×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

212 comments

Makes sense (3, Insightful)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273342)

I was a bit perplexed when I heard they were bothering with the WBC, and figured it was somebody's publicity stunt. There are much better targets in the world than a bunch of loons and their opportunist leader...

Re:Makes sense (3, Insightful)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273388)

But that's the thing Westboro members could be Anonymous too, it's interesting how this "non-group" can denounce a release as not representative of Anonymous.

Re:Makes sense (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274084)

For that matter, WBC may not be involved at all. Those knuckle-draggers inventing a fight with anonymous to get attention seems far too complex and subtle for WBC to have thought up. The group stands outside of funerals with signs: they don't strike me as genius viral marketers. Maybe anonymous is just effectively trolling itself publicly?

Re:Makes sense (2)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274266)

anonymous always trolls itself.

if the WBC have access to fox news, they could have thought this up.

i'm not sure about opening their ports to harvest IPs. their ports are probably open because they don't know how to close them.

Re:Makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35274492)

I like this post!

WBC are *very* professional trolls (5, Interesting)

billstewart (78916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274350)

If you think they're not genius viral marketers, you haven't been paying attention to how you heard of them or why you know what they claim to stand for or why TV covers them when they're standing out there with signs. They're not just dumb bigots, they're a sociopathic family of lawyers, who go out and make themselves as publicly offensive as they can, so that people will attack them and towns will ban them and they can make money by sueing them. They're also happy to get donations from actual knuckle-draggers and from right-wing politicians who profit from the Culture Wars, but it's really about the lawsuits and the publicity.

Re:Makes sense (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35274972)

They should target Focus on the Family instead!

They should have chosen a more distinctive name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273344)

The problem with anonymous: Any Anonymous Coward on slashdot is anonymous.

Re:They should have chosen a more distinctive name (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273382)

Isn't this the opposite side of the coin to all the claims of "there is no organization to Anonymous?" If there is no structure, then anyone could do something on behalf of Anonymous, and you couldn't deny it was done by them.

Re:They should have chosen a more distinctive name (4, Insightful)

Kiaser Zohsay (20134) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273404)

... then anyone could do something on behalf of Anonymous, and you couldn't deny it was done by them.

Or maybe that's just what they want you to think ...

Re:They should have chosen a more distinctive name (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273504)

... then anyone could do something on behalf of Anonymous, and you couldn't deny it was done by them.

Or maybe that's just what they want you to think ...

But you've given everything away! I know where the poison is, and I choose... What in the world could THAT be?

Re:They should have chosen a more distinctive name (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274120)

"We count Beatrice Hall among our Anonymous forebears"

Beatrice Hall, who you just named, is "anonymous"?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.

Don't worry, they've been sacked (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273360)

Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked.

Re:Don't worry, they've been sacked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273628)

Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked.

What does Brett Favre have to do with this?

Re:Don't worry, they've been sacked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35274772)

You know, a moose bit my sister once...

Way to... (2)

spyder-implee (864295) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273364)

Way to get yourself on anon's shit list. Not something I'd be eager to do.

Re:Way to... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273700)

hahaha... Anon just freed up some time in their busy DDoS'ing schedule for the WBC circus.

Expect faxes. Many of them. With religiously inappropriate content

Re:Way to... (4, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274156)

With religiously inappropriate content

That describes their signs, what they're saying, and pretty much what they're all about, so I think anonymous have to dig -really- deep to find something offensive to them. Like as in "that which offends anonymous won't phase WBC."

Honestly I think faxing them bible quotes would annoy them more. That whole "Love thy neighbor" thing is either crossed out in their bibles, or is pretty narrowly defined. "Do unto others etc" must annoy the shit out of them.

Re:Way to... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35274288)

Do not challenge /b/-tards to come up with offensive content. We're talking about a place where nipples shaped like penises ejaculating feces is considered cliche.

Re:Way to... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273914)

hahahaha... Anon just freed up some time in their hectic DDoS'ing schedule for the WBC circus.

Expect faxes. Many of them. With religiously inappropriate content

Written by WBC? (2, Insightful)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273366)

It was probably written by Westboro themselves to get some publicity.

Re:Written by WBC? (1)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273468)

ffs...why don't italics tags work anymore?!

