You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » Message 10280369

# Rob manuell: Internet cunt
So rob a ddos attack on sites that are currently strangling wikileaks is " the wrong thing to do" but earning ad money by trivialising a cocerted attemp to shut down assange and his whistle blowing site isn't?

Stay out of srs biznz fella cause you obv Ill equipped to comment on it.

And yes no fucking image accompanies this post
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:04, archived)
# L M A O
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:06, archived)
# *books a front row seat*
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:10, archived)
# $15 Booking fee with ticket master, you know.
I say "$" because I don't have a pound sign on this keyboard...
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:14, archived)
# What is /TALK?
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:28, archived)
# Here be dragons.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:30, archived)
# Needs more FUCK
You made Liz milk herself you toss twat
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:06, archived)
# needs more vowels
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:08, archived)
# He may have purged them in a vowel movement.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:09, archived)
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:10, archived)
# Oh wow.
What the shuddering fuck is that thing?
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:10, archived)
# ^ What she said
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:12, archived)
# And don't call me Shirley.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:13, archived)
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:18, archived)
# G R O W L !
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:14, archived)
Oh so sorry have I insulted your god?

Here cheer yourself up by reading what he thinks of reprisal hacks against corporate censorship

And don't bother dropping coins in the collection tray cause he makes enough on ad sense off the back of idiots providing free content already
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:18, archived)
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:20, archived)
# YOU are now my god
Can I sniff you?
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:23, archived)
# I read the article.
Now, would you prefer Rob to come out in print and say he supports activities that are illegal in the UK? Also, do you think that he may have a point that Anonymous might be distracting from what Wikileaks are trying to do?
Personally, I don't have a problem with Anonymous disrupting a few sites to make a point, but the good things they do (Project Chanology, taking down Anontalk, etc) are often 'outshone' by some of the crap they get up to.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:24, archived)
1 no given he has an entourage that includes more than a smattering of " head/gas oven sheep" I'd prefer he did what he's to date always done and keep his own opinions strictly in the light ents. Side of things, rather than try to hijack the 4chan press bandwagon in order to promote his own site.
2 no infact quite the opposite op payback is a reaction to a gov/corp response. most folk would not have realised amazon, pay pal, visa, master card et al were actively involved in shutting down wikileaks had not their sites been ddos'd thus hitting the news.
3 I concur with your comments about anon being just about as far from perfect as it's possible to get but the fact that the owner of this site is denigrating any response to a clear attempt at censorship is astonishing given how much content (thus income) he depends on that come from potentially ban able sources (copywrite source/ political parody/offensive I.e. religious sexual prejudicial imagery)
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:46, archived)
1) If I've got what you said right, then no - Rob is often asked by newspapers and the BBC on matters regarding Anonymous and 4chan as b3ta is seen to be rather more cuddly and accessible. Given just how happy the UK government is to hand over people to the US regarding internet activities (Gary McKinnon, anyone?), I'd probably keep my opinions on the legal side of things at the moment.
2) Each of those sites' actions were documented in the press before Anon got onto them - Wikileaks went to the press each time someone cut them off.
3) B3ta has some content that is close to the edge, but then we don't have gore, CP, Tits or GTFO, general porn, endlessy reposted methods on how to make crystal meth, hilarious instructions on how to make crystals that actually give off chlorine gas (the number of people who were willing to try that out...). Now, there are cases where everyone agrees something is wrong, but not everyone agrees on the method of combatting it - if Rob doesn't think that DDoS is the way to go, that's his opinion. It doesn't necessarily mean that he supports the censorship of information.
Regarding copyright on here - it is permissible to use images for parody without infringing copyright and there is a review to copyright law going on right now to strengthen this further. When someone on here makes an image that is actually derogatory, they usually get flamed for it. Just the other week, a regular here got a roasting over something that could be deemed to be actually racist.

Just because someone does things a different way to you doesn't mean they're wrong or against you.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:04, archived)
Did Rob actually say that he thinks shutting down Wikileaks is wrong?

