaction to these lights.

      It starts outside the theater, and proceeds into the ticket area, then into the snacks area and finally down the hall towards the showing rooms.

      It has the same cringing effect on me that hearing music with a lot of chromatic keys being played.

      --
      And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
    8. Re:I was wondering when this would happen by nametaken · · Score: 1

      I have a relative in the Fire Alarm business and he tells me about the restrictions on strobe lights on long corridors, they have to flash simultaneously because the random flashes could cause a seizure during a fire. I thought, "wow, that's right. I wonder if they actualy thought about it before hand, or if they wrote the regulation based on a real incident."

      Just had a discussion about this recently when one of our life protection system's sync modules croaked. I had never though about it, but it makes perfect sense. Kinda glad the guy wasn't blowin' smoke, now that I've heard it somewhere else. :)

    9. Re:I was wondering when this would happen by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      The simplest answer is that many people are assholes, and as such, assholes are almost certain to exist in a loosely bound, mostly unrelated group of people that make up an activism group that has little to no overall leadership or guidance.

    10. Re:I was wondering when this would happen by Alegery · · Score: 1

      We know "why" anonymous is going after scientology, whether you agree or disagree, they have a cause.
      Appending "whether you agree or disagree" is just a disclaimer people use when they want to defend something they already know is indefensible.
    11. Re:I was wondering when this would happen by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

      Appending "whether you agree or disagree" is just a disclaimer people use when they want to defend something they already know is indefensible.

      I wasn't attempting to defend or attack anything. I was merely pointing out that regardless or your opinion of what they are doing, it is clear this is a separate and distinctly different incident and it doesn't make any real sense that there would be a connection.

    12. Re:I was wondering when this would happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps it was an anonymous epileptic scientologist? Those guys are assholes.

    13. Re:I was wondering when this would happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol unless Anonymous wants you to think that CoS is setting them up, then it is pure evil genius on their part

    14. Re:I was wondering when this would happen by a+whoabot · · Score: 1

      The "cause of anonymous"? They exist for the lulz, that is it. They existed long before project chanology. Did you think anonymous was some sort of do-gooder anti-scientology activist group just because project chanology is currently ongoing? They'll probably start extolling scientology next just to crush the hopes of people like you so that they can laugh in your face, maybe after catnarok.

  23. Another reason why by hee+gozer · · Score: 1

    using NoScript is a Good IdeaTM. Linking to a page with a black-white pixel gif animation on the background is still possible though, there's no risk with animations disabled as well (unless you like to scroll).

  24. Re:winrar by dvase · · Score: 0

    How did this get moderated as Funny? What am I missing?

  25. This does not sound like Anon by Toandeaf · · Score: 5, Informative

    Maybe this is how Anon rolls on 7chan, but the Anon of 4chan simply does not work like this. Perhaps someone encouraged them, but usually such an idea would be met with accusations of using /b/ as a personal army. The raids I have seen always target pornographic webcams, racist radio shows, or rival internet groups such as Gaia. Anon may laugh at harm that happens on others, but they aren't actually malicious when it comes to their own actions. It is more their style to troll a dyslexia forum with garbled paragraphs. I suppose this could be the doing of a minority of truly evil people who take advantage of the anonymity, but this just seems too convenient of timing. I believe the Co$ is to blame for this.

    1. Re:This does not sound like Anon by bersl2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would tend to agree.

      I don't even think the hardcore /i/nsurgents would resort to something like this. I've started to look through a few of the places where this sort of this is discussed (the few I know about), and I haven't found anything. I think I might even leave them a note about someone doing this in the name of Anon, and how this undermines their long-term goals.

      However, I would not completely rule out a rogue newfag or two who thinks this is funny.

    2. Re:This does not sound like Anon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its always some newfag, who then causes an influx of additional newfags, greatly reducing the average lulz available. Newfags, before you do anything, just remember, don't mess with football.

    3. Re:This does not sound like Anon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anon may laugh at harm that happens on others, but they aren't actually malicious when it comes to their own actions.
      Ah hah, oh wow! You haven't been around for long then. Anybody who could be fucked around with, has been fucked around with.
    4. Re:This does not sound like Anon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, that sentence sounds as weird as the things CoS members say.

    5. Re:This does not sound like Anon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not surprised about 7chan doing this. I've seen 4chan do this stuff as well along with 420chan before the /i/ board was taken down. Look, the whole chan thing is all about freedom of expression. Regardless of consequence, people try to do their best to skirt the law in order to see how far they can go. If you think it's all fun and games you haven't been on the chans for that long. Look, there are evil people in any group. Some conspire in the background. Some prey off of morons that fall into some jerk's trap. Some people want to see people get thrown into jail, some people want other people to get raped in prison, some people want to push people to the edge so they can kill people for them. Look, when there are people that want to do something stupid there are people out there who love to egg them on. We end up saying they get what they deserve while we chalk up another reason to show how stupid we are while never admitting we're that stupid ourselves. It's like that one family that egged this one girl to kill herself. She did, there wasn't any law that could be pressed on the family. Instead their anonymity was blown and they were attacked themselves the same way they attacked the girl. They didn't kill themselves but they were scared shitless. Blame Co$ if you want but sometimes anonymous preys on anonymous.

    6. Re:This does not sound like Anon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and trolling a dyslexia forum with garbled paragraphs ISN'T evil?

      Yeah it is, just a low brow wussified form of it. Anyone who goes out of their way to cause grief to others for their own amusement is by definition EVIL, they are in essence torturing others for their own pleasure and that is an act of depravity. What is being discussed is the degree of it, not that it is or is not.

      Now IMHO those that do such things are just declaring themselves genetic surplus and should be culled from the pool.

      And as an epileptic who IS photosensitive to a mild degree and whose brother is massively photosensitive with his migraines? I would love to get my hands on whoever did and show them some real grief... it would involve a cheese grater and the pigs on my cousins farm.

    7. Re:This does not sound like Anon by athdemo · · Score: 1

      You remember when Anon grabbed the EXIF data off that pic of the girl that was having, uh, relations with her dog? And how Anon proceeded to call her family, friends, and school to tell them about these pictures, and send them copies of it? And faxed them to her principal? Yeah, this is most certainly how Anon rolls. God I'm sick of people acting like 4chan is full of caring individuals or something. Maybe they really are, but they aren't on the internet.

      All you people saying this is clearly CoS framing Anon, just stick to /. alright? You obviously haven't even been to the chans.

    8. Re:This does not sound like Anon by oldhack · · Score: 1
      The piece is written by Kevin Poulsen, apparently a well-known figure in hacking/security arena, and the bit linking this prank to Anonoymous is this:

      Circumstantial evidence suggests the attack was the work of members of Anonymous, an informal collective of griefers best known for their recent war on the Church of Scientology. The first flurry of posts on the epilepsy forum referenced the site EBaumsWorld, which is much hated by Anonymous. And forum members claim they found a message board thread -- since deleted -- planning the attack at 7chan.org, a group stronghold.

      Is it true that Anon hates EBaumsWorld and 7chan.org? Excuse my ignorance, but what's this 7chan.org (or other x-chan sites) about?
      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    9. Re:This does not sound like Anon by efuinhsduilak · · Score: 1

      This isn't the first attack on epilepsy forums instigated by hooligans on 7chan.org. They hit a site I visit back in November last year too.

    10. Re:This does not sound like Anon by Prune · · Score: 1

      I still don't know WTF is this Gaia thing /Gaiafag

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    11. Re:This does not sound like Anon by makomk · · Score: 1

      I didn't see that one, but that does sound like something Anonymous would do. Attacking forums for epileptics with seizure-inducing animations? Not so much. If you can't tell the difference, maybe you should lurk moar.

      (They're scarily good at that sort of thing and have very little respect for privacy - especially when people are doing something dodgy like that. Amusingly, I think they even once managed to track down someone who was posting fake threats to bomb his local school on 4chan and contact the police. To be honest, I really don't think they should've told everyone about her, ah, sexual activities, but it's not the in the same league as this.)

    12. Re:This does not sound like Anon by athdemo · · Score: 1

      It's not quite in the same league, I admit, but you have to realize that that ruined her life. How do you think your friends and family would react when they're sent proof of you doing something like that? It'd destroy you and possibly make you suicidal.

      Still, I don't think it's quite on the same league. However, my sister is epileptic so that might influence my decision for all I know. But you have to respect the kind of horrible person it would take to do something like that to a person. Sure, what she was doing was wrong to some, if not most people, whereas these epileptics were merely trying to get help, but looking at the outcomes it shows you Anonymous isn't exactly a caring group.

      And if you don't remember that happening, you need to lurk moar.

    13. Re:This does not sound like Anon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah. that's why the 4chan users constantly try to take down people's servers in griefing attacks on second life. I'm sorry but anonymous is no better than the btards. People just like anonymous because they're currently being asshats to someone else for the moment.

    14. Re:This does not sound like Anon by makomk · · Score: 1

      "Still, I don't think it's quite on the same league. However, my sister is epileptic so that might influence my decision for all I know. But you have to respect the kind of horrible person it would take to do something like that to a person. Sure, what she was doing was wrong to some, if not most people, whereas these epileptics were merely trying to get help, but looking at the outcomes it shows you Anonymous isn't exactly a caring group."

      Yeah, I know - they're a bunch of evil, evil people, at least when they get together on /b/ (which is why I try not to have too much to do with them). However, they're evil in a particular way, and they have a particular attitude to target selection and method. This really doesn't seem to fit their normal MO. Then again, some of them would probably go along with anything...

    15. Re:This does not sound like Anon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i saw a thread about this raid on seven-eleven iirc (maybe 7chan) so, yes, it was anonymous' work. but, hey, even a scifag can be anonymous ;)

    16. Re:This does not sound like Anon by ChipmunkDJE · · Score: 1

      Ummm, have you been to 4chan? This sounds EXACTLY like /b/. Not to confuse it with those against the CoS, but this IS regular /b/ action. Or must I remind you for the weeboo incident or other mass gatherings.

      My fear here is that soon anything done harmful on the internet will automatically be attributed to Anonymous if a guilty party isn't found. Unless one of the GIF's were flashing "We are from Anonymous", I wouldn't see any link between them.

      Looks like we are at the beginning of the first internet "Red Scare". Down with Anonymo... I mean Communism!

      Chippy

  26. I heard that Anonymous posts here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is that true?

    1. Re:I heard that Anonymous posts here? by RLiegh · · Score: 1

      Nope. Eeryone here has a unique identifying number -though you might want to watch out for user #666 -he's a real asshole.

    2. Re:I heard that Anonymous posts here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, and I herd u liek mudkips!

    3. Re:I heard that Anonymous posts here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

  27. This is indirectly a good thing... by JustShootMe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not the actual "attack" itself, of course. But immediately, someone mentioned "anonymous" and everyone knew who they were, that they had a beef with scientology, and that scientology was possibly behind it to discredit them.

    This shows that scientology is losing the PR war. They are completely out of their league when they can't actually identify and personally harass their detractors.