Re:Written by WBC? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273618)

Apparently some muckity-muck standards writers decided that "em" was a better tag for italics than "i", because people use italics when they want to "emphasize" something. Slashdot's latest update incorporated this change. Sorry all for the off-topic post.

Re:Written by WBC? (4, Informative)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273676)

"ffs...why don't italics tags work anymore?!"

Did they ever work? In the 5-6 years I have been coming to /. it hasn't worked for me once. I gave up long ago and just use caps for emphasis. That doesn't work for properly displaying titles, latin, etc., though.

What REALLY bothers me is that now, since the format change, every few posts into a discussion something breaks and every subsequent post is double-spaced and the moderation tag is missing. Moderation tags are also missing from posts in the comments section of my account page (my posts, as well as all others).

The double-spacing really sucks...it turns every post into a wall of text and effectively doubles the scroll length of every discussion. If it was consistent, I might get used to it, but it seems completely random and sticks out as something "broken" each time I encounter it.

Re:Written by WBC? (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273764)

As long as were spreading out into complaining about slashdot's formatting, I really hate how the comments' widths are determined:

It looks like they're dynamically adjusted by some javascript code when you resize the browser window*, and said code also has a minimum width that is in the high 700s. This guarantees that comments not only have way more than the recommended 70ish characters, but that I cannot resize the column to a more appropriate size. Also, if I don't want to have to side-scroll, I have to use 2/3s of my screen real estate for the column (on my laptop), when I really only want to use maybe 1/3 and have some other stuff on the rest of the screen.

*Even worse, It looks like it walks the DOM and adjusts the min-width of every comment on the page, to account for nesting. Rather than the far more reasonable action of using CSS styles and letting the nested comments take care of themselves.

Re:Written by WBC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35274564)

Son of a bitch! THANK YOU!

I've been sitting here getting pissed off at reading the comments. /. is honestly far from the only one with the problem (because I am not doing much else right now, the one that comes to mind is Facebook of all goddamn sites), but I do *NOT* view my web browser in a maximized 1024x768 screen. In fact, I, like you seem to be, prefer to use less than half of my screen on my web browser and use the rest of it for other things. Hell, I have gkrellm running as a panel on one side of the screen, and even that is too much, forcing me to side scroll. Unfortunately, this monitor (I have better things to spend my money on than something that works just good enough) doesn't go higher than 1024x768 either.

At least, on Facebook, it's just the ads that I'm missing. It's almost advantageous to me there. Here, it fucking sucks.

Re:Written by WBC? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273946)

If they don't work in comments they shouldn't work in preview.

Re:Written by WBC? (5, Insightful)

Call Me Black Cloud (616282) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273512)

But since anyone can act as Anonymous then the WBC claim was legit. I can put up a server, make myself a part of Anonymous, attempt to hack my server, leave Anonymous, then claim Anonymous tried to hack my server.

In fact, how do we know who issued the Anonymous press release? On the anonnews website it says, "Anyone can post to the site, and moderators will approve relevant posts. No censorship takes place!"

Maybe Anonymous should look into LifeLock...

Re:Written by WBC? (2)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273616)

But since anyone can act as Anonymous then the WBC claim was legit. I can put up a server, make myself a part of Anonymous, attempt to hack my server, leave Anonymous, then claim Anonymous tried to hack my server.

Technically you're correct, but in practice this is wilfully pedantic, unhelpful and not the interpretation any reasonable person would put on it. So, typical Slashdot then :-)

In all seriousness, while one can argue that the "membership" of Anonymous is open to the point of meaninglessness, I don't think you could say that "Anonymous" attacked WBC if they attacked themselves.

Oh, and I'd like to say that WBC are a bunch of attention whores... but then, that's not news.

Re:Written by WBC? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273660)

Oh, and I'd like to say that WBC are a bunch of attention whores... but then, that's not news.

They're just the other side of the coin in which Anonymous is minted.

Re:Written by WBC? (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273702)

Oh, and I'd like to say that WBC are a bunch of attention whores... but then, that's not news.

They're just the other side of the coin in which Anonymous is minted.

A coin that Jullian Assange has tried to cash.

Re:Written by WBC? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35274534)

Technically you're correct, but in practice this is wilfully pedantic, unhelpful and not the interpretation any reasonable person would put on it. So, typical Slashdot then :-)

No, that's the definition of Anonymous. It doesn't make sense, but there you go.

