|
Post by chad sexington on Dec 16, 2010 4:35:48 GMT -5
That one made me laugh. It's ironic that an "organization" that bases itself on the fact that they have no visible identity is supporting someone who's entire goal is to reduce transparency in the world's governments. You mean increase, right?
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Dec 16, 2010 9:22:41 GMT -5
It is ironic and I do think zachski did mean increase. *nods*
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Dec 16, 2010 14:12:08 GMT -5
That's the second time this week I've typed one thing while trying to type the opposite. Dysgraphia sucks
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Dec 16, 2010 17:01:25 GMT -5
That one made me laugh. It's ironic that an "organization" that bases itself on the fact that they have no visible identity is supporting someone who's entire goal is to reduce transparency in the world's governments. A lot of members of Anonymous hold the old school hacker mentality that information should be free; so I can see how they would support Wikileaks. I also don't see how the group being nebulous is ironic.
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Dec 16, 2010 17:40:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Dec 16, 2010 17:51:52 GMT -5
That one made me laugh. It's ironic that an "organization" that bases itself on the fact that they have no visible identity is supporting someone who's entire goal is to reduce transparency in the world's governments. A lot of members of Anonymous hold the old school hacker mentality that information should be free; so I can see how they would support Wikileaks. I also don't see how the group being nebulous is ironic. The irony is that a group built on anonymity is supporting an organization built on a lack thereof.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Dec 16, 2010 17:52:57 GMT -5
A lot of members of Anonymous hold the old school hacker mentality that information should be free; so I can see how they would support Wikileaks. I also don't see how the group being nebulous is ironic. The irony is that a group built on anonymity is supporting an organization built on a lack thereof. I'd tweak this slightly to say that it's a group built on secrecy supporting an organization opposed to same.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Dec 21, 2010 12:36:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Dec 21, 2010 12:41:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by goonerboy on Dec 21, 2010 18:29:17 GMT -5
In London playground slang, that is incredibly funny
|
|
|
Post by Professor Cold Heart on Dec 23, 2010 12:44:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by faythofdragons on Dec 23, 2010 13:09:36 GMT -5
The irony is that a group built on anonymity is supporting an organization built on a lack thereof. I'd tweak this slightly to say that it's a group built on secrecy supporting an organization opposed to same. Calling Anonymous a group built on anything is pretty effing hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Dec 23, 2010 15:29:19 GMT -5
I'd tweak this slightly to say that it's a group built on secrecy supporting an organization opposed to same. Calling Anonymous a group built on anything is pretty effing hilarious. Considering that to qualify for Anonymous, you have to be Anonymous, it makes sense that THAT would be the ONE principle Anonymous holds.
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Dec 23, 2010 15:32:41 GMT -5
Did a five year old draw that?
|
|
|
Post by Professor Cold Heart on Dec 23, 2010 16:35:42 GMT -5
Did a five year old draw that? No, it was drawn by a woman channelling the spirit of Muhummed.
|
|