    --
    For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
    1. Re:This is indirectly a good thing... by EVil+Lawyer · · Score: 1

      Well, at best it says that scientology is losing the PR war among slashdot readers. And that was true long ago. And I'm not even sure it says that much.

    2. Re:This is indirectly a good thing... by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      They're also completely out of their league when their detractors can now commit any variety of abusive acts, and get the church blamed for them. The church's reputation is so bad, that people are more willing to believe that the church attacked epileptics than they are willing to believe that Anonymous did! And this is the group that Fox "news" called "Hackers on steroids".

    3. Re:This is indirectly a good thing... by JustShootMe · · Score: 1

      That's not out of their league, that's just karma. Something they're getting quite the crash course on right now.

      --
      For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
  28. Ok, this is uncool. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    How about we find the people behind this and beat them with a bat and see how they feel?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Ok, this is uncool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about we find the people behind this and beat them with a bat and see how they feel?

      Follow the money: www.scientology.org

    2. Re:Ok, this is uncool. by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Hardly good footwork there. How about we find the actual people and let the chips fall where they may?

  29. hard to believe by khallow · · Score: 1

    After all, we know 7chan is a Scientology stronghold. It is doubtful that the fearful and timid Anonymous people would dare plan something so nefarious under the very noses of their foes. They'd probably use the Something Awful forums instead.

    1. Re:hard to believe by Toandeaf · · Score: 1

      Steps to becoming "Anonymous" on 7chan: 1)www.7chan.org Steps to create a thread on a raid by your colleagues: 1) type in title 2) type message explaining where you are raiding 3) colleagues respond saying it is a great idea not exactly a high barrier of entry.

  30. Chill dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't recall ever having strobing marching penises coming out of the monitor at me when I read usenet all those years...

    Obviously you were just in the wrong newsgroups.

  31. Re:Yet another reason javascript should be abandon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what you're saying is we should eliminate the while loop and return all web interaction to server side processing. Perhaps we should ditch images too?

  32. There is a fundamental misunderstanding here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone knows that there is no real anonymous... there is one guy that makes all the posts on all chans and a bunch of lurkers from ebaums that latch on to his insane ramblings and spread them throughout the internet. The lack of basic understanding on this matter just reaffirms the fact that slashdot is no longer relevant in today's intarwebz.

    1. Re:There is a fundamental misunderstanding here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +5, funny

  33. Re:Yet another reason javascript should be abandon by Vampyre_Dark · · Score: 2, Informative

    Animnated gifs have nothing to do with Javascript. Maybe boards don't allow posting animated gifs. An easy fix to this problem.

  34. You assholes. by Ethan+Allison · · Score: 1

    Seriously. Don't you have something better to do?

    1. Re:You assholes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they don't to OT training on weekends, scilons were bored

  35. Makin' a list, checkin' it twice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    List of places it's not safe for me to open my eyes:
      - Las Vegas
      - Times Square
      - Japan (any city)
      - teh internets

    That's OK, we've still got lots of safe places.

  36. Scientology... by Kinnaird · · Score: 0

    Scientology causes migraines?

  37. Next Attack for Anonymous ... with Beer and Pizza! by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Next thing you know, someone claiming to be part of Anonymous will be posting pictures of pizza on weightwatchers forums, and pictures of beer on the AA forums.

  38. I think this is bullshit. by moxley · · Score: 1

    First off, I don't think whoever organized the protests against Scientology would do this. The negative PR alone would be a demotivating factor...

    No....to me this has all of the hallmarks of a "false flag" hack. I can think of two groups who would want to do this to cause harm to the image of Anonymous AND "hackers" in general:

    Scientology and elements within the US government.

  39. Dude, by DancesWithBlowTorch · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe this is how Anon rolls on 7chan, but the Anon of 4chan simply does not work like this. Perhaps someone encouraged them, but usually such an idea would be met with accusations of using /b/ as a personal army.
    What the hell are you talking about?

    Man, I thought I was 1337, but it seems those days are gone. Great, now what am I going to do when my dad finds out I don't understand the internet anymore?
    1. Re:Dude, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      they are not the 'internet'.

      they are morons.

      do you really WANT to understand them?

    2. Re:Dude, by EVil+Lawyer · · Score: 1

      Don't look now, but your dad is "Toandeaf" on slashdot.

    3. Re:Dude, by maxume · · Score: 1

      Well, if you are actively looking for other ways to disappoint him, drugs and sex seem to work for an awful lot of people.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:Dude, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      zomg lurk moar, n00b

    5. Re:Dude, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    6. Re:Dude, by BobPaul · · Score: 1

      Take a managerial position somewhere. It should provide the added clout without the need to know anymore than you already do.

    7. Re:Dude, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always thought that the internet is morons.

    8. Re:Dude, by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 0

      I never got 4chan either. Some anime group but wired said it had to do with somethung awful so who knows. Probably similar to myspace.

      --
      -
  40. I don't get the connection... by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

    What's the connection between Anonymous & eBaumsWorld, and why do Anons hate it so much? Is EBW a Scientology site? Anybody with a better understanding, would you please shed some light on this?

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    1. Re:I don't get the connection... by Aranykai · · Score: 1

      Its not a conspiracy dude, its a few asshats with nothing better to do with their lives causing others problems.

      --
      If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
    2. Re:I don't get the connection... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      eBaum's is known for taking content from other websites, putting an eBaum's logo on it, and posting it without crediting the source.

    3. Re:I don't get the connection... by Daimanta · · Score: 1

      eBaumsWorld steals material from other sites and they don't give any credits. They have had run-ins with groups like ytmnd. People have even made an anti embaumsworld flash movie but I don't remember from heart where to find it.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
  41. Slap ! by bytesex · · Score: 1

    Don't these people have mothers who tell them such things are in bad taste ? If not, why would someone who could be considered an adult be doing this ?

    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
  42. robbIE not just a cheap corepirate nazi whore... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    anymore. he's also a inept vandal. we're keeping track of your spoiled brat behaviour. there will be a charge for the damage.

  43. LIES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ebaum's did it!

    And what the fuck? Best known for their recent war on scientology? Bullshit, we're best known for coming into your computer, raeping your myspace, and DDoSing your websites.

  44. Snowcrash? by Lt.Hawkins · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Man, that's trippy. Assholy, but trippy. Never thought Snowcrash would come true! /me sharpens katana and looks for YT.

    --
    -- My Sig is a P228.
    1. Re:Snowcrash? by Plazmid · · Score: 2

      Didn't the panther moderns(fictional group that bears a striking similarity to anon) do something similar in Neuromancer?

  45. So which evil group is impersonating the other? by localroger · · Score: 1

    I notice a number of folks here are convinced that these attacks are Co$ trying to discredit Anon. I wonder how many have wondered if it's Anon trying to discredit Co$ because they know that in geek circles Co$ is automatically blamed for anything like this that they're anywhere near.

    --
    Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
    1. Re:So which evil group is impersonating the other? by PakProtector · · Score: 2, Informative

      I notice a number of folks here are convinced that these attacks are Co$ trying to discredit Anon. I wonder how many have wondered if it's Anon trying to discredit Co$ because they know that in circles where common sense, logic, and reason are used that the Co$ is automatically blamed for anything like this that they're anywhere near.

      There, fixed that for you.

      The Church of Scientology has a long history of shady, underhanded, illegal and murderous activity, including infiltration of the United States Government.

      This is entirely their style.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    2. Re:So which evil group is impersonating the other? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Win +internets for great truth.

    3. Re:So which evil group is impersonating the other? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think just the fact that scientology is a dead ringer for this shows that the Co$ organization is rubbish. If they didn't do this type of thing all the time it'd be a lot eaiser to have some healthy skepticism. Me? I think someone is thinking "old world". Even if we never learn who does this, scientology had better NEVER be caught "false-flagging" again, or it will be pretty obvious what's up.

      Thus the only way to show the *possibility* that Co$ didn't do it, in my opinion, would to never have Co$ do it again (or have done it in the past, fwiw)

  46. Re:Yet another reason javascript should be abandon by Dogun · · Score: 1

    True, but I'm not talking about animated gifs, but rather animated mouse trails and crap like that.

    I shouldn't need to run foreign code in order to display a bloody page. Or at least, that language should not enable abusive things.

  47. paraphrasing Forest Gump by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    to target people with disabilities is the lowest of the low. Fuck them. Troll is as troll does.
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  48. Operation Freakout, Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Operation Freakout, Anyone?

  49. Or ...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this could be an attempt by Scientology to strike at the people who have struck at them, by impostering those who attacked them, doing something horribly wrong in order to damage them, in return for what they apparently did to them. Please read the sentence closely to understand :o)

  50. This is disturbing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I found out that people can do this, it really shook me to my core.

  51. Not the peaceful activists.A msg from Anonymous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hello, Slashdot. We are Anonymous.

    Anonymous, peacefully campaigning against the Church of Scientology, condemn this attack.

    There is also little doubt that those who would attack a site such as this, and unprovoked, are the same 'Unnamed People' who covered the anti-Church of Scientology Campaign wiki page, Projecct Chanology on partyvan .info with the most horrendous filth porn and human gore imagery to be found online.
    It is possible that these were both orchestrated by anti-moralist members of 'the chans', but it is also not impossible that the 'Church's' online operatives managed to instigate this unprecedented attack to discredit the peaceful protesters.
    Perhaps 'the chans' do not realize they are being manipulated.

    Sadly anonymity is a catch all, literally anyone can and will say "I am Anonymous", even The Church of Scientology is "Anonymous" when they connect to public FTPs. You can not have the security of anonymity both inside and out, without the problems of defending against anonymous insurgents, just ask Wikileaks.

    Condolences to any harmed.
    This attack, as any violent attack, is condemned by Anonymous.

    Though the 'Church' will push this at every opportunity, it will feed their policy of ad hominem attack. It does not in any way negate the crimes of the 'Church', they cannot hide behind another.
    We will legally fight the corrupt pyramid scheme organization that is the Church of Scientology regardless.

    Knowledge is free.

    We are Anonymous.

    We are Legion.

    We do not forgive.

    We do not forget.

    Expect us.

  52. You mean "false flag" by Jurph · · Score: 1

    Black bag = breaking and entering to steal information; a meatspace attack on someone's files, like Watergate.

    False Flag = committing an act while disguised as one's enemy so that the consequences accrue to that enemy, like the bombing of the Al-Askari mosque.

    1. Re:You mean "false flag" by CowboyCapo · · Score: 1

      As I recall, another name for this is the 'Joe Job', same deal, different nomenclature. The Office Open in OOXML would be one prime example.

  53. Any chance of a chat log? by Pliny · · Score: 1

    Seriously. It'd help if there was anything more out there than innuendo. Personally, I wouldn't put this crap past either Anonymous or the Co$.