Not exactly how it works (1, Interesting)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274184)

But since anyone can act as Anonymous then the WBC claim was legit. I can put up a server, make myself a part of Anonymous, attempt to hack my server, leave Anonymous, then claim Anonymous tried to hack my server.

Well, yes and no.

Yes, you could do all of the above. And yes, you could make those claims. And yes, the press would probably pick up the story and run with it as written.

But No, it would not be Anonymous proper. And they would know it. And you would be in some serious deep shit. Anonymous is a community. Like any community, if you're in it, you know who else is in it. The two guys at the party who know the secret handshake.

WBC just tried this and it didn't work. So No, they will not get a horde of newfags bombing their server so they can countersue and make money and continue their nonsense that way.

But something tasty will happen - rest assured of that. Something will happen. It will require a measure of elegance that the mob cannot deliver. Because that's what they want. No. It will be something subtle and untraceable, done with the skill of a surgeon and the quiet stealth of a butterfly.

The most brilliant pranksters on the planet Earth have now been aroused. Remember WBC, when it happens, you DID ask for it.

Elegant (1)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274468)

It was probably written by Westboro themselves to get some publicity.

So one group of attention whores used another group of attention whores. There's an Apple-like simplicity and elegance to the whole scheme.

Re:Elegant (1)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274548)

Oooh you better be careful there, some Anonymous fan will come whining about how Anonymous is not a group but its a concept or something along those lines ;)

Re:Written by WBC? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35274606)

If you have an hour to kill, this documentary by Louis Theroux [google.com] , in which he lives with the cult for a few weeks, is a good documentary about those nutbars.

Who's anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273372)

How can you say anonymous wasn't responsible when everyone is potentially a part of Anonymous -including the people from the WBC?

Re:Who's anonymous? (1)

gknoy (899301) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273514)

I see very little overlap in the world views and professed agendas of WBC and Anonymous. I would be very surprised if any WBC members were also part of Anonymous.

Re:Who's anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273546)

I'm Spartacus.. err.. i mean Anonymous!

Re:Who's anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35274062)

On the other hand, their methods and organisational structure are quite similar. Both cults composed of attention-seeking bullies, daring the world to stop them...

How? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273392)

How can a group that by it's very nature has no central control or even consistent make-up release such a statement. How does one member or group of members of Anonymous know whether or not any other part of Anonymous is/was doing something?

Re:How? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273520)

How can a group that by it's very nature has no central control or even consistent make-up release such a statement. How does one member or group of members of Anonymous know whether or not any other part of Anonymous is/was doing something?

How? I'm sure it's pretty easy for anyone to claim to represent Anonymous. That isn't the right question. What you want to know is why anyone would believe such a statement. The answer is fairly simple. Wait a few days and if no one disputes it then accept it. Of course, if it's disputed things get complicated.

Re:How? (2)

johanatan (1159309) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273980)

Disputes could merely indicate some internal conflict within Anonymous. So, as Anonymous membership grows, it essentially becomes a microcosm of society itself!

Re:How? (2)

RoFLKOPTr (1294290) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273752)

How can a group that by it's very nature has no central control or even consistent make-up release such a statement. How does one member or group of members of Anonymous know whether or not any other part of Anonymous is/was doing something?

Because Anonymous has central control ever since people started taking control and the stupid teenage white knight let's all save the world teenagers started flocking to them to be a part of something. There are people that like to act like they're in charge of things so they speak for the "group". What was once "Anonymous" has completely changed and is now totally different from what it was 5 years ago.

Re:How? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273790)

How can a group that by it's very nature has no central control or even consistent make-up release such a statement. How does one member or group of members of Anonymous know whether or not any other part of Anonymous is/was doing something?

Hey, good point. You should report the guys that did this to their higher-ups and have their membership formally revoked for a gross breach of the rules.

Re:How? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35274176)

Yeah that's the funny part. There's all this, "there are no members of Anonymous"... but then they issue blanket statements as if there was a full census of members. It doesn't make any sense.

Apparently... (1)

quantumhuman (1344033) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273406)

Apparently no one involved with any media outlet, anywhere on the planet, has a clue what Anonymous is or what's going on here. It's actually kind of sad.