I've not read the article (paywall and that), but from what I've heard, he was just arguing that DDOS attacks might just not be the right way to go about protesting, and not that the subject of the protests is wrong.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:05, archived)
Nope, no mention of how he view wikileaks censorship or the attempts to shut it down

However plenty of derogatory commentary about the kids/children and 40 year old Disaffected nerd he claims are responsible for the DDOS attack.

And an argument that this was completely the wrong thing to do as it is somehow subverting the wikileaks revolution.

“My belief is they're just kids, and lots of them could literally be children, although there are probably some 40-year-old disaffected nerds in there as well,” said Rob Manuel, who runs B3TA, a British messageboard similar to the 4chan board that spawned Anonymous, though he is at pains to say he is not involved with illegal “hacktivism”.

He explained how the campaign came about. “Things either catch fire or they don't on these kind of boards. For instance, recently there was a Send Christmas cards to [incestuous rapist Josef] Fritzl campaign that really took off. It's extremely bad taste, and designed to offend, but it works.

“This one has caught fire because people give a s**t about it. People really feel their internet freedom is being eroded.

“Technically, what Anonymous has done is simple, and they can keep on doing it. The worry is someone makes an example of one of them, which is trivial to do. Someone could make an example of Coldblood, for instance.”

Although the attacks have generated publicity, Manuel believes they may have harmed the aims of WikiLeaks.

“I think this was completely the wrong kind of thing to do. The narrative for the WikiLeaks story keeps changing but this takes it away from the extraordinary material that is being released. The revolution has been subverted.”
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:38, archived)
# I completely
fail to grasp what you are actually complaining about. The man gave an opinion. He might be right or wrong.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:47, archived)
I'm complaining because I believe he is wrong in his assessment, unqualified in his opinion, opportunist in his timing and involvement. And above all damaging to any attempts to teach the sites that are colluding with wikileaks that their behaviour is unacceptable.

OTOH having publications for sale on amazon, whilst also accepting payment for such via visa, master card and paypal perhaps there is a perfectly prosaic reason why mr Manuel would take a negative view of attacks agianst said organisations.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:59, archived)
# But isn't your right to say that
exactlty the same right for him to say what he did?
If you are taking the stance that gagging Wikkileaks is wrong; how can you take the stance that gagging Rob is right? You either have censorship or free speech; make your mind up.

Edit: I don't expect an answer because there isn't one. And i'm missing QI for this.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:06, archived)
# You seem to have confused
Anonymous and Wikileaks.

As far as I am aware, Wikileaks has nothing to do with Anonymous. It is entirely a one-way relationship.

Might be wrong - point me to evidence if that is the case.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:07, archived)
Correction to previous post colluding "against" wikileaks
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:22, archived)
# ha ha ha
my secret agenda to protect amazon because of the few old copies of the joke book that still get sold.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:10, archived)
Then what was your agenda in commenting?
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:19, archived)
# I was asked
and I'm a huge fan of wikileaks but don't think anon is doing the right thing
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:22, archived)
So Did you think they were doing the wrong thing when they did exactly the same with ACS:law?

Did you offer your opinion to the press then?
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:26, archived)
# nobody asked me then - the media contacted me over this anon thing
I don't just phone up the press offering my opinion on random news stories.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:32, archived)
# Just roll with it, Rob
I agree with free-speech but don't like people being pressured into making a statement that they may regret.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:42, archived)
# it's a double edged sword talking to the media
because of b3ta, I've been dealing (not seeking out) with press requests since about 2001. Whatever you say to them, there's only one thing for certain - somebody is going to be pissed off.

Anyway - I must go to bed.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:57, archived)
# You ain't gonna win with the press
The way to tackle it is to make your point then perform a publicity swerve.

Anyway, look at that owl that's just dived like a demon. Isn't nature just great?

(, Sun 12 Dec 2010, 9:25, archived)
Did you think then like now it was counter productive?

Did you think it was a group of children and disenfranchised 40year olds?

Do you believe the consequences of that DDos we're detrimental to the aims intended (I.e. To punish ACS:Law)?