    --
    What does this button d$#%* NO CARRIER
    1. Re:Any chance of a chat log? by efuinhsduilak · · Score: 1
      I tried to post this once before, but I don't see it appearing. I don't know it posts are pre-moderated here or if I just f'd it up. Here goes again (don't read if stupidity or bad language offends you):

      /b/ - Random
      File: 120624198932.jpg-(7.37KB, 196x200, 3doitfaggot1frtbwrsgbds.jpg) MIEN EYES Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:13 No. 2501134 Epeleptic forum raid.. 1) Make account 2) Spam flashing gifs, party hard etc. 3) Troll the userbase. 4) ??? 5)PROFIT!! CURRENT TARGET:http://www.epilepsyfoundation.org/efforums/forum/ Precious Javascript Weapon:

      window.location = "http://gilf.co.nr/myeyes"
      //-->

      ALWAYS WEAR A CONDOM! Expand all images
      >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:14 No. 2501142 | this has potential for lulz and win.
      >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:16 No. 2501165 | anon armed and ready.
      >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:22 No. 2501208 | First good fucking idea I've seen in days. I'll be right over there once I'm done fapping on my bosses desk.
      >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:23 No. 2501214 | Good principal, probably won't work in practice.
      >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:23 No. 2501217 | this is relevant to my interests
      >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:25 No. 2501231 | Wait, their forums support Javascript? That means...they support HTML? FUCK this will be too easy
      >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:30 No. 2501289 | Haha. Holy fucking shit. I wrote that code...fuck that, Anonymous wrote that code. For Anon By Anon. The Javascript is a nice touch...I'ma go flood that shit now.
      >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:32 No. 2501296 | >>2501134 }} oh wow, thats gotta be the best idea ive ever heard, well done.
      >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:36 No. 2501322 | File: 120624335935.jpg-(67.39KB, 850x719, FreeInternet.jpg) By the time I got there, you have all already filled it with seizurebait. GOOD FUCKING JOB, ANONS, WELL PLAYED.
      >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:37 No. 2501337 | I laughed really hard.
      >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:38 No. 2501346 | someone get a cookie stealing script and post it on a legit thread, then hack the whole thing, give it epic flashing index.
      >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:38 No. 2501352 | File: 120624350150.jpg-(32.28KB, 1138x48, 1206240592977.jpg)
      >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:39 No. 2501360 | >>2501352 }} lol'd
      >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:39 No. 2501366 | /r/ sticky
      >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:42 No. 2501388 | File: 120624374380.jpg-(5.90KB, 1030x41, epilepsy.jpg) also, requesting sticky
      >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:42 No. 2501395 | >>2501352 }} I fuckin lol'd hard
      >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:43 No. 2501400 | This is evil ;_;
      >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:43 No. 2501403 | OH GOD HOW DID I GET HERE IM NOT GOOD WITH COMPUTER
      >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:44 No. 2501409 | >>2501134 }} Hi I'm going to hijack your thread nao. Where did the Do It spider expert originally come from? Sadly despite months of lurking moar I have yet to figure out where I've seen this bitch before.
      >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:44 No. 2501412 | The name pedrobear made me lol. +1 internet to whoever that is
      >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:44 No. 2501413 | this isn't funny my brother did that way. Also, sticky this, plox.
      >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:44 No. 2501418 | >>2501413 }} died* I fail.
      >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:47 No. 2501435 | I haert u so hard anon lol.
      >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:47 No. 2501436 |
      window.location = "http://www.hey.doyouhaveepilepsy.com/"
      //-->

      Even better script
      >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:47 No. 2501438 | Ah god, I love you evil bastards.
      >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:48 No. 2501450 | Is somebody DDoSing it too, cause it's getting slow

    2. Re:Any chance of a chat log? by Kyokugenryu · · Score: 1

      Haha, that is the 7chan thread in question. But no, they didn't do it! Scientology is trying to smear them by making epileptics have seizures and blaming it on ebaumsworld!

    3. Re:Any chance of a chat log? by makomk · · Score: 1

      Ah, 7chan. Yeah, probably no real overlap between them and the anti-Scientology Anonymous. (A lot of the *chan's don't really agree with the anti-Scientology movement; they think Anonymous shouldn't be doing something so moral. Can't remember what position 7channers take, though.)

    4. Re:Any chance of a chat log? by efuinhsduilak · · Score: 1

      Was Scientology also behind the 7chan attack on epilepsy forums instigated last November? How about the ones before that?

  54. Wow by kitsunewarlock · · Score: 1

    This case mirrors the fictional news report of a hacker who created a virus that did something quite similiar in the .hack series. What happens next? A virus wipes out all possibility of any OS being used other than the most obscure one which begins to dominate the market.

    *Boots up Solaris*...

    --
    Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
  55. Yet another reason [ie] should be abandoned by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    looped 'all keys disabled' rickrolling <rhetorical>What horrible, ill-conceived browser would allow something so obviously prone to abuse!?!?</rhetorical>
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  56. "eBaumsWorld is much hated by Anonymous" by pRtkL+xLr8r · · Score: 1

    ...and for good reason. I really, really wanna slap that guy. Someone needs to tell him how funny he isn't. Just about anybody can do a Joe Peschi, Jack Nicholson or Christopher Walken impression -- which are the staples of his "shtick."

  57. Re:Yet another reason javascript should be abandon by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

    you forgot meatspin

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  58. stfu by arstchnca · · Score: 1

    All this talk of cohesive groups and "weakness" really reminds me of Scientology literature. Hmm. I sure doubt Scientology had anything to do with this, too...

    --
    -- arstchnca
    --
  59. You didn't actually change the meaning by localroger · · Score: 1

    Your "fix" still leaves open the possibility that Anon is simply trolling Co$ by using their own reputation against them. I frankly hate both groups and fap over the fantasy that they will destroy one another, but the RL outcome is unlikely to be so appealing.

    --
    Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
    1. Re:You didn't actually change the meaning by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      entirely possible, anonymous isn't any more cohesive than any random selection of internet users, it's just the timing that is quite suspicious. quite possibly the most morally reprehensable thing anonymous has been alleged to be involved in a mere 2 months after doing so much damage to the reputation and internal stability (sources from inside CoS have reported a massive increase in spontaneous brick manufacture since the raids started) of CoS and particularly threatening the position of RTC and Sea Org.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  60. Might have seen The Andromeda Strain by VampireByte · · Score: 1

    In the 1971 movie The Andromeda Strain a flashing red light causes a seizure.

    --

    Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.

  61. This is a "false flag" tactic by Scientology by leereyno · · Score: 5, Interesting

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

    The cult is doing this to make Anonymous look bad.

    I used to be a Scientologist, and I can tell you based on first hand experience that this is EXACTLY what the cult would do.

    This is not the work of those who fight and oppose the cult of Scientology.

    The cult has already taken to creating fake videos and messages that appear to be from Anonymous and that contain threats of violence against the cult itself. This latest stunt is simply the next step in their campaign of demonizing Anonymous.

    The problem with Anonymous is that anyone can pretend to be part of the group. While they are highly resistant to efforts by the cult to target them as individuals, they are vulnerable to false-flag tactics such as this one.

    This is not the first time the cult has done this. Back in the 70's they targeted a woman for writing a book that revealed the evil nature of the cult. The cult responded by forging evidence linking her to a fake bomb threat, among other things:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freakout

    She was facing a long prison sentence until the FBI accidentally discovered that the cult had set her up while conducting another investigation

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White

    Scientology is evil. It is something that most people who have never dealt with the cult have a hard time understanding or believing. To describe the nature of this cult to someone who is unfamiliar with it is very difficult because polite society lacks the terms needed to accurately convey the depth of evil found within this organization. It is also difficult because an accurate description defies belief. Most people are unable to contemplate something so evil actually existing in the real world.

    But scientology is that bad, and it is real. Its victims are a multitude and its crimes are horrific.

    But don't take my word for it, read up on it yourself:

    http://www.xenu.net/
    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
    1. Re:This is a "false flag" tactic by Scientology by Trespass · · Score: 1

      Even if it wasn't the CoS, they have such a reputation for these sorts of things they'll be blamed for it anyhow. Mind you, I'm not defending Scientology. On the contrary. They've been put in a position where the best thing they can do is shut the hell up and settle down, but they've never been really good at that. 'Attack, always attack' and all that nonsense.

    2. Re:This is a "false flag" tactic by Scientology by Raenex · · Score: 1

      The cult is doing this to make Anonymous look bad. A vigilante group known for being griefers is bad. Just because they attack a despicable organization like the Church of Scientology doesn't all of a sudden change their nature. Maybe it's a false flag attack, maybe it isn't. Either seems plausible.
    3. Re:This is a "false flag" tactic by Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe this is a false-false-flag attack? Anonymous staged the attack knowing everyone would think it was CoS staging the attack to look like Anonymous. Or maybe a false-false-false-flag attack... How deep could the rabbit hole go?

    4. Re:This is a "false flag" tactic by Scientology by leereyno · · Score: 1

      They are NOT KNOWN FOR BEING GRIEFERS.

      The cult is attempting to portray them as being griefers and to manufacture "evidence" to that effect.

      Do try to keep up.

      --
      Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
    5. Re:This is a "false flag" tactic by Scientology by Raenex · · Score: 1
      Here's a report from well before the Scientology attack, mocking the original Fox report on them, but still shows them to be a bunch of asshole griefers:

      Fox 11 actually stumbled across the /b/ (NSFW) channel of 4chan (NSFW) (update: could be wrong here, looks like Fox was tipped to the /i/ channel of a similar site - 420chan (NSFW)), a image sharing and posting site where every poster posts as Anonymous. Here supremely bored 15-year olds post obscene pictures and stupid photo-shopped images for others to comment on. They also randomly swarm and try to overwhelm online sites and forums they consider annoying. The thing with "Anonymous" is that anybody that wants to be a "member" can be. Just post your idea and see who follows through. It's mob rules. Your hate for Scientology has blinded you to any disagreeable evidence.
  62. Re:Stop lying, Christ. by Lehk228 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    you are the 4th or 5th person with a low post count asserting that Scientology could not possibly have done this and that they aren't afraid of anonymous.

    a pattern emerges

    the pattern says go back to clearwater

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  63. not a problem by Quadraginta · · Score: 3, Funny

    I don't feel guilt. I understand why I should, but...

    Don't fret about it. Guilt is no more than a built-in pro-active self-preservation thing. It's an internal warning bell that lets you know that when your civilized neighbors catch up with you, they're going to beat the shit out of you, or maybe even kill you. Don't worry about ignoring it, it's not there for anyone else's benefit.

    It is scary, real, and a major force on the rise.

    The proper way to say this is:

    "They LAUGHED at me when I was [born deformed/dismissed from my university post/lost the vote 434,555 to 1], but soon, when my [super Internet weapon/fiendish subversive plot/giant mutated killer penis clone] is finished, THEY'LL BE SORRY!!"

  64. Re:Not the peaceful activists.A msg from Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    DISREGARD THAT I SUCK COCKS

    This is Anonymous -chan anonymous, goin' back to their roots -you know, exploiting weaknesses in habbo hotel and secondlife; phishing hundreds of myspace passwords and putting up shock-images, harassing forums for disabled people and children.

    I don't know who the fuck you are, but you're not Anonymous.

    You are Legion -legions of LJ emo-fags, amirite?

    You do not forgive -but you don't have the teeth to get a single story on Digg, much less take out someone like Hal Turner, amirte?