But... (4, Interesting)

Mishotaki (957104) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273416)

it was anonymous from an anonymous group did an attack anonymously... just not the same anonymous guy from the same anonymous group doing an anonymous attack...

Re:But... (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273450)

Except if the WBC is claiming responsibility, then they're no longer anonymous, they're just jerks.

Re:But... (2)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273710)

Except if the WBC is claiming responsibility, then they're no longer anonymous, they're just jerks.

Yes they are. But to be fair, they were jerks long before this.

Well, it's working. (2)

dmomo (256005) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273430)

Here we are talking about it. How about we all just make a mental note to forget the name of the barber shop that did this, close the thread and carry on?

Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273436)

Anon can't deny anything, it's not a single unified group.

Re:Bullshit (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273518)

Anon also can't claim to do anything, or have any type of message either, because of this same reason. It's incoherent.

Westboro (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273456)

Westboro ....

Westboro ... I wish I could say what I want to say about them without reprisals from the lawyers.

You see, I have no money to defend myself from the lawsuits that would be generated from my opinion of those people. None. I wish I had evidence to accuse the minister of wrong doing of the most revolting sort - I don't.

I completely disagree with his and his congregation's methods. I find their protests completely asinine and repulsive. I can't believe people can be so stupid and misguided. It would be like someone protesting at one of their deaths for animal cruelty. There you go! PETA, protest at Westboro's functions for animal cruelty - it has the same connection as their's with protesting at soldier's funerals for homosexuality.

How does this end up on slashdot (2)

makubesu (1910402) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273458)

From TFA: The church sent out its own open letter, telling the online hacktivist group to “bring it.” “A puddle of pimple-faced nerds organised under the cowardly banner of ‘Anonymous’ claim they plan to hack Westboro's websites Bad miscalculation, girls!” said the letter. “Let us tell you how this will go: rebels will build a full head of steam based on false hope; the media will predictably do much breathless anticipating while giving another tsunami of coverage to Westboro's message; God will defeat your council; your efforts will fail.” This is obviously BS. You're getting trolled slashdot.

Re:How does this end up on slashdot (1)

JumperCable (673155) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274710)

From TFA: The church sent out its own open letter, telling the online hacktivist group to “bring it.”

As ridiculous as that statement from WBC sounds, it actually came from their website. I've seen it and so have many others. The retards really do talk that way.

Re:How does this end up on slashdot (4, Funny)

zwede (1478355) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274778)

Please use the correct terminology when referring to WBC. They are fucktards, not retards.

Not a defined group (3, Informative)

DanTheManMS (1039636) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273482)

Anonymous isn't a defined group of people. That's kinda the point. It's very possible that some of them, or even a single person, has severe enough of a problem with the WBC to try to attempt such a stunt. I suspect however that the vast majority have the good sense not to get involved with something so senseless.

Similarly, Anonymous can't "issue a statement" that represents the entire group. This AnonNews website, whoever they are, have no more say in the doings and actions of Anonymous than any other member of the group. Can the SlashDot staff make claims on behalf of every nerd who happens to visit the site for technology-related news, especially on things in which the SlashDot community is deeply divided? Of course not. Same thing here.

This whole thing is freaking ridiculous. You've got two groups of trolls trying to figure out who's attempting to troll whom, and if said trolling is a threat to their own trolling efforts. Why exactly this is considered news is beyond me.

Re:Not a defined group (3, Insightful)

Mysteray (713473) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273568)

You've got two groups of trolls trying to figure out who's attempting to troll whom, and if said trolling is a threat to their own trolling efforts. Why exactly this is considered news is beyond me.

I think it's delightfully surreal. A postmodern civil war in cyberspace. Now being disclaimed by one side!

These groups were simply made for each other, for our entertainment. Certainly a better use of packets than streaming sitcom television anyway.

why waste time on this? (1, Insightful)

swschrad (312009) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273500)

this is the nutcase church of the inbred Phelpses, after all. if we all ignore these coocoos, they will go away to whatever fire and brimstone meets them for not loving their enemy, and their neighbor, as thyself.

hopefully, that would also apply to the MRs in the domain registry routers, as well ;)

Wait a minute (5, Insightful)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273502)

Every time an article comes on here about Anon everybody bashes the news organizations for saying Anonymous has a hierarchy with 'senior' members, leaders, and so forth.

