Anonymous Boston Leader Now Well Known

Originally Posted by I

then if the scilons get the names, it has to have been through infiltration and someone not doing their job right (keeping the details safe), and the permits still apply for all the other protests where fair game isn't an issue but the reasons for permits are.

Permits are public record once approved.

Originally Posted by Davis Square Rocks

"member of Anonymous" is a difficult phrase to avoid, though. I try to say "participant in Anonymous".

you are not a participant IN anonymous. you ARE anonymous. unless you are namfagged of course. then you wouldnt be. this article has made the same subtle mistake.

Originally Posted by Eff

Get fucking real, you twat. It's not your place or anyone else's to decide that someone can't officially be a part of Anonymous anymore.

I think you're misunderstanding what they're saying. The way I read it is that it would make sense if the media understand that there is no Anonymous, really is just people acting anonymously. It doesn't make Gregg any more or less part of what we're doing. It simply means that he is not anonymous.

If anything a bit of clarity on this would probably help him, as Co$ are desperate to suggest he is some kind of leader of a group called Anonymous, which might not affect most of us, but is definitely bad news for him. This is about clarity not about excluding anyone.

i like this article: "battle of creepiness" :)
as long as the points get across and it doesn't end with "Look these masked terrorists persecuting an innocent religion!" why care?

Let's hope that tomorrow Gregg will walk out and this litigation gets exposed for the fair game it is.

It is possible to participate in Anonymous activities without hiding one's identity. For instance, Larry Brennan, Patty Pieniadz, and I have all attended Boston-area Anonymous events without masks. I don't think Magoo wore a mask at events she has participated in, either.

First of all, it's sad that none of the $cilons are able to "think outside the tech" in order to combat Anonymous and other critics. They can only do the same things the tech tells them. If that were true in Christianity today, we would be using spears and slingshots against those who use gunpowder.

On another note, the idea of the Anonymous collective never ceases to amaze me. Leaders usually have an important role in a collective or a group. But in this collective, everyone and no one is essentially the leader. Everyone has a fair share of work involved in this group, and responsibilities that a leader or leaders usually do are split up and shared by the whole collective. It's a democratic system with no leader. I'd compare it to Marxism but Anon is way beyond, and better than that.

Originally Posted by Eff

How about like this:

The leader of Anonymous, who goes by the pseudonym "I" on the Enturbulation forums, has revised the organization's stringent membership requirements to exclude those who have revealed their name to a government agency.

Get fucking real, you twat. It's not your place or anyone else's to decide that someone can't officially be a part of Anonymous anymore.

I was paraphrasing a thing that's been said from the start.

his actions and how much we praise and respect him for it haven't changed, but when we refer to 'anonymous' we refer to the anonymous collective that works as one (theoretically) and is all the things that 'anonymous' is, and that we keep trying to explain to the press (although more are getting it recently).
although he still participates in that anonymous and is part of it anonymously (well, under a name on here, but he can be anonymous again if he wants), but not under his name. that name is not a part of anonymous, and should not be mentioned as anonymous (definitely not leader), because anonymous cannot be described by the individual actions within it.

all the philosophical stuff aside, people who get namefagged aren't officially known as part of anonymous any more (even if what they actually do doesn't change, or the way we see it) so that they don't get blamed for all the shit we get up to.

it's one thing going on a forum or on the radio or being on the street in a mask explaining that yes, anonymous has done illegal things, hideous things, etc, but the anonymous that is doing this is different, by the very nature of such groups, than the anonymous that did those, it's another to be a person, with a name attached, talking about anonymous, because it suddenly matters whether you were involved in those things.

remember, he's not excluded from anything, he can still do what he did/does or more. obviously, people will think of all that they know when he posts under the name gregg, and stuff he posts under that name (at least on here) can be linked to him, but he doesn't need to post under that name.

the only thing that has changed is the ways he can be referred to. it's purely a semantic/philosophical thing, but one we should be pedantic about with the media and the CoS.

What a sneaky way to try to stop protests and FREE SPEECH. I bet they think now noone would dare to file a permit, scared off by the fair game policy. (Thats what they seem to aim for)

DONT LET THIS HAPPEN! If need be, we will establish a public spokesperson who files the permit.

Originally Posted by AnonDeliversPizza

Permits are public record once approved.

read the rest of the post.

I said that this fair gaming is a reason for names not to be published

then if they get the names...

Not this argument again. How many times have we been over this same thing, in some form or another, now?
sage

Originally Posted by Ivlesin

Not this argument again. How many times have we been over this same thing, in some form or another, now?
sage

You know? This is just like something my friend Candlejack one sa

Gregg who?

