No, you have it all right, SeeYaBye.

When anonymous becomes Anonymous, I guess it takes on a whole new meaning? Are a group of unidentified people outside the scope of "people"? Is a flying object any less a flying object when it is unidentified?

A lesson in English: (The Little Brown Handbook, 7th Ed.):

Is the Guy Fawkes mask the "uniform" of the "organization" called "Anonymous"? If so, I demand a membership card!

Anyone can be "anonymous". That is the brilliance of this "brand" as you call it GUMBY. Personally, I don't see anonymous as a brand but as a concept: anonymous = unidentified persons = people without identity. According to the rules of English, it would not be capitalized unless it were some kind of actual organization or association. If I join WWP and post there anonymously, if I participate in that activity, am I am now a member of an organization? If I don't post there but I show up at a protest with a mask on, am I now a "member" of an "organization" whose title requires a capital A?

My point is anyone can call themselves anonymous or be referred to as anonymous. Any bank robber, hacker, poster, protester, letter-writer, voice, criminal, do-gooder, citizen, etc. can be anonymous. You might as well be starting threads titled: "People arrested in Spain for hacking", or "People robbed a bank" or "People leaked documents to wikileaks". Perhaps GUMBY, you will no longer want to be associated with "people" because they do bad things, because your premise seems to be something like: "I don't want to be associated with these anonymous criminal hackers". Well, GUMBY, are you associated with anonymous criminal hackers? AFAICT, no one has associated you with anonymous criminal hackers, except you. Oh yeah, you and scieno-corp.

GUMBY, this thread is completely irrelevant to operation clambake. So far your attempt to make it relevant has failed imo. So, some hackers were arrested. So what? How has this changed anyone's ability to protest scientology? What evidence do you have that shows this makes one bit of difference when it comes to exposing scientology's criminal behavior?

GUMBY, if anonymous is a "brand" as you say, then they can be likened to, let's say, Coca-Cola drinkers. Anyone can be a Coca-Cola drinker same as anyone can be anonymous. That changes the headline to: "Coca-Cola drinking hackers arrested in Spain". According to you, now the Coca-Cola brand is "tainted" and people won't trust people who drink Coca-Cola because now, anyone who drinks Coca-Cola will be associated with hackers! You are too funny!

Please show some evidence (other than the illogical workings of your own mind) that this makes one bit of difference. Okay, perhaps a few other random dildos will also "associate" people who expose/protest scientology, with hackers. There's some evidence at least, that random dildos do in fact exist.

Oh and one more thing, when "anonymous" hackers are arrested, they are no longer "anonymous". Are they still "anonymous" after booking? If not, then what are they? Do they now belong to the hacker group called "identifieds"? Will they now be associated with persons of known identities who protest scientology?

I believe there was something called Fortune-ology (Fortunology?) that was all about the computer thing -- I think they were the seed of what has become the anti-Scientology group Anonymous.

But there are also different sects, if you will, of Anonymous.

I would liken it - for lack of a better analogy, to Protestantism --

Like, Anonymous is a Protestant system and then you have different sub-groups, aka Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, etc.

I would liken the computer hackers, then, to sects like the Westborough (sp?) (godhatesfags) to the Anonymous sect that hacks into computers -- they are "Anonymous," but they make the rest of the movement look bad.

(I know "Anonymous" isn't technically an organized group, but I'm taking some license here..._

Dorothy, thanks for your thoughts. I would think the only issue for anonymous protesters to the crimes of Scientology, is the ease of which the OSA is able to make false claims for what are really non-existent connections between law breaking anonymous computer hackers and those who anonymously, peacefully, and legally protest Scientology's malignancy.

I think it's important to point out the effort scientology's office of special affairs (OSA) expends at running their operations to associate with crime those who are innocent of that crime. The directors of OSA make a point of not being visible as or even suspected as scientology or scientology's involvement when engaged in many of their operations.

Therefore a rule of thumb is, if something strange, weird or mysterious happens, suspect scientology and its office of special affairs.