You've had your fair share of run ins with lawyers regarding B3ta. The apology to "artist formerly known as" springs to mind. I'm thus at a loss as tohowyou can take a negative view of any and every action, short of outright physical violence or harm, which helps keep attempts to stifle wikileaks on front centre of news papers.

Elsewhere it has been pointed out that the proj chanology DDos was unsuccessful until it becak an information distribution exercise. My argument is that without the DDos phase proj chanology would never have taken off.

Due to the popularity of this site you must know or have heard how substantial and pervasive web censorship is in some countries. A quick rev look up of my IP addy would act as a starter (wikileaks censorship? Try you tube censorship for size)

For my part I'll disappear and relurk after this for another 5 years, hopefully by then we won't be looking back on wikileaks and Anons actions and feeling like pastor Martin Niemoller
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:53, archived)
# My concern is very specific.
Wikileaks is an amazing thing that has been exposing extraordinary behaviour from our governments.

I'd like the media to be reporting on the content the leaks - following up the stuff exposed - validating its truthfulness.

However, instead the authorities have first gone on a manhunt for JA, then this is followed by the Anon attacks. This has become the story. This is deflecting from the stuff I believe is important.

I support Wikileaks but I don't support Anons tactics in this specific case.
(, Sun 12 Dec 2010, 0:10, archived)
# I bet you were in the Socialist Workers' Party once.
(, Sun 12 Dec 2010, 0:11, archived)
Although to the centre left of the political spectrum, I've never joined or affiliated with a political organisation
(, Sun 12 Dec 2010, 0:43, archived)
# Are Anonymous not a
political organisation?

They have very clear manifestos.
(, Sun 12 Dec 2010, 0:47, archived)
Possibly yes of a sort but as indicated I'm not affiliated with or a member of it.
(, Sun 12 Dec 2010, 1:08, archived)
# Do you not find the
concept of a mob following the orders of a few using anonymity as a shield, just as scary as a lying government?

Especially, when their own ethics have been so dubious in the past.

If I was to take a deliberately extreme parallel, I'd say that Anonymous base themselves on a terrorist organisation, and many people join not through political reasons, but rather to feel edgy.

I will be very surprised if Wikileaks ever say that they support Anonymous.
(, Sun 12 Dec 2010, 0:12, archived)
Not in and of itself no, (I also dispute the characterisantion of anon as a mob following orders). However I accept that any collection of persons using anonymity as a shield has the potential to be quite scary be that anon paypal shareholders or even wikileaks themselves. That said I find your critique of anon to be substantially correct. But the again one mans terrorist organisation....

As for wikileaks not supporting anon I suspect you are quite correct which is all the more ironic given anions success in ferreting out ACSlaws emails, Sarah palins emails, and a fair raft of animal abusers personal details to the extent the abuser was apprehended.Not to mention providing a large number of wikileaks site mirroring facilities.
(, Sun 12 Dec 2010, 1:01, archived)
# .
If you dispute the characterisation of it being a mob following orders, how would you yourself characterise it?

The communiques certainly take the form of orders, and there it has the scary mob mentality, since it deliberately avoids the idea of individuality by the whole concept of anonymity.

"But the again one mans terrorist organisation...." is what?
They are not freedom fighters, because they have no stated goals as an organisation. Wikileaks could be described as being such, but Anonymous seem to be just tagging along, for whatever reason, be it genuine political concern or just wanting to boast about their power.

I'm not going to argue that they have done some good stuff, and the current campaign is very much a grey area. However, I fail to see how you could admire them, with all the shit that goes along with it.
(, Sun 12 Dec 2010, 1:15, archived)
# regarding you not being happy with him being
"opportunistic in his timing and involvement" I would say that may be an unfair accusation.
If he's been called up by the reporter, then they have gone to him and asked his opinion. He's given it.
If he's gone to them, then you have a point.
But until you know FOR CERTAIN that he went to them, you shouldn't accuse him of being "opportunistic in his timing and involvement"

And I say that as a reporter...