    You do not forget -clearly you have forgotten your roots if you condemn this after so many raids have been done by your group which have cost people jobs (..IS A FUCKING POKEMON) and drove people into suicide.

    And yes, we expect you, simply because you myspace faggots are so pervasive on the internet that one would be a fool not expect you to waltz in and start fagging up the place.

    tl;dr -True Anonymous fucks up cripples, Fake anonymous BAAAAAWWWWWWWSSS about suckers getting chumped by Co$

    gb2/enturbulation.org, faggot -and tell them that the Old-school Anonymous are sick of them ruining our name ...and tell them to expect US.

  65. "No anonymous" by pedantic+bore · · Score: 3, Insightful

    OK, it sounds like "anonymous" is just a really poor spelling of "asshole".

    --
    Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
    1. Re:"No anonymous" by access.name · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So, there should be no internet anonymity, right?

      also, this is modded 5 informative? WTF?

      Right here on slashdot, the defenders of privacy and anonymity rights? Unbelievable.

    2. Re:"No anonymous" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you believe that then you are suffering from misunderstanding the paradigm as well.

      Anonymous isn't a person.

      Anonymous is a sea of humanity...and with any luck pets and eventually robot ninjas too.

      I expect you get this though and are yourself just an asshole...which according to your point about anonymous would apply.

    3. Re:"No anonymous" by pedantic+bore · · Score: 1

      Why should there be "internet anonymity"? So you can do whatever you like without worrying that a bunch of anonymous assholes will persecute you?

      But wait... where did the anonymous assholes come from?

      --
      Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
    4. Re:"No anonymous" by pedantic+bore · · Score: 2

      Call me an asshole if you wish, but at least I know what the words "paradigm" and "humanity" mean.

      --
      Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
    5. Re:"No anonymous" by try_anything · · Score: 1

      He misspelled "Anonymous" as "anonymous" and you know it. And do you really think an expression of moral disapproval is a danger to your rights? If that were the case, then our rights would be meaningless. Don't get me wrong; the people who come to take our rights away will doubtlessly lead with moral disapproval. However, if your right to do something means I'm not supposed to condemn you for doing it, that would seriously complicate my feelings about your rights.

    6. Re:"No anonymous" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ffs read his post again, this time capitalize the A. Yeah, They were assholes, he wasn't speaking about anonymity, but Anonymous the group. pull yer head out.

      anonymous.

    7. Re:"No anonymous" by SmittyTheBold · · Score: 1

      OK, it sounds like "anonymous" is just a really poor spelling of "asshole".

      So... now we return to the important task of finding this "Anonymous."

      I've got two hands, a map and a flashlight. Let's go!

      --
      ± 29 dB
    8. Re:"No anonymous" by pedantic+bore · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      If you think giving random people epileptic fits is a valid expression of "moral disapproval", and you're such a spineless coward that you can't even take ownership of your morals, but instead need to hide behind anonymity, then the only right you deserve is the right to a fair and speedy trial. Asshole.

      --
      Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
    9. Re:"No anonymous" by try_anything · · Score: 1
      The poster I replied to was trying to equate calling Anonymous assholes with an assault on internet anonymity. The first part of that equation was the moral disapproval in question.

      Your reading comprehension stands accused of being utter shit. Based on the evidence against it, I find it guilty. There's a fair and speedy trial for you.

      Asshole.

      Sigh.
    10. Re:"No anonymous" by pedantic+bore · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, did you think I was talking about you?

      Why?

      Never mind reading comprehension. Let's start with ordinary comprehension.

      --
      Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
  66. No idea by EthanV2 · · Score: 1

    I pains me to read most of the comments here, and indeed most of the crap that is posted about anonymous. The anonymous who posted the seizure inducing content are probably not the same who protest against Scientology. They are all anonymous, and all come from the same collective, but the collective of anonymous does not operate in one single hivemind, but several different hiveminds, each with it's own mentality. I really do with people would do their research before commenting on this subject.

  67. Griefers? by Bazman · · Score: 1

    Why do we need a new word for the sort of people for whom there are plenty of words already? Although I suppose 'griefer' is acceptable in polite company, whereas the other words I'm thinking of aren't...

    1. Re:Griefers? by try_anything · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Background: I'm not a WoW player or an FPS player. I generally don't play online games against other people, and I avoid forums set up in a way that encourages casual trolling. I got excellent scores on the verbal sections of the SAT and GRE :-)

      I like the words "griefer" and "griefing" and would not hesitate to use them in conversation. They are not redundant with other words that are already in my vocabulary. I know other words like "jerk" and "asshole" and "sadist," but they're a bit different. "Sadist" is similar to "griefer," but even "sadist" describes a person's character more than his actions.

      To me, "griefing" suggests something open, superficial, and habitual, while "sadism" suggests something profound that may be entirely hidden. A griefer might leave a broken bottle on an old man's back porch and laugh about it, but would probably feel sick if he saw an old man crying with glass stuck in his feet. A sadist wouldn't bother leaving the bottle if he couldn't watch.

      Griefers wish they were sadists, but they aren't. Thus, they must take an industrial approach rather than a hedonistic one -- "How much pain have I caused?" instead of "How much pain have I enjoyed?" The internet is a perfect place for griefing, because you can gloat about a person's suffering without experiencing the empathic response that a real, live, suffering human being might provoke.

    2. Re:Griefers? by Terrasque · · Score: 1

      The internet is a perfect place for griefing, because you can gloat about a person's suffering without experiencing the empathic response that a real, live, suffering human being might provoke. And, lets not forget, without experiencing the violent response that a real, live, suffering human being might produce.
      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
  68. Re:Not the peaceful activists.A msg from Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like OP hit it front and center to me. Didn't like realizing the Co$ is pulling your strings? BAAAaaaaWWWWWW BAAWWWWWWWWWWW How do you like being a tool of the Co$? you like little Tommy C and tiny Miscavige diddling your little pee pee?

  69. And it isn't surprising by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Informative

    Since there's actually a surprising amount of the population that are sociopaths (better term than psychopath for this particular disorder). Somewhere in the range of about 5-9% of people are like this. They just cannot empathize with others. They can't put themselves in the shoes of another person, and as such they cannot understand when that other person feel sad or in pain or whatever.

    Most people associate this with just serial killers and while it is true that you are pretty much guaranteed to be a sociopath if you are a serial killer, there are actually plenty of normal people who are the same way. They don't necessairily break any laws, they are just the real inconsiderate pricks out there.

    Good chance on your average day you run in to at least one of them.

    1. Re:And it isn't surprising by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      there are actually plenty of normal people who are the same way. They don't necessairily break any laws, they are just the real inconsiderate pricks out there.
      Good chance on your average day you run in to at least one of them. I was actually reading up on that because there's a guy in my social circle which I immediately identified as an asshole, but there's people who don't see it. I was looking into the "superficially charming" aspect of it...
      (I know for a fact he's an asshole because 100% of his jokes are at the expense of someone, and he never misses a chance to put someone down, but usually waits for a chick to be within earshot to do it)
      I've seen that guy "attack" smaller guys in front of women he wants to impress, and then say "can't you take a joke" when the victim tells him he's not happy about his "play" fighting. I was sitting there, jaw agape that this kind of behavior can exist outside of highschool...

      I'm trying to understand why some people take "superficial charm" as a reason to ignore the antisocial behavior he exhibits. Don't they see he's being charming to manipulate them? He tried it on me, but I can see right through that shit... I want to understand why some can't.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    2. Re:And it isn't surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever been to a gathering of Right Wing pastors? Never have more sociopathic tyrants ruled over such nice people who are all either quite blind to it or who have infinite capacity for rationalization.

  70. Re:Stop lying, Christ. by moreati · · Score: 1

    I'm not sayng CoS aren't behind this story, a joe job by them was my first reaction. However the post count for Kyokugenryu is 58 going back at least to 2006, I think they're genuine person, rather than a sock puppet. Alex.

  71. My God! What a jerk! by erroneus · · Score: 1

    Read that any way you like...

  72. I just don't understand why... by tjstork · · Score: 1

    I can see no purpose for someone attacking an epileptic this way other than to be purely sadistic. It's a sadistic assault, pure and simple, and I think in this case it would be entirely within the right of law enforcement to try and track back to the people that made these posts. This just offends just everything I think is fair and right.

    --
    This is my sig.
  73. You can disable animations by PMBjornerud · · Score: 1

    For me, these forums will never feel like the same safe haven that they used to be. Just add a flash blocker and turn off gif animations? Instant safe haven.

    I'm not expecting all epileptics to know about this, but you should spread the word and teach them how to disable animations in their browsers. For anyone photosensitive, killing all animations will probably be a huge benefit.

    Someone else already mentioned how to do it:
    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=504340&cid=22907278
    --
    I lost my sig.
  74. Close but no cigar by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Akin to the nigger race maybe..

    More akin to the racist brand of Anonymous Coward.

  75. Re:Not the peaceful activists.A msg from Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ", no pretentious douchebag or group thereof to set in stone what Anonymous is and is not about."

    "anon is not your personal army.",

    "Anonymous is devoid of humanity, morality, pity and mercy."

    you have no right to say what is and what is not condemned by anon. This prank was an epic win that created many lulz. for that alone, even if it was done as a misguided attempt at sabatoge it was a success in the eyes of all Anons who lold. Anon does whatever the fuck it pleases. you cannot attribute ideals to anonymous. conversely you also cannot say an action goes against the ideals of anonymous for when you do, you are no longer talking about anonymous. http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Anonymous

    Rules you have forgotten:

    Anonymous is the only page on encyclopedia dramatica that takes herself seriously.

    Anonymous is devoid of humanity, morality, pity and mercy.

    Anonymous works as one, because none of us are as cruel as all of us.

    Anonymous exploits all weaknesses and flaws.

    Anonymous doesn't have a family or friends.

    Anonymous is not your friend.

    Anonymous does not hurt children or animals.

    Anonymous is not your personal army.

    Anonymous is in control at all times.

    Anonymous does not accept failure, Anonymous delivers.

    Anonymous has no identity.

    Anonymous cannot be betrayed.

    Anonymous obeys the Code.

    Anonymous does not wear fanny packs.

  76. TROLL MODERATION? by Aaron+England · · Score: 1

    Seriously guys?

  77. Re:Not the peaceful activists.A msg from Anonymous by dvase · · Score: 0

    Sounds like Anonymous is having an identity crisis.

  78. It's a mindbomb! by MrKaos · · Score: 1
    I rtfa and I was at a loss trying to figure out why a group protesting CoS would attack epileptics, so I read this thread to try and clear it up...

    Some Anons say there is but one Anon.

    There are TWO Anonymous.

    this is not true. There is not One or Two anonymous, there is NO anonymous.

    anonymous is also based strongly on anonymity.

    ...I think I have to lie down now.
    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  79. this is just sick by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 1

    how can people be so mean?!?!

  80. Agree! How can all anonymi be the same? by KWTm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Agree with parent. The whole point of being anonymous is that people don't know who you are. Now, one or more persons might specifically take on the pseudonym "Anonymous" (capitalized), but then that would only be applicable within a very specific context, and certainly it would be silly to say, "But *I'm* the *real* Anonymous!" Imagine a conversation like this:

    A: "Someone suggested that taxes be raised. I didn't know who it was."
    B: "Really? Someone whom I didn't know had suggested that taxes be lowered. Boy, this person that we don't know sure has trouble making up his mind!"