Good question.

Gumby, I feel pretty certain that topics like this, that only marginally relate to Scientology, detract MORE from bringing down Scientology than the Anonymous hackers.

It is dull, repetitive, off topic, and a waste of space.

But by all means continue. Your location says "Digging in the dirt" but I guess that could be digging up dirt on anybody.

Thank you for your opinion on the subject. I do think this is very much related to the structural nuances of activism and how it relates too and its possible impact on this board and possibly its members.



Now thats a stretch! The location is based on a song if it matters.

Peter Gabriel. Digging in the dirt. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7Z3fOO5u-4

If I may expand on this and the reasoning behind my starting this thread. Please, once again bear with me here as I have a hard time conveying the merits of and direction my thoughts are on this matter through the written word.

What really helped me see this anonymous phenom in a better light was the sociologist event from many months ago which I attended. How the sociologist community steered clear of putting "Labels" on groups or individuals. Case in point being scientology called a "Cult".

This to me was a quite interesting take on how societies, in order to understand or classify an individual and or group has the need to call or name that individual or entity something. Hence some of the general publics use of "Cult" to describe sci.

Now we have to take into consideration how society perceives this social phenom that is called anonymous. The phenom coined by the name or "Label" anonymous. Now of me @ least, back in the infancy of my publicly speaking out against a social ill,That ill being scientology, anonymous was not a factor. Now what happened next is what I can only call a force of nature. That being the online rise of individuals against censorship.

This gave rise to this collection of online individuals calling themselves or identifying themselves as individuals with a common goal. As humans so often do, a name was created so as those individuals in agreement had both an online and public moniker.

As many of you know, I was in full support of this social phenom. I met wonderful like minded people and thought we could bring much needed change to what I perceive as a social ill, I.E, scientology. Yet in the back of my mind, I felt something was wrong with the way this social phenom (anonymous) was heading. It was and does cause me angst on multiple levels. That is my problem. Of which I do honestly attempt to come to terms with.

Now fast forward today and the "Label" anonymous is very much in the spotlight media wise. This being alleged criminal activity. Now lets back track on how a label or brand can be seen through the eyes of the general public.

Hot topic words like "Hacker" and "DDos" is something joe public may not understand, but joe public may see this as some kind of threat. The media, which feeds on fear has pounced on those words and run with it.

Unlike many of us that understand somewhat this social phenom (anonymous) when relating it to our individual concerns towards scientology, the fact of the matter is joe public does not. That is the reality we have been dealt with!

Couple both joe publics and the media's perception today of masked wearing activists and we are seeing a far different picture painted publicly of the social phenom collectively known as anonymous.

Sadly, I personally feel those that aligned themselves (Including this poster) with a group may suffer public blow back via some individuals that currently allegedly align themselves with anonymous and may be committing criminal acts within their or other countries borders.

I personally am not ashamed that I supported many an individual whom may have aligned themselves with anonymous. For me @ least I wish I had more online experience and understanding with a cultural phenom I was not fully up to speed on so to speak and possibly never will.

Labels and branding within the context of social activism does have its downside. Suck? Yes,! How to alleviate the misconceptions? Tough question to answer, yet it should be broached. To deny or demean ones discussion on the matter is to in my humble opinion to become "Cult like" in ones mind set!

DEAREST GUMBY,

Okay, you are discussing because you are concerned. And in your usual cryptic style, you give away that there is something going on personally that you can't elaborate on:

It's not much of a "discussion" if you can't really discuss what it is that really concerns you.

So you say you are concerned about labeling phenomenon. None of us can alleviate these concerns because there is nothing one can do about what people in general, or the mass media does with information. This is not under your control.

Besides, anonymous is not a "label", you've got that wrong. The people who participate in anonymous activities (a very wide range of activities btw) gave themselves the moniker. A "label" is something that is imposed upon another and is based upon an evaluation of that individual or group. For example, calling anonymous protesters "terrorists". That is a label. When we call scientology a cult, it is a label because it is our evaluation of that group. Scientologists do not refer to themselves as a cult, but anonymous DOES refer to themselves as ANONYMOUS. That is the difference.