I thought Mark Bunker was the evil genius behind all this. Along with the pysche-drug conspiracy.

Originally Posted by I

I was paraphrasing a thing that's been said from the start.

his actions and how much we praise and respect him for it haven't changed, but when we refer to 'anonymous' we refer to the anonymous collective that works as one (theoretically) and is all the things that 'anonymous' is, and that we keep trying to explain to the press (although more are getting it recently).
although he still participates in that anonymous and is part of it anonymously (well, under a name on here, but he can be anonymous again if he wants), but not under his name. that name is not a part of anonymous, and should not be mentioned as anonymous (definitely not leader), because anonymous cannot be described by the individual actions within it.

all the philosophical stuff aside, people who get namefagged aren't officially known as part of anonymous any more (even if what they actually do doesn't change, or the way we see it) so that they don't get blamed for all the shit we get up to.

it's one thing going on a forum or on the radio or being on the street in a mask explaining that yes, anonymous has done illegal things, hideous things, etc, but the anonymous that is doing this is different, by the very nature of such groups, than the anonymous that did those, it's another to be a person, with a name attached, talking about anonymous, because it suddenly matters whether you were involved in those things.

remember, he's not excluded from anything, he can still do what he did/does or more. obviously, people will think of all that they know when he posts under the name gregg, and stuff he posts under that name (at least on here) can be linked to him, but he doesn't need to post under that name.

the only thing that has changed is the ways he can be referred to. it's purely a semantic/philosophical thing, but one we should be pedantic about with the media and the CoS.

Anonymous (capital A) has long since ceased to be synonymous with anonymous (lowercase a).

Trying to enforce the fact that namefagged individuals aren't part of Anonymous accomplishes nothing from a legal standpoint; if it looks like a duck and it sounds like a duck, it's a duck. No lawyer is going to take your forum post and use it to prove in court that Gregg isn't in Anonymous.

And it accomplishes less than nothing from a PR standpoint, because it makes it look like we cut loose the people who took the most risks for the cause and need our support the most. It's a semantic point, maintained for the worst reasons.

Originally Posted by eksef

Co$ - get it through your thick head that the more you piss us off, the more we'll go after you.

Actually, nothing will stop us from taking them down anyway, so they may as well put up a fight.

And besides, the more they fight, the faster they lose because they suck at communication, honesty, and being in tough with reality. They are breeding a whole new generation of people who are aware of their crimes.

We should NEVER stoop to that level.

Did someone say stoop?

someone phrase that in a way that doesn't sound like a coverup/denial and sounds more like polite correction please.

Anonymous as an organization has no leaders, and no names. People like with identities (like Gregg) who support Anonymous in various ways - particularly by registering for permits or interfacing with members of the media and law enforcement - are largely ex-Scientologists or former Anonymous members who have been unmasked by Scientology's hired private investigators.

These people are NOT Anonymous. They have been deprived of their right to privacy, thanks to Scientology. Instead, they are now Unanimous - members of a brave and small fraternity of outspoken Critics of Scientology. These critics have been persecuted and harassed for years by both the legal filings of the church and the framing attempts documented in the Paulette Cooper case (dubbed Operation:Freakout).

Anonymous thanks these people for helping, for courageously lending their aid while risking prosecution and even death by publicly opposing Scientology. Anonymous points out that the harassment the public critics known as Unanimous have to endure are the most telling reason of all as to why Anonymous continues to wear masks. The harassment of the church against private citizens who disagree with them is the best reason to become Anonymous.

Originally Posted by Eff

And it accomplishes less than nothing from a PR standpoint, because it makes it look like we cut loose the people who took the most risks for the cause and need our support the most. It's a semantic point, maintained for the worst reasons.

see this:
|| || ||
\/ \/ \/

Originally Posted by closelyheldcards

Anonymous as an organization has no leaders, and no names. People like with identities (like Gregg) who support Anonymous in various ways - particularly by registering for permits or interfacing with members of the media and law enforcement - are largely ex-Scientologists or former Anonymous members who have been unmasked by Scientology's hired private investigators.

These people are NOT Anonymous. They have been deprived of their right to privacy, thanks to Scientology. Instead, they are now Unanimous - members of a brave and small fraternity of outspoken Critics of Scientology. These critics have been persecuted and harassed for years by both the legal filings of the church and the framing attempts documented in the Paulette Cooper case (dubbed Operation:Freakout).

Anonymous thanks these people for helping, for courageously lending their aid while risking prosecution and even death by publicly opposing Scientology. Anonymous points out that the harassment the public critics known as Unanimous have to endure are the most telling reason of all as to why Anonymous continues to wear masks. The harassment of the church against private citizens who disagree with them is the best reason to become Anonymous.

good one