    (Yes, I know that "anonymi" is not the correct plural. Yes, I know that "anonymous" is not spelled "anonymus". If the plural of "mouse" is "mice", perhaps the plural of "anonymous" is "anonymic"?)

    --
    404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
    [GPG key in journal]
    1. Re:Agree! How can all anonymi be the same? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And thats what tripcodes on these sites were invented for. You can not be linked to your password, but only you can provide the correct password to get the correct tripcode displayed. That is what makes the whole thought of anon work. There s no registration linking you to some email address, but a tripcode only you will know.

    2. Re:Agree! How can all anonymi be the same? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      (Yes, I know that "anonymi" is not the correct plural. Yes, I know that "anonymous" is not spelled "anonymus". If the plural of "mouse" is "mice", perhaps the plural of "anonymous" is "anonymic"?)

      "Anonymous", being an adjective, has no plural. If it's used as noun, as in the name of this group or groups, I suggest just going with "Anonymous's".

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  81. EVERYONE: READ THE ARTICLE IN PARENT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh shit how that article scared me! I suffer from epilepsy and have heard stories that cops sometimes think you're high or something if they see you having a seizure but I've always dismissed them as just stories and - apparently very naïvely - thought that cops should be smart enough to tell ordinary people apart from drug addicts and such.

    So thus I want to take the opportunity to spread knowledge. Please read the article!

    It's fucking insane that he had to plead insanity. I wonder how worried he must've been of getting convicted considering how he was willing to be humiliated by pleading insanity? What could they accuse him of? He certainly wasn't masturbating in public so they couldn't possibly prove that and falsely proving that he was resisting arrest is IMHO also hard. They cannot claim that he said anything or that he made any violent moves (seriously, spasms don't look violent - they're relatively small movement back and forth - only a couple of inches or so). I might also add one thing about how it feels to have a seizure - during the seizure and after it you can often still have some rational thoughts going on but be incapable of speaking and it is extremely frustrating. You would like to explain to whoever notices you what is going on but can't - it feels like you've forgotten virtually all words.

  82. This *is* the work of Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A part of me want the world to believe this is really Scientology trying to give Anon a bad name, but it's not.

    Check out (NSFW!) http://not420chan.com/i/res/116176.html (/NSFW!)
    (You want to use an alternate CSS if you don't want to vomit/make your head hurt. It's there to prevent outsiders from coming in)

  83. Sounds like alt.tasteless vs. rec.pets.cats by DF5JT · · Score: 1

    taken to the next level.

  84. Don't you just hate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Anonymous Cowards

  85. Re:Yet another reason javascript should be abandon by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yeah, screw the 240 million websites that use Javascript every day without causing seizures! We should throw them all out the window immediately because of this one offense! Also, I think C++ was used to write a virus once, so let's destroy all C++ compilers and programs! Help us make the world safe again, Dogun!

  86. Re:Not the peaceful activists.A msg from Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    newfag

  87. In-depth analysis of the reasoning for this attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol, internet

  88. hahaha wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if this is true then i'm moving to 7chan.
    this new /b/2.0 makes me sick to my stomach, its nothing but 14yearold protesters,camwhores and gaiafags now.
    worthless cancerous scum.
    i miss the good old days of unprovoked raids on people who frankly, probably don't deserve it.
    this scientology shit is just a huge e-penis circle jerk by perpetuated newfags who weren't beaten by their parents enough! scientology became un-funny a week before the first raid

    if you see any protesters then please run them down with your car. you will be doing 4chan a great service and i'm sure that any jury on earth would sympathize with you for doing it

  89. Gouge out my eyes by fireheadca · · Score: 1

    Makes you want a Trans-orbital Leucotomy...

    ---
    Who is this? ^click^

  90. Cause? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only 'cause' they have is lolz. Scientology is just a nice far target because of their high profile and unpopularity.

  91. *cough* by afxgrin · · Score: 1

    " Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown.

    Certainly makes you wonder..." ... that L Ron was onto something. If you get arrested as a suspect for crimes, even if you committed them or not, the State, the Police, the people who helped get you arrested, are not standing on trial at all for any crimes they committed. It's moral relativism to an extreme, but there is a point behind all of this: Even if the people who are trying you have committed much worse crimes, you are still standing on trial for what you've done.

    The whole point is to discredit those that are attacking you so they have no leg to stand on.

    Let's say for example, some relatively young band, goes and sues a bunch of people who downloaded their music. There's a good chance that some members of that band, if not the whole band, did the exact same crime themselves. For them to proceed with their lawsuit flies in the face of logic, just from their own blatant hypocrisy. The "law" has no premise for any of this though. The only hope you have is to discredit your opponents, especially in front of a jury.

    The problem Scientology faces is an international, distributed group of individuals, who may or may not maintain anonymity, and they can't individually target any of them. There's too many people for them to build cases on and attempt to ruin their lives through legal, punitive, harassment, or public humiliation methods. It's the BitTorrent problem - they can't charge and arrest every downloader because the legal system just isn't designed for this widespread "looting". Plus making an example of a few seems to embolden everyone else. They'd have to make a ridiculous response, like start shooting people. That would instill fear, but then in a month's time, the rest of the country would descend on them and rip them to shreds. Maybe it's the same reason the US government hasn't dropped a MOAB on the Khyber Pass - it would anger many more in the Muslim world, and increase the rate of suicide bombers, which of course one always gets through. A similar problem was seen during the Cold War: the assumption was that a nuclear bomber would always make it through the interceptors, the anti-aircraft missiles, and whatever defense response they could create.

    So, Anonymous as a pseudo-organization, which it isn't - it's far too ad hoc to even call it that - does benefit from their current strategy, as it uses Scientology's own terms of engagement against them. There is no means of attempting to criticize the critics. All Scientology can do is attack the critics and anyone near them as a whole. This means Scientology must attack EVERYONE on 4chan, 7chan, ___chan - which they do. They call them child pedophiles, deviants, etc etc ... but that's not fair to the 99% of ___chan users who just come to visit for random laughs, debauchery, pr0n, and contribute to the removal of child porn images from the site.

    In the end, this comes down to Scientology's own stubbornness, who hold onto Soviet style tactics of secrecy, hiding their own crimes, and general deceit. If Scientology just embraced "glasnost" they'll have kicked the legs out from the table Anonymous stands on. Maybe they fear openness is a weakness. Or they're behind all the protests, 4chan, and the videos, just to make sure they make headlines regularly.

    That sounds more like it. That's the Scientology I've grown to understand. Teach society how easy it is to create a fervor of hatred over complete lies, even if they seeded the lies themselves. meh - not likely - Scientology seems too uncreative to do something like that. They're probably just confused why these people aren't at home reading comic books, playing video games, getting wasted, having sex, and jerking off to porn.

  92. Re:Not the peaceful activists.A msg from Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "This attack, as any violent attack, is condemned by Anonymous."

    WHAT ABOUT THE FOOTBALL STADIUMS, ANONYMOUS?!

  93. Re: It is NOT Anonymous. by Bushido+Hacks · · Score: 1

    Anonymous does it for the LULZ. Everyday Anonymous submits several "Party Hard" flash which has music and flashing colors on may chan boards. This person is not Anonymous but rather a cruel imposter using a simple set of JavaScript, CSS, and HTML.

    --
    The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
  94. Re:Stop lying, Christ. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    He is not a scientologist I tell you! And look I have a high post count..

    SHUT UP HUBBARD IM TRYING TO DISCREDIT THIS GUY..

    oops did I just type that out loud..

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  95. Good Anon Meet Bad Anon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am so sick and tired of people saying that "Anonymous" is something like a group of internet superheroes who have taken to fighting the evil CoS. "Anonymous" of course refers to the collective that frequent the *chan sites.
    Some of which are attacking/protesting Scientology. Many enjoyed harassing CoS via the internet. Some actually cared about CoS and what it stands for, and thought real life protests were a good idea. Some think the protests are just sad get-togethers for basement-dwelling teens.
    More importantly, Anonymous did not form to combat CoS, it existed long before and has done many things. They may have been good or bad, but that's besides the point. What most of the participants cared about was if it provided them with entertainment. The more vocal the victim, the better.
    Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that Anonymous as a group has no such thing as 1 opinion. They are certainly not above ruining people's lives. So to assume that this griefing of some epilepsy forum is the work of CoS is beyond deluded.

  96. Now, now, children... by themadplasterer · · Score: 1

    when did /. start catering to troll children I can't believe this is even being reported here, it only perpetuates this kind of behaviour. Take away their stage and wait for them all to grow up.

  97. You know a little too much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You seem to know an awful lot about Anonymous. Too much for a guy who claims his job is to do security testing for "networked medical devices". And you're sure it was Anonymous. Even though Anonymous is not a group. And you know all about the attack.

    Incidentally, since HIPPA is about security of information and ISO 13485 is about developing management systems for medical devices, your comments about trying to protect medical information and management systems don't make sense because slashdot is not a medical device.

    Are you asking whether the web should be safe for epileptics? If so, the answer is "it already is".

    You're kind of all over the map. Maybe when you reach OTVIII things will be better for you. Either that, or you will be able to control time and space, so you'll be able to prevent these types of attacks by going into the past and stopping the ne'er do wells before they even start.

  98. This is the work of Slimatologists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Attack some other group and blame your enemy in an attempt to discredit them. Sick and pathetic.

  99. WTF are you talking about? by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

    Considering recent events it does not seem likely that "Anonymous" would do it - their campaign is meant to expose CoS's alleged misdeeds; an altruistic motive. Blaming "Anonymous" doesn't make sense in this context. Really, what the fuck are you talking about?
    You are trying to use "Anonymous" like someone else would use GNAA or Trollkore.
    Don't. You can't. It hurts to see you try and fail.

    The people who went after the CoS coalesced from the same people who troll, grief, raid and generally try to make life on the internet miserable. Did you already forget that they started out with a DDoS attack on the CoS website?