It is not about denying or demeaning discussion, GUMBY. It is about clarifying what the f#*& it is you are doing. To be perfectly clear: I think the reason why some of us see this thread as a waste of time is:

1. It's cryptic and you do not give any details of your "concerns", just cryptic nonsense.
2. Same as the mass media does, you are calling attention to the tiny contingent of hackers within the much larger movement of anonymous, because why? You still have not made yourself clear on this. Because you're concerned about the subject of labeling? I don't buy it.

GUMBY, Here's my guess about what your actual concerns are: You have associated yourself with persons involved in anonymous activities, openly, publicly over the past few years. Now there is growing media hype about a small group within anonymous who are involved in criminal activities. Now you are especially concerned about this because you have openly associated yourself with the moniker "anonymous". So, now more than ever you are concerned about personal repercussions (for example, employment options, reputation) due to these personal associations of yours. AMIRITE?

Interesting that this particular online site would use a photo from a past scientology protest. Kind of lame actually. Why run an anti cult protest pic when it has nothing to do with the current affairs the site is attempting to talk about. Oh well! How would one go about correcting such a misguided perception?

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/103623/ ... on-begins/

I presumed that Gumby's intent in starting this thread was to point out how unfortunate it was that there was a connection in some people's minds, a connection that OSA regularly and falsely tries to reinforce, between illegal "anonymous" hackers and legal "anonymous" protestors of Scientology's crimes -- a connection that really does not exist.

Gumby, was that your intent in creating this thread, or did you simply want to object to the illegal "anonymous" hackers, and imply that there was a connection between them and the peaceful protest movement? I guess whether this thread perhaps should not have been started depends on your intent in starting it.

Gumby, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but this news item has nothing to do here since the hackers were not arrested for hacking the cult of scientology. This leaves many to wonder what your motives are and your cryptic explanations dont really help sway anybody from believing that you are merely trying to distract.

Great Gabriel song though!

They had to use the scientology protest pic bec. they do not have any pics of "hackers" and pics are required to make an article more marketable.

Face recognition tech won't work in this crowd, and any actual hackers (who may or may not be there) will simply blend into a sea of anonymous bodies.

After reading this, I hope the young marcabians win this fight:
(Thank you GUMBY)

As to their illegal hacking activities, this could apply:

As has been pointed out by myself and a few others around here, some government institutions and systems also have cult-like characteristics. So it is not a stretch that anonymous activities would target both scientology and illicit government maneuverings. When dirty dealings are done behind closed doors and purposely kept from the public who are unknowingly financing those dirty dealings, I believe it is morally acceptable to gather that hidden information by any means possible.

Hacking sends a message: don't lie to us about how "secure" we are when we provide you with our personal information. Big Brother has illegally spied on citizens via AT&T and friends. There is no proof that these hackers have stolen a dime from anyone. It is information and attention that they seek, but not just for kicks, there's reason behind it.

I agree with brownjedi. If you really want to discuss this topic for real, then you can easily see how it is actually off-topic for this board. It would be best discussed at the appropriate place over on WWP. http://www.whyweprotest.org

I think it's a relevant thread.

Indeed, it has been on my mind that (and I believe I mentioned this in an earlier post - forgive the repetitiveness) during Anon protests, at least one person has yelled out at us sarcastically, "Thanks for hacking Playstation!!"

So fair or not, Anonymous is getting a bad reputation.

And I think Wieber is right on when he points to OSA manipulation of the issue.

Surely when Tommy Davis refers to "Anonymous" as terrorists he must be invoking stories of hackers, etc. I mean, could he really be referring to people standing outside of the Celebrity Centre with posters saying, "Google Lisa McPherson"?

Well, probably!

Also, are we to associate anyone who has ever given any money to any project and did not submit his or her name and/or writers of many a popular maxim or poem (all "signed" Anonymous) with Anonymous?