(I know... needs more Cunt...)
(, Sun 12 Dec 2010, 18:04, archived)
# What do you think he said that was incorrect, and why?
Whenever I've looked at 4chan, it seems to be teenagers exchanging porn. Nowt wrong with that, it's what teenagers do. However, if they are the core of Anonymous, then I suspect they enjoy creating trouble rather than have a well considered political aim.

I also don't really believe that Wikileaks is a "revolution". The internet has made revealing documents far easier*. Wikileak's strength was that it was created by people willing to put their faces to the documents, rather than make people delve in the arse end of the internet to find them. However, if anything, anonymous have the seedy edge that Wikileaks had managed to shake off.

If you look at the harm that the violent protests did for the student fees campaign (they got the front page coverage, rather than the many more peaceful protests), I think that Rob has a decent point, and I'm not sure why it has angered you.

(* Good article on that here:
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:53, archived)
# You squire
have it in one!
*here is your currently unclaimed £5*
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:57, archived)
# I'm well into the parallel between leaked documents and mp3s
the internet is famously a distruptive technology - it makes copying things really easy, whether it's songs, movies or government secrets.

The music industry has dealt with it in a number of ways

* DRM - basically increased security, which has failed
* LEGALS - hunting down filesharers just makes people hate the band / industry
* INCREASING USABILITY - iTunes for example, is for some, easier to buy something than pirate it (not us techy people who hang out on b3ta of course, but your mum maybe)
* CHANGING BUSINESS MODEL - basically going live. Lots of big musicans earn more money than ever by fuck off tours.

So assuming secrets will always be leaked - what can governments do?

* DRM - presume they are attemping to increase security at the moment. This will fail as it only takes 1 person to leak.
* LEGALS - Christ they are doing that at the moment, at the cost of making people hate the government
* INCREASING USABILITY - not sure how to apply this to governments, but I certainly wish their websites were more usable.
* CHANGING BUSINESS MODEL - this is my real hope. Governments doing less bad shit because they know they'll be found out.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:08, archived)
# It is fascinating to see where things are going.
With the internet, the government are basically fighting the geeks on the geek's home ground. I really can't see them winning via the legal route.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:33, archived)
There is a very clear difference between what you say which is eminently reasonable and what Mr Manuel has which is IMO not.

Put simply you speculate and couch your words clearly as supposition and opinion "it seems to be" " if they are" Rob's words are clearly and unambiguously claims and assertions.

There is a very clear difference between /b/ and the "moralfags" that get involved in hacktivism indeed it's arguably the wild west nature of /b/ that is coopted as rebels without a cause. As such Manuel's assertions about the nature of anon fails the initial laugh test, as he either doesn't realise or fails to acknowledge that anon is not just /b/

As for comparing the student protests with operation payback in my view I disagree with the comparison. The student protests have seen wanton, mindless and chaotic violence wrought on targets mostly not associated with the cause of their grievance. Anon hacktivism OTOH has been very precise in targeting the specific sites complicit in the economic "sanctions" launched against wikileaks.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:17, archived)
# it's very tricky - I got a phone call from a newspaper and I told them what I thought
I haven't even read what they wrote up about it - but it's unlikely to represent the whole of my views. Being as I didn't write it.

edit: more coming - accidentally pressed submit halfway through
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:20, archived)
# i know anon isn't entirely /b
I live on the same internet as the rest of us.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:25, archived)
# I state again
as above. You are keen on free speech and information. But you want Rob to keep his mouth shut. The defence rests.

Edit; the defence is bored and naffing off.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:22, archived)
RE:The student protests have seen wanton, mindless and chaotic violence wrought on targets mostly not associated with the cause of their grievance.

In the past, Anonymous has attacked things such as an epilepsy website. Do you not think that the press would pick up on things like that and tar any new cause with it?