    Anonymous is the online equivalent of a race riot.
    http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Anonymous
    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:WTF are you talking about? by aurispector · · Score: 1

      I was *trying* to refer specifically to the probably smallish group of people obsessed with exposing the CoS, as differentiated from random people using the name "anonymous". OBVIOUSLY it wasn't those particular people. Failing to clearly define exactly to whom I was referring is my bad; assuming that putting "Anonymous" in quotes would accurately imply this definition was apparently not specific enough for the Asbergers afflicted among us.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
  100. Copy of 7chan instigation thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I saved a copy of the 7chan thread instigating the EFA attack before it was deleted. I had to mangle the formatting a bit to get it to post here on /., but here's the text (don't read if bad language offends you):

    File: 120624198932.jpg-(7.37KB, 196x200, 3doitfaggot1frtbwrsgbds.jpg)
    MIEN EYES Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:13 No. 2501134
    Epeleptic forum raid..
    1) Make account. 2) Spam flashing gifs, party hard etc. 3) Troll the userbase. 4) ??? 5)PROFIT!! CURRENT TARGET:http://www.epilepsyfoundation.org/efforums/forum/
    Precious Javascript Weapon:

    window.location = "http://gilf.co.nr/myeyes"
    //-->

    ALWAYS WEAR A CONDOM!
    >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:14 No. 2501142 | this has potential for lulz and win.
    >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:16 No. 2501165 | anon armed and ready.
    >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:22 No. 2501208 | First good fucking idea I've seen in days. I'll be right over there once I'm done fapping on my bosses desk.
    >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:23 No. 2501214 | Good principal, probably won't work in practice.
    >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:23 No. 2501217 | this is relevant to my interests
    >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:25 No. 2501231 | Wait, their forums support Javascript? That means...they support HTML? FUCK this will be too easy
    >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:30 No. 2501289 | Haha. Holy fucking shit. I wrote that code...fuck that, Anonymous wrote that code. For Anon By Anon. The Javascript is a nice touch...I'ma go flood that shit now.
    >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:32 No. 2501296 | >>2501134 }} oh wow, thats gotta be the best idea ive ever heard, well done.
    >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:36 No. 2501322 | File: 120624335935.jpg-(67.39KB, 850x719, FreeInternet.jpg) By the time I got there, you have all already filled it with seizurebait. GOOD FUCKING JOB, ANONS, WELL PLAYED.
    >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:37 No. 2501337 | I laughed really hard.
    >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:38 No. 2501346 } someone get a cookie stealing script and post it on a legit thread, then hack the whole thing, give it epic flashing index.
    >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:38 No. 2501352 | File: 120624350150.jpg-(32.28KB, 1138x48, 1206240592977.jpg) >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:39 No. 2501360 | >>2501352 }} lol'd
    >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:39 No. 2501366 | /r/ sticky
    >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:42 No. 2501388 | File: 120624374380.jpg-(5.90KB, 1030x41, epilepsy.jpg) also, requesting sticky
    >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:42 No. 2501395 | >>2501352 }} I fuckin lol'd hard
    >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:43 No. 2501400 | This is evil ;_;
    >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:43 No. 2501403 | OH GOD HOW DID I GET HERE IM NOT GOOD WITH COMPUTER
    >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:44 No. 2501409 | >>2501134 }} Hi I'm going to hijack your thread nao. Where did the Do It spider expert originally come from? Sadly despite months of lurking moar I have yet to figure out where I've seen this bitch before.
    >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:44 No. 2501412 | The name pedrobear made me lol. +1 internet to whoever that is
    >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:44 No. 2501413 | this isn't funny my brother did that way. Also, sticky this, plox.
    >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:44 No. 2501418 | >>2501413 }} died* I fail.
    >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:47 No. 2501435 | I haert u so hard anon lol.
    >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:47 No. 2501436 |
    window.location = "http://www.hey.doyouhaveepilepsy.com/"
    //-->

    Even better script
    >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:47 No. 2501438 | Ah god, I love you evil bastards.
    >> Anonymous 08/03/22(Sat)20:48 No. 2501450 | Is somebody DDoSing it too, cause it's getting slow as fuck

    1. Re:Copy of 7chan instigation thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Send that shit to the FBI.
      They could have killed somebody. Fucking with people's heads is one thing. Fucking with their nervous system so they choke on their tongues is something else.

      Freaking out polite society for lolz is one thing.

      Killing people for lolz is why we have jails.

      This is the kind of sociopathic shit that's going to lead to all kinds of new regulations getting passed. If we don't want the government to come in trying to police us, we've got to police our own.

  101. Re:Not the peaceful activists.A msg from Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In 1 minutes googling I've found :
    That was one guy, Jake Brahm, who learned the limits of free speech in America (thou shalt not make jokes about planting bombs)

    why bring that up and not things like pedophile Chris Forcand was investigated, and brought to justice by Anonymous (as a group, not an unnamed individual)

    So as the answers so easy to get, seems people bringing it up like that all the time are probably just going for defamation/black PR.

  102. Spectacular Astroturf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been reading Slashdot since '99 and this is the most spectacular astroturf campaign I've ever see. Anon posts don't even sound like anon for fuck sakes. All the fake anons are giving me such a serious case of uncanny valley that it's making me physically ill. It's impressive how much the Scientologists have learned in the few short months anon has been fighting them, but they still aren't quite there. Fair Game indeed, get the hell off my slashdot idiots! You aren't quite smart enough to post here.. even as anon (and that bar is pretty low).

  103. white people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...don't forget our instinctive drive to put mayonaise on everything!

  104. This isn't griefing... by santiagodraco · · Score: 0

    CoS or not CoS, besides the point. Whoever did this needs to be strung up by their privates and then flayed alive. This type of behavior cannot be tolerated. This isn't griefing, this is akin to assault and even attempted murder (if someone was to fall, hit their head and die, it would be murder). It's time people wise up and start behaving like civilized adults. If you know who did this it's time to turn them in to pay for their actions.

  105. ^^ more griefer stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to see more Slashdot stories about griefer groups.

    It's something that's going on on the Internet, but not many people know about it.

    You are more informed than I am.

  106. Anonymous does this all the time by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

    The cult is doing this to make Anonymous look bad.

    You're an idiot. No, this is the sort of thing that Anonymous would normally do -- "Anonymous" is the informal moniker of visitors to the "random" (or "/b/") section of 4chan.org, and the "group" has been around far longer than this (stupid) anti-Scientology campaign. Anonymous frequently picks on groups that are easy targets (such as in their campaign to spoil the ending of Harry Potter for all Harry Potter fans), and when Anonymous picks on a given group, it is often an entirely different group of random internet surfers griefing those victims than the groups of "Anonymous" that grief the other victims. Picking on Scientologists, as well as picking on epileptics, is just an extension of "Anonymous's" normal griefing pattern.

    Trying to make sense of Anonymous's actions by interpreting them as a single, coherent organization, would be like trying to make sense of the actions of every American teenager who calls himself a "goth," by setting out with the flawed assumption that all goths are somehow organized, and share things in common. They don't. They're just kids.

    1. Re:Anonymous does this all the time by efuinhsduilak · · Score: 1

      Agreed. This isn't the first time 7chan is implicated in an attack on an epilepsy forum. They do it periodically.

  107. YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ANONYMOUS by justinlee37 · · Score: 0, Troll

    This attack, as any violent attack, is condemned by Anonymous.

    What are you smoking? Anonymous condones violence all of the time. In fact, Anonymous even condones racial violence. Against niggers.

    Stop acting like Anonymous is a unified organization. It isn't. It's as unified in purpose and philosophy as a bunch of teenage sp00ky kids.

    1. Re:YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ANONYMOUS by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      I am not a troll. I dare you to go to 4chan.org, go to /b/, and surf for any length of time without seeing jokes that include racial slurs.

  108. Anonymous doesn't have a plural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...since it's an adjective.

  109. Win! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuckin LULZ!

  110. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the end, this comes down to Scientology's own stubbornness, who hold onto Soviet style tactics of secrecy, hiding their own crimes, and general deceit.

    I've been poring over the dox that Anon has (re-)leaked to the world over the past few weeks. The cult is a fascinating study in memetics -- there are memes for propagating itself ("Make money! Make others make more money!"), for defense ("Never defend, always attack"), and the every instance of jargon throughout the dox is itself a meme for encouraging separation of the in-group from the out-group in order to reinforce group identity.

    Your post made some of the missing pieces fit into place. Considering Hubbard's Naval background in the 50s, the insane bureaucracy (Office of Special Affairs, Hubbard Communications Office, Sea Org, Staff, Flag, etc...), his love of acronyms (HCOPL = Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, basically anything he felt like needed to be done got made into policy), and the whole "us against the world" ("Clear the Planet!", "We are the Authorities!") insanity he ended up building, I think you're a lot closer to the truth than you know.

    Which is this: Hubbard was very likely a paranoid schizophrenic, and he used his experiences in the Navy, colored by Cold War stories of CIA vs KGB, to build his cult. To this very day, the basic bits of tradecraft that are used to train OSA goons into stalking and harassing critics are basically lifted from techniques used by both sides back in the Cold War days.

    This is memetic warfare. The Scilons are ironically hampered by the same thing the Muslims are -- that their holy texts are the received word of God (Scilons call it "Source") and are unalterable.

    Hubbard's memes for distracting critics with the tu quoque logical fallacy (never discuss your crimes, discuss your opponent's crimes -- we see it every day when Pubs and Dems yell "B-b-but Bush did..." and "b-b-b-but Clinton...") were effective means of distracting the mainstream media of the 60s-80s. When those techniques failed, Fair Game ("Operation Freakout") and barratry "The purpose of a lawsuit is not to win, but to harass") were enough to dissuade reporters and critics, and the lawsuits made sure the editorial desk kept the reporters in line even when Fair Gaming didn't.

    All of that started to fail in the 90s with the development of many-to-many communications protocols offered by the Internet. Anonymous vs. Co$ is merely the next round. Problem is, since what Hubbard wrote was "Source", and cannot be altered for any reason, the Scilons are fighting a 1990-2000s memetic war with the weapons of the 1960s. Anonymous recognizes opportunities for lulz, and if there was ever such an opportunity, a dangerous, but predictable opponent certainly qualifies. :)

    If there was a +6, Insightful, you'd have earned it. Since I can't do that, I'll have to settle for changing the Subject: line, and point out in passing that you just won the Internet.

  111. Re:Yet another reason javascript should be abandon by Orestesx · · Score: 1

    I shouldn't have to make a server round trip just to change the presentation of the data on the page.

  112. It's beta testing for Snowcrash by Withigo · · Score: 1

    It's pretty obvious that this is merely Scientologists acting as agent provocateurs to discredit Anonymous.
    In fact, they're probably just beta testing some secret tech like Snowcrash, since they're going to need to take out the hacker community anyways.
    And while we laugh at them now, this is all part of their secret plan which also involves assembling the Raft somewhere in the Pacific. Why else would their leadership be called "Sea Org"? It won't be so funny when half a million brainwashed zombie Scientologists invade the shores of California and take over everything. Hopefully someone can reach the Mafia in time...

  113. What happened? by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

    Did someone send them a link to http://ytmnd.com/?

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  114. VIDEO ANOUNCEMENT FROM ANONYMOUS TO WORLD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ANONYMOUS DECLARES: THERE IS NO ANONYMOUS.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ4HSwb59IA

    In before "caps lock is cruise control for cool."

  115. Ebaumsworld is the best site ever. period. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop trying to frame the best website in the world, you jerk. Ebaumsworld rules, channers are lamers and probably all cry themselves to sleep because no one wants to spend any meatspace time with them, so they take it out on people with REAL LIVES and by that I mean ebaumsworld users, because we try to live and love and laugh at funny things while you sit in your parent's basement and wank to people stepping on kittens. EBAUMSWORLD RULES Anonymous DROOLS.
    So THERE.

  116. Scientology Smear Campaign against Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is not unreasonable to assume nor would it be out of character for the Scientologists to have done this as part of a revenge smear campaign against Anonymous.