So why are you so quick to accept this? How can this press release saying 'Its not really us' carry any more weight then one saying "It's us".

Re:Wait a minute (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273548)

Parent is correct.

We need another press release by Anonymous to confirm this is from Anonymous.

Re:Wait a minute (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35274058)

Since the press release was released by someone unknown, it was correctly released by Anonymous.

Surely you of all people should know this, Anonymous.

~ Anonymous

Re:Wait a minute (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35274582)

Since the press release was released by someone unknown, it was correctly released by Anonymous.

Surely you of all people should know this, Anonymous.

~ Anonymous

Anonymous disagrees with you.

- Anonymous

Re:Wait a minute (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273566)

almost right.

What's actually happening is tha anonymous is attacking WBC. They're also not attacking WBC.

Anonymous can do completely opposed things at the same time, that's the point!

Re:Wait a minute (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273592)

Ex-fucking-actly.

Anything that claims to speak for "Anonymous" or refers to "Anonymous" in the first person is full of bullshit

"Anonymous" is a huge crowd with "ring leaders" shouting directions at the edge of the crowd. Sometimes the crowd listens to one of the "ring leaders" and goes one way, sometimes it goes another, sometimes it goes in several contrarty directions. Mostly it just mills around.

P.S. If you are reading anything about "Anonymous" replace that word with American/British etc and see if it makes sense. If it doesn't then you are reading bullshit made about by people with a case of unwarranted self-importance.

Re:Wait a minute (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273602)

So why are you so quick to accept this? How can this press release saying 'Its not really us' carry any more weight then one saying "It's us".

There are no leaders of Anonymous, so if you happen to be Anonymous, you've gotta figure out what to believe for yourself.

In this case, the hypothesis that Anonymous has better things to do with its time makes more sense than the original idea of attacking WBC. And because the text in WBC's "come at us bro" had patterns that identified its author as the same one as in the initial "hai guyz lets raid WBC".

Anonymous is right: There's nothing Anonymous could do to WBC to make WBC any more funny than it already is. WBC is a troll; if you do not feed the troll, the troll will starve to death - maybe its death throes could inspire some lulz. An invite to DDOS is often a trap. Anons who do not step into the trap can remain Anonymous.

An analysis of the text is consistent with the hypothesis that WBC appears to have invited Anonymous to a DDOS party of WBC for reasons unknown. It's a troll, it's a trap, and it wouldn't have even been particularly funny.

Wake me when over 9000 people show up for something like the awesome [scienceblogs.com] counterprotest at Comic-Con [scienceblogs.com] .

Re:Wait a minute (2)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273812)

In other words, if the westboro baptist church says they are Anonymous, they are, as long as they don't tell anyone their name. They are as much as anyone else is.

Anonymous Nonsense (0)

openfrog (897716) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273814)

Every time an article comes on here about Anon everybody bashes the news organizations for saying Anonymous has a hierarchy with 'senior' members, leaders, and so forth.

So why are you so quick to accept this? How can this press release saying 'Its not really us' carry any more weight then one saying "It's us".

Oh really? Meaning Westboro Church can do a publicity grab and play victim, and there is no one able to set things straight, BY DEFINITION?

Does the nonsense that is Anonymous begin to appear a bit clearer now?

Next are rogue attacks against banks or some vital institutions so that repressive legislation can be pushed through... Oh wait...

Re:Wait a minute (1)

Ksevio (865461) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273996)

Wouldn't members of the WBC who claimed this as anonymous BE a part of anonymous? That's what people claim- that you just have to say you're part of it.

Re:Wait a minute (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35274102)

So why are you so quick to accept this? How can this press release saying 'Its not really us' carry any more weight then one saying "It's us".

Can you name even a single poster who has expressed both of these conflicting positions?

anonymous... (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273510)

This is the problem with having a group like anonymous. Anyone can claim to be "it". Frankly it's starting to seem pretty silly to me, and nothing I would even take seriously at this point.

Re:anonymous... (1)

enoz (1181117) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273620)

I cringe every time I hear someone describe Anonymous as a 'group'. This loose collection of individuals clearly have no hierarchy, rules or membership.

Anonymous may be a gathering of sorts, but the best description I have seen is a Stand Alone Complex [wikipedia.org] .