In reality, I know it's more blurred than that, but the nature of Anonymous means that they can only be seen as "good" as the sum of their parts, which does seem to feature a lot of twats in their ranks.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:41, archived)
In the past /b/tards have attack the epilepsy website and yes the demarcation is blurred and yes the purpose of the attack was both unjustified and offensive. But should the possibility of the press using past transgressions to attempt to tar a cause stop those involved in arguably positive cause activism from taking part due to these prior transgressions by others

Should the WWF shut up shop because phil the Greek is a bit of a racist?
(, Sun 12 Dec 2010, 0:26, archived)
# No, but they should perhaps
drop the Anonymous banner and put their names to the cause they believe in.

Shit sticks, and Anonymous is forever going to be tarred with trolling of quite a nasty nature.
(, Sun 12 Dec 2010, 0:33, archived)
As demonstrated amply by assange and manning associating your name with politically and legally questionable activities no matter how admirable the objective is fraught with risk
(, Sun 12 Dec 2010, 1:12, archived)
# But it also
gives an organisation legitimacy and shows someone's convictions.

Anonymous seem to use bullying and threat, rather then discussion, and so could never gain the respect that an organisation like Wikileaks has.
(, Sun 12 Dec 2010, 1:23, archived)
# question
by ranting about it are you not breaking
THE RULES OF TEH INTARWEBZ (mainly 1, 2, and 34) (NSFW)

Joking aside here Rob has an opinion. So be it! There are a lot of people who don't give two shites or know nothing of anonymous or wikileaks!

I like the work they (anon) do against scientology, but sadly from the actions of some they are tarred with other shit that hangs around them,
(eric douglace, jessie slaughter, and so on) This does not help improve the portrayed image they have in the media's eyes! (lucky a lot of us can see WWP, and the protests on youtube, ect)
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:55, archived)
# Pardon the intrusion
but what's a head/gas oven sheep? More importantly, can it be milked?
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:23, archived)
# Damn you, Rob, for having an opinion!
I hope d1x1e is fervently seeking out every blogger, newspaper columnist and random-person-down-pub-with-opinion to tell them all to butt out and stop making comments about stuff which they obviously know nothing about.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:37, archived)
Random bloke down pub commenting = irrelevant
Newspaper commented = arse hole doing his arse hole job
Political blogger commenting = arseholes by default
Imgboard owner commenting = commercial opportunist
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:58, archived)
# So what makes them different?
Anyone making a comment in the media could be considered a commercial opportunist.

Rob's opinions are valid. Do you think anything can be gained by DDoS attacks? All they do is piss off people - it won't change their minds. Look at Chanology - it started with DDoSing, which didn't work. That was followed up with an information war - exposing the truth - which IS working.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:08, archived)
The papers would have been looking for someone British who runs a site similar to 4chan. (I don't think b3ta is that, but the press seem to think so)

Who do you think would be more appropriate for them to ask?
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:08, archived)
# I'm not sure I understand why you're angry
The distinctions you've made here and the judgements you've passed on them seem arbitrary, to me at least.
Rob was asked to give an opinion in exchange for money, and he did. If you violently disagree with the opinion then I can understand that, we all have different views on things, and some of those views are emotive. But you seem to be attacking him personally just for giving an opinion. That's the bit I don't get.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:14, archived)
# would you rather
the press go to 4chan or 7chan and be trolled
go to Rob and get a realistic response from someone who has an opinion, and will tell it as he see's it?
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:59, archived)
# I'm eating mini Jaffa Cakes. Yum!
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:40, archived)
# i'm the random bloke down the pub and i'm looking to cash in on my 15 minutes of fame.
why is my comment, as the man of the street/down the pub irrelevant?
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:45, archived)
# Because opinion is the domain of the 'intelectual-classes' not some oiks down the local ;)
We working-class type should be seen and not heard.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:56, archived)
# If Rob is a business owner, wouldn't being a "commercial opportunist" also qualify him for the "arsehole doing his arsehole job" category?
As in, he's doing his job by pimping his business. That's what ANY business owner does. Why are we all so eager to cry "sellout" all the time?
(, Sun 12 Dec 2010, 20:46, archived)
# Hmmm
Apart from anything else, he didn't exactly come out strongly against the attacks, did he?
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:41, archived)
# resetting S.I.M.M. counter
(sick in my mouth)
and it's barely been an hour.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:37, archived)
# Grace me with the strawberry milk Liz!
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:14, archived)
# disturbing
yet strangely arousing.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:54, archived)
# What. The Fuck.
(, Sun 12 Dec 2010, 20:07, archived)
# *studies*
gentlemen, i believe i have discovered a new form of intestinal parasite
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:06, archived)
Congratulations smashmokey you have posted 35 times to this site every day solidly for the nearly the last four years straight.