  117. Re:Next Attack for Anonymous ... with Beer and Piz by cpricejones · · Score: 1

    I wonder what they will post on internet addiction sites ...

  118. Re:Stop lying, Christ. by Kyokugenryu · · Score: 0, Troll

    I'm not a Scientologist, I just don't support all this retarded crap against Scientology. Standing outside is not a "raid" as those Raidchan/insurgents call it. It's a bunch of nerds standing outside a building. It's not bothering anyone most likely. Why would a religion have a reason to be scared of a bunch of kids who think being on 4chan since 2006 makes them an "oldfag" and intentionally making epileptics, who have done NOTHING TO YOU, have seizures? You're saying this like my IRC network wasn't linked to Partyvan for what, 2 months? With all of 7chan/Raidchan/Insurgency. Go back to standing outside of CoS buildings and thinking they care in the least, but leave people with disabilities alone. That is genuinely disgusting, not even the GNAA went that far.

  119. newsworthy? by Slimee · · Score: 1

    Is a story concerning who 4chan's latest victim was really slashdot news? Slow news day much?

  120. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As someone who participated in this... you think we're... Saying we're being framed because there's no way anon could do this it just shows your lack of knowledge on what we really are.
    It's really amusing when someone so dependent on a group identity pretends to be a sociopath :-)
  121. Talk about propoganda. by Kyokugenryu · · Score: 1

    The massive amount of /i/nsurgents/7channers/Raidfags posting here telling people it's the Church of Scientology makes it pretty obvious who it is. Stop BAWWing about being scapegoats and just say you did it, it's blatantly obvious you did. Are you going to stop saying ebaums did everything and blame it all on the CoS now? So glad I stopped going to the *chans when it started being overrun by newfags a couple years ago, 4chan is literally a completely different site from back when thrust vectoring owned the skies and Snacks kept /b/ awesome.

  122. most of the white people i know... by someone1234 · · Score: 1

    ...didn't 'come' from Europe, but live in Europe. And they don't have much to do with colonialism either.

    White people in the US may be different, but i guess many of them went to the US near WWII, which also has nothing to do with their history of colonialism.

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  123. Re:Not the peaceful activists.A msg from Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DISREGARD THAT I SUCK COCKS

    This part of the post wasn't necessary, as we wouldn't have been able to tell what you do in your personal life if you hadn't told us... and we don't have to disregard what we don't know. Just sayin'.

  124. Ghost in the Shell? by tygerstripes · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ooookay, anyone getting a "Ghost in the Shell - Stand Alone Complex" vibe from this whole thread? Seriously, if you were all in a virtual-reality chat room instead of /. this would be the Laughing Man discussion down to a T...

    --
    Meta will eat itself
    1. Re:Ghost in the Shell? by Protometheus · · Score: 2, Informative
      Maybe from the /. community, but the story itself makes me think that someone was watching a little too much .Hack//Sign. Anyone reminded of the "Deadly Flash" virus from that show?

      Deadly Flash a virus that is capable of inducing epiliptic seizures is released, killing several people. Now let's just hope no one finds out how to make the Pluto's Kiss virus. I really don't want to be stuck using a Mac.
    2. Re:Ghost in the Shell? by raduf · · Score: 1

      So it's really the government who's doing it and Anonymous retired years ago?

  125. My two cents. by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

    Being a regular fixture of the anime community that most of the *chan boards spawned from, I've had a fair amount of exposure to all things Anonymous and /b/tard. I know enough about Scientology to know I don't like it, not one bit, and I know they like to do anything to get their way. But I can tell you this; I am 100% sure that the anon kiddies did this. It's wanton internet hate machine bullshit as usual. I'm surprised they didn't surround the offending images with 'UR BRAIN IS CLOSED' or something equally witty.

    I honestly can't wait to see what happens next though. Like most things of late, this is heading into cyberpunk territory... Roving tribes of anarchistic internet terrorists... I mean, seriously. wtf? It also amuses me to no end to see Anon going after the CoS... It's like a win-win situation. Less scientology, or less /b/tards. I'll take either. (Granted, less /b/tards would have a more immediate positive impact on my existence...since the CoS has never caused me any trouble.)

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
  126. Official 7chan response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello, and welcome to our treehouse.

    I would just like to discuss this nasty business about a terrible raid on a forum for the poor people who suffer from epilepsy. What happened there was terrible, and we feel deeply sorry for those affected.

    Users of this site did not actually attack those individuals. The Church of Scientology posted numerous threads across many *chan sites yesterday, and then informed people that Anonymous had been attacking victims of epilepsy. They did this under their "fair game" policy, to ruin the public opinion of Anonymous, to lessen the effect of their lawful protests against their virulent organization.

    I must say, it is disgusting that the CoS is willing to drag innocent people down with them, in an attempt to save themselves. How could anyone be a willing participant in their terrible organization?

    Sadly, none of our staff were online at the time of the thread's posting, so we were unable to take it down.

    We are truly and deeply sorry for what happened to these innocent people, Thank you for your time spent reading this apology,
    -- The Administration and Staff of 7chan.org

    Feel free to email us at the above address or address us on our IRC server, and we will be happy to address any of your concerns regarding this terrible incident.

    Disclaimer: I'm a 7chan mod. Our IRC server is irc.7chan.org.
    1. Re:Official 7chan response by efuinhsduilak · · Score: 1

      I have a copy of a 7chan thread saved from last November when 7channers did the exact same thing to another epilepsy forum. This isn't the first time 7channers do this. It isn't an isolated event.

  127. Ebaums and 7chan did it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If anyone understands the title of this comment, you'll know what I'm talking about. What name is missing? ;)

    As a lurker of the missing forum, I saw information about this event about two hours ago.

    I'll only paraphrase what I saw.

    "Guys, we caused 20 people to have migraines and headaches."

    "OH GOD! WHAT HAVE WE DONE?!"

  128. There's no anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's why we can't have nice things! http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2890/coondauz3.gif

  129. Origins of anonymous by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1
  130. A MESSAGE FROM ANONYMOUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  131. This is not new by ZwJGR · · Score: 1

    Heck, entire domains have been set up to hold this sort of content.
    I even stumbled onto one once, but fortunately for me I do not suffer from epilepsy.
    www. & seizure & robots & .com (avoid if epileptic)

    It is inevitable that there will be some obnoxious clownhat somewhere that would enjoy such attacks on people who suffer from photosensitive epilepsy.
    I personally fail to understand how anybody could correlate this AT ALL with the Anonymous group debunking scientology. Completely different. It is almost as bizarre as trying to suggest that there is only one anonymous group on the whole internet, which is patently false.
    Any correlation is most likely created by Co$ themselves, and hopefully will backfire on them.
    For if scientologists *are* found to be responsible, law enforcement will frown upon such behaviour, and their (already shaky) reputation will be further tarnished, (hopefully along with their laughable religious status, and leaders).
    If not, then it's probably just kids from some backwards forum...

    --
    There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face - Ben Williams
  132. We are legion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anonymous is everywhere.

    We are the the pimps and the prostitutes, the doctors and the politicians. We are the teachers and the schoolchildren. We are the jesters and outcasts of the internet.

    Anonymous is largely chaotic neutral- we are both moral and immoral. However, the actions of a few do not represent the actions of the whole.

    It is impossible to make judgments when anyone can be one of us.

    PS: lulz your captcha just made me type "lynches".

  133. because "Anonymous" are massive arseholes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously go read 4chan or Somethingawful, they do forum invasions and mock people with disabilities all the time. They are mostly a bunch of bored teenagers and loser nerds with massive nerd rage. Just because they sometimes do something good, or the non-arseholes get noticed, doesn't mean the vast majority of those groups aren't just griefers. I only like them because most of the time they are funny, even when griefing people.

  134. How do these things get to 5? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...and that is the sole extent of Anonymous's agenda to date..." Anonymous as an organization has a long history of attacking institutions that foster unwarranted self-importance, and new-age mystics peddling superpowers are simply the latest permutation the collective will has bent itself against.

  135. Blinkers on by abigsmurf · · Score: 1

    I can't believe that around 80% of the posts here are trying to defend the chans or blame Scientology for this. Is it really surprising they'd do stuff like this? Site invasions of innocent groups for 'lulz' isn't exactly a radical change in behaviour for them.

    So it may not be the same people taking part in the Scientology protests. I'm sure that makes the victims of these invasions feel so much better. When the chans decided to organise themselves under the banner of 'anonymous' the same as they do all their site invasions under, they chose to directly associate themselves with these activities. They're all part of the 4chan and 7chan userbase and without any attempt to prove they're different from any other group of chan users doing site invasions, why SHOULD they be seen as any different?

    The chan's are filled with people who think the funniest thing in the world is to post child porn images and do crap like this. It reeks of desperation or naivety to call this a smear campaign

  136. Hey, as long as they're paying for the pizzas, ... by reiisi · · Score: 1

    Oh, wait, ...

    --
    Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
  137. biggest mouths here anonymous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it has something to do with anonymous.

    --
    I wonder if they chan get the joke.

  138. Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Non-Scientologists also torture puppies, sell kittens to Communist postal addresses, and are responsible for decades when Zuuul or Zeron Or Evilex or whatever his name was from the other planet who was supposed to save us all were afraid to contact Earth because they were afraid of Space Invaders' message.

    Folks, it's not too late! Let's all convert to Scientism! Get in touch with your inner Thetan. Bonus points for finding her Thetanspot......

    Honestly, I've scarcely seen a more blatant attempt at spin

  139. Re:Yet another reason javascript should be abandon by Vampyre_Dark · · Score: 1

    You know, lots of the stuff I use on the web is better because of javascript. I would hate to go back to the days of plain useless HTML. How would I see when my gmail contacts logged in, or have cool features on the message boards I frequent? You might as well ban programming all together. Javascript is no more abusable than any programming language.

  140. anon by Orcaporka · · Score: 1

    It is anonymous as you people think of them. They just thought it would be funny to do it simple as that. Before this whole scientology debacle people would accept this as anonymous. Remeber these are the same people who did the bomb threats to football stadiums/

  141. As someone who suffers from this epilepsy by mike_diack · · Score: 1

    I'd like to say a big f**k you to whoever did this.

    Seizures are horrible and I wouldn't wish one on my worst enemy.

    --
    Linux fan and Win32 developer
  142. PHP BBSes buggy ? by unity100 · · Score: 1

    really i dont understand that shit. they are just as buggy as any software out there, except maybe some linux stuff, and then again they are also buggy. i dont understand the need to despise those 'off the shelf' forum scripts that way. they power hundreds of thousands of communities harboring millions of people very well. so whats the problem ?

    anyways mod this offtopic.

  143. That page locked my browser by unity100 · · Score: 1

    and i have 400kbps broadband, amd 4800, 4 gig ram, firefox, zonealarm, no viruses, no problems in my xp. despite being a web developer myself so i know how to avoid that kind of shit.

    imagine what would it do to a epileptic ...

  144. Scientology should try organizing in Turkey by unity100 · · Score: 1

    i cant even start to imagine what the middle eastern islamist sects that are organizing in turkey to abolish secular republic are gonna do to them. they know no kind of intimidation.