Who speaks for Anonymous? (2)

initialE (758110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273572)

Anyone could claim they spoke for anonymous. How do you verify it? Thing is, someone threw out the idea of targeting WBC, and a lot of people agreed that they were being enough of a dick to warrant becoming their next target. Anonymous must have some trouble filtering the real messages from random spam out there.

Re:Who speaks for Anonymous? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273696)

No seriously bro, we're not going after them.

Nobody (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35274204)

Anonymous doesn't "speak" they act.

In other news (3, Funny)

Fuzzums (250400) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273582)

I heard they have scientific proof that god exists. it's on their website. Somewhere. I'm sure. If we all look for it for about 5 or 10 minutes I'm sure we'll find it.

Re:In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273694)

I heard they have scientific proof that god exists. it's on their website.

I'm sure a link to their website would help the cause. http://www.godhatesfags.com/
There you go.

Future Action (2)

godel_56 (1287256) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273596)

Anonymous state they're too busy now to bother with these clowns, but I wouldn't be surprised if something nasty happened to the individuals behind the WBC in the future.

It's the same principle as the HBGary story -- you don't poke a wasp's nest with a stick.

Trolls trolling trolls (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273622)

More than likely the first letter was sent by a single /b/tard hoping to start a shitstorm, and then the rest of the mob saw this as an opportunity to troll WBC by pretending that WBC sent the letter themselves to look for attention instead.

Re:Trolls trolling trolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35274206)

Do you have time to be here? Shouldn't you be out scaring kids and getting money to your pedo priest?
 

Um.... (2)

ThisIsNotMyHandel (1013943) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273650)

Nothing in the article linked provides evidence that backs up Slashdots claim of "It turns out that this was a publicity stunt staged by WBC themselves.". While the hackers deny they are involved in this, there is simply not evidence one way or another. I would hope Slashdot would be more careful and write that the hackers *claim* that it was a publicity stunt.

Anonymous - personality disorder? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273706)

Last week: We have no leadership, we do whatever floats our boat whenever we want! You can never catch us bitches!
This week: Our leadership has declared that we will not attack WBC...

Result? Of course there is a "leadership" in Anonymous. Of course there are more respected members who have a greater say in the group's dynamics, perhaps even control of a large portion of the group's decision making.

Anonymous may be composed of many transient, do-it-on-a-whim, disillusioned "internet children"... but they are being manipulated by a small group of members pushing a consistent agenda. Not much different than a typical political organization. Except Anonymous blatantly ignores and violates International laws (as opposed to the political organizations that secretly do so or the few that abide by the laws.)

Nevermind westover, landover is the real problem (3, Funny)

magarity (164372) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273788)

The people at Westover are just loudmouth jerks. It's the seriously fringe nutcases at Landover Baptist who worry me.

Gun nuts (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273990)

How is it that in country full of armed morons, none of them has shot these WBC bastards.

When they stoop so low it is only hopefully a matter of time.

Come on you US gun nuts use your guns for something other than murdering school mates or your family!

Re:Gun nuts (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35274374)

How is it that in country full of armed morons, none of them has shot these WBC bastards.

When they stoop so low it is only hopefully a matter of time.

Come on you US gun nuts use your guns for something other than murdering school mates or your family!

Go ahead waste your mod points, I've got all day!

Biggest IRL Trolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35274190)

Why would anonymous want to attack the only group more vocal in their IRL trolling? It doesn't make sense. While anonymous doesn't agree with WBC, they respect their rights to be giant obnoxious d-bags to everyone and anyone.

Anonnymous Cowards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35274238)

How can a group who's only weapon is the DDoS attack claim to support freedom of speech?

Haven't Seen Proof WBC did the Anon Press Release (3, Interesting)

JumperCable (673155) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274808)

It's not like AnonNews announced they traced the IP address of the poster back to the WBC. Sure. It could have been them. It could also have been just about anyone who has a beef with the WBC. Many people are chomping at the bit to take them down and have tried to recruit 'Anonymous' to do this. But they haven't been successful in the past. For all we know it was the folks from HBGary trying to pick a fight between the two groups to provide ground cover. But again, that is still nothing more than idle speculation.

I don't think Anons will ever do anything against the WBC just because they have no power. WBC may be annoying assholes. But at the end of the day that is all they are. They can pretty much only offend people who allow themselves to be offended.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...