As ways to spend your life go.....
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:14, archived)
# at least i've got a life
you seem to spend yours being eaten up by the actions of people who don't know you and wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
kindly get yourself to fuck.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:19, archived)
Nerve struck is it? Oh dear never mind....
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:23, archived)
# Hahahaha
What the fuck? Did someone upset you my new god?
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:25, archived)
# you're funny
stick around, this could get interesting
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:26, archived)
Interesting you say? Somehow I think holding my breath waiting for it would be a mistake
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:29, archived)
# oh, i don't know about that
i'm sure we'd all find it interesting if you held your breath for an hour or so
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:31, archived)
Given how you've used the last 4 years I would imagine paint drying would enthral you too..
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:50, archived)
# fuck, you're actually trying, aren't you?
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:54, archived)
To recap, You responded to my original post re: Manuel with an ad hominem, and I'm the one that's trying?

Interesting take on reality you have
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:03, archived)
# you know what? just forget it
you're clearly incensed by things you have no control over and feel the need to vent in a childish manner.
therefore, i choose not to spend any more time conversing with someone with the keen social grasp of a stickle brick.
enjoy what you laughingly refer to as your life, you odd little person.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:08, archived)
Door arse way out
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:42, archived)
# Can I jump in?
And wave brightly-coloured flags around?

I am the voice of reason, after all, even with my diagnosis.

You don't know what you've started. You really don't.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:27, archived)
# unless you can back up what you've been doing for the last 4 years
don't take cheap shots at people like that, you make yourself look stoopidddddd, srs bizniz etc
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:56, archived)
# the sad thing is
i assumed it was a regular doing a spot of trolling, but it seems he actually is serious
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:59, archived)
# just another 100000 forums to go
it's going to be a busy crimbo for him
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:03, archived)
Err NOT posting to b3ta at a rate of one post every 45 minutes. Very easy to check..... You know, if you know how
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:07, archived)
# someone could post many replies in a short space of time, maybe when a conversation gets going
just a thought....

EDIT: also rob has a profile, you could have just sent him a message or an email with your view (he may have even replied then), now it seems you were just looking to stir up shit, otherwise you would have posted and moved on.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:13, archived)
# That's a not a very good argument.
I mean we're all online, often finding a way to waste time, can anyone say that's productive? Here you seem to be going for a provocative approach, but all you're doing here is name-calling and not really productively using your time in constructive debate or argument. I'd move on bud.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:11, archived)
There are responses to my comments that are valid and have warranted a reasoned reply