  145. shut up by yidfrom711 · · Score: 1

    everybody blaming this on scientology is a tard. the posts originated and got lots of support on 420chan /i/. and while i'm here, i would like to point out that the protests against scientology were not in the nature of anonymous, this is the kind of malicious thing we do you fucking newfag enkindlers. Anonymous has always been malicious, and that wont change. the majority of anons have grown to hate the pathetic raids on scientology, and all the associated internet love machine bullshit. gb2/gaia enkindlerfags. you will never change the nature of anonymous.

  146. What Anonymous Should Have Done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Posting AC because it advises Chanology to act in a certain way and implies that Co$ might have been responsible for the attack.
    Anonymous members should have noticed what was being plotted and posted something to this extent on the epilepsy group:

    Name: 4chan Anonymous Date: March 30th 2008
    Dear Epilepsy Group Members,
    I am posting on behalf of Anonymous, a group of anonymous posters who are best known for our current war on Co$ (not to be confused with the Church of Scientology).
    It came to my attention that some posters were planning an attack on your site that would trigger epilepsy. For this reason we advise you to not follow links with out checking what domain they're going to (you can do this by hovering your mouse over the link and looking at the status bar) and disable animations.
    This attack seems to be an attempt by Co$ to implicate us in something illegal. We are sorry that you have been dragged into this conflict.
    ~Anonymous

  147. DOS on CNS by kencf0618 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I hope that this despicable assault can be, and shall be, prosecuted to the fullest extent of the applicable laws. An interesting case... It's a sort of neurological trespass and vandalism, or a DOS on one's own CNS.

    Incidentally, Coeur d'Alene is in Idaho, not Ohio.

  148. Re:Stop lying, Christ. by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

    long term infiltration is standard MO for Scientology, and given previous encounters between /. and Scientology i am quite suspicious of such sparsly posting accounts suddenly active in this thread alone after almost a year without posting. http://slashdot.org/~Kyokugenryu

    not a sock puppet, but possibly a Scientologist operative.

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  149. Re:Stop lying, Christ. by moreati · · Score: 1

    My first hand experience with SoC is nil and Kyokugenryu posting history is similar to mine - extended and sporadic. So I I won't refute your point, but I prefer to assume the best in him/her.

    I'll just say I agree with your sentiments on this particular post & it royally sucks that CoS practices mean we must have this debate. Alex

  150. Re:Stop lying, Christ. by Kyokugenryu · · Score: 1

    I stopped posting to /. when I finally realized, after years of using it, it was nothing but a bunch of *nix nerds complaining about how bad Microsoft is. I get the RSS feeds of both Digg and Slash, but I usually reply much more often on Digg than Slashdot because trolling there is a lot more fun. I'm just an oldschool /b/tard who thinks all this shit is stupid and too far away from the stuff we used to do. /b/ used to be about trolling furries (even though 99% of /b/ was furries), praising the GNAA, and watching DashBillions and SovietRussia troll all day. It's not the /b/ we built, newfags destroyed it. /b/ is dead, why do you think moot doesn't even care about 4chan anymore? When Lulznet (now partyvan) took the domain he couldn't care less, 4chan has become something not even he really wants to be associated with, but he makes so much money off of it, how can't he? He tried making it like the old days and removing forced anon, but newfags cried too much because they can't stand the thought of oldfags being there.

  151. Absolute Power Was Framed. by Hasai · · Score: 1

    It is absolute immunity that corrupts absolutely.

    --

    Regards;

    Hasai

  152. Re:Not the peaceful activists.A msg from Anonymous by Os+Wilkes · · Score: 1

    Yeah, yeah, yeah... we all heard that spiel before.

    If it's GOOD, anonymous did it. If it's BAD, somebody else did it. Yeah, yeah... that's the ticket. Somebody else did it. Like maybe the victim. Yeah, the victim is PRETENDING to be anonymous, and did it to themselves to make US look bad!

    Let's look at the reasons anonymous gives for not doing it:

    1) They are not an organized group- they are individuals doing their own thing.

    2) They have no leadership and therefore cannot plan to do anything.

    Don't blame anonymous. They are just a mindless mob who HAPPENS to be anonymous to protect their identities. No, they are not a group, even though they network with one another, have a name, a logo, an image, and plan hacks, stunts, assaults and events. Of course, when any subgroup of the greater amorphous anonymous network does something bad, somebody gets on the boards and spams them with their damage control. Which they wouldn't have to do if some of them hadn't engaged in DDoS attacks, Pizza Bombing, Taxi Bombing, Crank Calls, Threatening Faxes, White Powder hoaxes, and other terrorist acts most of which they DID take credit for at the beginning of the year.

    Anonymous started on the wrong foot, they say. NOW, they don't do bad things. Just ask them. Unfortunately, every bad thing that happens is going to be attributed BY THE PRESS and the PUBLIC AT LARGE to anonymous because it started it's PLANNED and ORCHESTRATED campaign against the equally reprehensible but legally operating Church of Scientology by committing CRIMINAL ACTS.

    The only way to get the blame put where it belongs is for people not to ascribe to the image of anonymous. But they enlist people to join their ranks by giving them what they want. So, many of the legitimate critics of Scientology have donned the image and uniform of the anonymous movement and distribute and promote it's agenda whatever that is. Of course, the more people who claim to ba anonymous there are, the more people the perps have to point their fingers at when they commit crimes.

    Unless they point their fingers at the VICTIMS, as they are on this board.

    Your sig line says it all, anonymous.

    Pay heed people.

    Love,

    Os

  153. Re:Not the peaceful activists.A msg from Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sadly anonymity is a catch all, literally anyone can and will say "I am Anonymous", even The Church of Scientology is "Anonymous" when they connect to public FTPs. What do you mean 'sadly'? I assume you thought that out when you picked the name. Indeed, I sort of thought that was your point. Some friendly advice here, if you don't want to keep having to fight off the equivocation by saying "no, no not THAT 'anonymous', we're the other 'Anonymous'" you might want to change the name.
  154. Re:Maybe scientology did it ? by zijus · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hello
    I couldn't help a loud laugh out while RTA. Again now: lol ! :-) The first thing comming to my mind is : "Attack on epileptics is quite nuts. But spreading a rumour that it's an anti-scientology group who did without solid justifications is completely nuts. That sounds tortuous enough to come from pro-scientology people". I mean scientologist are so twisted and ready to harass by any means the ones against them, that they could well have perpetrated all that. Regretfully this scenario matches pretty well the extend of madness scientologists are used to exhibit boldly.
    Bye.

  155. Re:Not the peaceful activists.A msg from Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyonymous and the OP, don't state it wasn't Anonymous.
    The OP just uses lingo to separate the peaceful protesting anonymous, from the anonymous greifers attacking whatever they feel like greifing about, including Anonymous.

    All the OP is guilty of is obviously intentionally throw a few seeds of suggestion that the attacks could also have come from purely external sources (Scientology) under the guise of, or manipulating those of Anonymous with fewer brain cells.

    Throughout history some of the kindest acts imaginable have been done under the guise of anonymity.
    Throughout history some of the worst acts imaginable have been done under the guise of anonymity.

    And no, the Church of Scientology is not operating legally, hence the protests, times are a'changing, Texas is already moving to revoke their tax exemption that was based on lies and lawsuits.

  156. Re:Not the peaceful activists.A msg from Anonymous by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    This has the fingerprints of Scientologists all over it. Germany has it right: Scientology is a cult. It is dangerous. In a sane society, it deserves to be outlawed.

    And just a quick shout-out to Tom Cruise: Blow me.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  157. Ebaumsworld NOT Anonymous by tetsuharu · · Score: 1

    I am a conscientious observer to this Anonymous/Scientology war, and I know that this was an attack by Ebaumsworld, not an attack by Anonymous. Ebaumsworld loves to do things like this to Anonymous.

  158. Re:Griefers? MOD UP! by abirdman · · Score: 1

    This is deep and thoughtful and true. You deserve lots of mod points.

    Watch your step on the porch, there's broken glass there.

    --
    Everything I've ever learned the hard way was based on a statistically invalid sample.
  159. But the connection exists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All this might mean however, that people make the connection between "anonymous", the group that protests scientology, and "anonymous", the internet assholes that cause epileptic seizures.

    But the connection exists. The folks who were protesting scientology identify with the culture of the "/b/tards" and the "Internet Hate Machine." The folks were in a position to know the sort of hateful shit anons encourage their fellows to do. The connection between the scientology protester and internet assholes was there before the epilepsy stuff.

  160. Shifting the Blame by Alien54 · · Score: 1
    the old saw

    With friends like these, Who needs enemies?

    7chan, etc being as dumb as theyt are, they are probably glad to get somebody else to blame it on

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  161. Re: Anonymous Group Think by Alien54 · · Score: 1
    Well, any group will have its own collection of memes which form the foundation of their culture and which therefore define their 'Group Think'.

    Considering that calls for moderation in dealing with individual scientologists are often met with pythonesque taunting.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  162. On the off chance you're being serious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    How folks "roll" == what they do. See also: T-shirts attempting to be funny.

    7chan, 4chan == same shit, different sites (slightly different communities, but not by much)

    "/b/ is not your personal army" == what happens when you try to give Anon a shitty target. In this case, Epileptics are a shitty target. (Autistics are a little better target; not that their issues aren't any more or less serious, but just for their drama factor. Same thing goes for Furries; fursuits are funny, sure, but it's the drama generated that makes them prime targets.)

    Scientology == The Granddaddy of Anti-lulz. Period.

  163. Re:Not the peaceful activists.A msg from Anonymous by UtsuMaster · · Score: 1

    Actually, that was a clever quote reference.

    Sadly lost among a post crafted in fourth grade.

    --
    ...or not.
  164. Odd by Fifth+Earth · · Score: 1

    I thought advertising agencies had been doing this for years. Or do you mean to imply that those flashing "YOU'RE A WINNER!!!!!11threeminustwo" banners aren't specifically designed as a mental assault?

  165. Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The CoS protesters are not the true "Anonymous". Habbo, Hal Turner, Tom Green, that is Anonymous. This is exactly what we would do. INTERNET HATE MACHINE

  166. another piece of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just like that "hackers threaten to shut off power in cities" story. Another piece trying to scare everyone into believing the internet needs government regulation.

  167. Re:Yet another reason javascript should be abandon by Dogun · · Score: 1

    My issue is about running code on my system that has the potential to be obnoxious as all hell. It's not quite so bad if the content is only going to affect how the page is displayed.

    Still, I think the right way to go is to describe an extension to html that is flexible enough to let you dynamic content fans to get your content updates, maybe do some SOAP-fu here and there, but not provide access to thinks like input hooks. I can see no compelling reason to hook the keyboard and do mouse crap. Modal message boxes are a similarly bad feature. Your web page should not screw with my browser.

  168. Meta by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    I clearly wasn't picking a fight.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  169. Tag "anonymous" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hereby propose that all anonymous-related stories should be tagged "anonymous," so we can more easily follow the exploits of anonymous for our anonymous amusement.