What though would you propose is the Appropriate response to being referred to as an intestinal parasite?
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:50, archived)
# None, move on gracefully.
Focus your intentions elsewhere. It's about not turning round and going "nyeh nyeh" and blowing raspberries back that strengthens your argument. If you attend to every person calling you names you'll never get a moment's peace. You can apply that this situation as well. Rob may have an opinion, but goading him and calling him an "internet cunt" just seems petty and childish and not particularly productive.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:58, archived)
# he doesn't understand that regular posting from users is what keeps forums going
ahhhh bless.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:31, archived)
# 8 years, 107 messages
he only logs in when he's reeeeeeally passionate about something.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:28, archived)
# or when he manages to wrestle the mittens off
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:32, archived)
# don't anger him/her it could be a hacker
nah, who am i codding
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:35, archived)
# you could hack my computer with a fucking spoon
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:36, archived)
# still no youtube?
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:37, archived)
# nope
this thing is running on emergency gnat power
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:39, archived)
# have you tried cunting it in the fuck?
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:40, archived)
# repeatedly
the keyboard only works properly if i regularly pick it up to a height of about a foot, then drop it.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:42, archived)
# That's a very specialised bit of cutlery
Where does it go in a standard place setting?
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:38, archived)
# just to the left of the lobster mallet
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:40, archived)
# and congratulations to you d1x1e...
I have studied your work and realised that you are total twat!
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:38, archived)
Apologies wobble bloke I've not bothered making a study of you, though it's fair to argue that a snap judgement will suffice.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:53, archived)
# Judge me next!
Is there a fee?
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:24, archived)
# Me too! Me! Me!
I think he's gone...
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:29, archived)
# I hate
part time trolls.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:31, archived)
# I hope he's not exploded.
His blood pressure seemed to have been quite high.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:34, archived)
# 22:36
It's past his bedtime and there's church tomorrow morning.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:36, archived)
+2 gmt and it's mescit not church.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:57, archived)
# srs biznz
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:06, archived)
# srs lurkage.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:09, archived)
# probably an angry regular logged into his troll account
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:10, archived)
# The End Times, I'd wager.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:11, archived)
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:15, archived)
# Only some minor damage, though.
Maybe 2nd degree burns, that sort of thing.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:16, archived)
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:21, archived)
# Oi! Not all of us lurkers are trolling cunts.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:18, archived)
# I never made the inference!
I was just marvelling at his lurkage to Charlie Big Potatoes ratio.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:34, archived)
# Just looking at your profile
and you seem to take great pleasure in those with leprosy and dead babies. You think its really funny.
So the moral high ground is some way off for you.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:10, archived)
# hahahaha
i rarely use this word but, nice "ownage" my friend.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:14, archived)
# Hahahaha
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:16, archived)
I never claimed to own the high ground, but then again I never went to the papers preaching it either,so thanks for playing contestant but better luck next time.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:21, archived)
# You did claim
that you are right and he is wrong, so I think i at least get through to the ready-money round.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:25, archived)
# I didn't go to the papers
they came to me and I spoke to them because I really care about what is happening to the internet.

I'm a wikileaks supporter. I'm a free speech supporter. And I think the current anon campaign is misguided.

You have a different opinion which is fair enough. Internets. Serious business.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:52, archived)
# I thought we'd dealt with that
he didn't go to the papers...they called him.

BIG difference, but sadly that's gone un-noticed.

Perhaps I should pass it onto Wikileaks to release?
(, Sun 12 Dec 2010, 18:17, archived)
# can
u help me with a radio sation question i have to no
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:13, archived)
# Look it up ^
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:17, archived)
# who's rob manuell?
i feel sorry for him,

There is a person on here called Rob Manuel though.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:16, archived)
# Pfft!
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:18, archived)
# I wonder if Haynes make a Rob manual?
I bet this guy scuttles over to /b/, asks them to LOIC this place and gets told 'not your personal army'...
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:18, archived)
A Typo retort? I remember when they were all the rage... On usenet
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:26, archived)
# You are David Mabus
and I claim my £10
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:42, archived)
# Inflation, eh?
Five pounds in my day, jumpers for goal posts and all that.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:09, archived)
# One can only apologise for Manuell
He's from Barcellona, you see
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:20, archived)
# Hahaha
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:26, archived)
# Smoke another one . . . have another hit !
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:26, archived)
# Hahahaha
What a fucking spastic
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:33, archived)
I was once called a cunt as I own an iPhone- I tell everyone I meet that I own an iPhone.. I enjoy holding it.. :(
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:34, archived)
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:51, archived)
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:46, archived)
# Why does having an opinion
on who Anonymous are make him a cunt?

You are making an ad hominem fallacy.

If you believe that the DDOS attacks are the right thing to do, and that they are led by strong political thinkers, why not explain why and point us to the evidence, rather than insult someone - which is the exact behaviour you are criticising.

Personally, I'm in two minds about the whole thing - they often target deserving people, but they are also a faceless mob, which I'd always be cautious about.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 21:52, archived)
# Is internet man angry, mummy?
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:18, archived)
# ...
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:21, archived)
# I got asked - I gave an opinion
not to promote B3ta but I dunno - because I was asked. And being someone who has lived and worked on the internet since about 1992, I do have opinions.

I completely support Wikileaks. But yeah, Anon is (in my opinion) going about it in the wrong way.

Wikileaks has leaked some fantastic and alarming material, and going all cyberwarrior is giving the establishment a great excuse not to concentrate on the content of the leaks - but the hoohah around them.

I believe Anon are playing into the hands of the people who wish Wikileaks and free speech dead.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:31, archived)
# Internet cunt.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:34, archived)
# it's the spelling my name wrong that hurts more
I know I'm a cunt, but get my name right please.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:40, archived)
# You'll regret saying that, bob.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:41, archived)
# Manual, right?
Easy to read, light instructions on dealing with opinions on and of the internet.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:41, archived)
# Manuell Cunt?
isn't he that philosopher geezer?
(, Sun 12 Dec 2010, 18:21, archived)
# Somehow
I think this reply is going to be lost to the people who at first scroll down and then see the Queen with the enormous udders.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:35, archived)
# Surely not.
As the chap pointed out, this is "srs biznz". Who could trivialize that?
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:40, archived)
# He gets the entertainment wedge.
For this was a trivial pursuit. Ho ho!
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:46, archived)
I agree with you, but being mean to people more important than myself makes my pants wet, you big smelly cunt.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:38, archived)
# eeenteresting...
I find it interesting that when a person expresses their own personal opinions/views about someone/something it's considered an "attack." Someone then gets on the defense and tears down the author of those opinions and views. Forgive me but I just find it quite interesting that free speech cannot be a one sided deal where only one side spouts their opinions and ideas and the rest of us cannot say a thing. Might I just say that free speech is not dead, no matter how one might try to suppress it. So, yes why not focus on the actual content rather than make a mole hill appear larger than life? And this is my personal view - Rob, thou art cool :)
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:53, archived)
# I love you, Rob.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:31, archived)
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:38, archived)
# I love you!
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:10, archived)
# Oh fuck off you cunt
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:50, archived)
# Well done
I had to fetch my account details from the top shelf and blow some metaphorical dust off them, just to tell you what a conceited, moronic person you are. Seriously mate, your argument(s?) make no sense, you seem to have a shaky grasp of grammar, and while some of your put downs made me giggle, they're too little too late.

For what its worth I agree with Rob - does this make me a profiteering wanker as well, or do I have to run a website for that to make sense? Oh wait no. It just doesn't make sense.

Finding humour in a subject does not in any way trivialise it - if you believe this to be the case then I'm afraid there may be nothing more we can do for you.

Also, spelling words properly and using grammar doesn't make Jesus cry, honestly, you should try it.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:03, archived)
# I feel this deserves a response..
(, Sun 12 Dec 2010, 0:12, archived)
# No
this is lurkage ;)
(, Mon 13 Dec 2010, 0:26, archived)
# And …
So is this.
(, Thu 16 Dec 2010, 15:31, archived)
yay, lets all defend a likely sex pest!
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:06, archived)
# I agree.
Oh no, wait a moment. I don't.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:10, archived)
# I bet you are white, have dreadlocks,
and smell of pencil sharpenings.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:29, archived)
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:37, archived)
# ...
Except what Rob suggests in that article (Anon's focus on DDoS is taking away from the story of the leaks themselves) is exactly what some of the brighter members have been saying too:

The thing to realise is that Anonymous is just a banner for a whole lot of very different people with very different motivations. There are undoubtedly smart and eloquent people amongst them, but there are also clearly a lot of moronic children (I would guess d1x1e falls into the latter group). Some genuinely believe they are acting in the interests of democracy, some are trying to gather strength for other causes e.g. the anti-piracy campaign this largely grew out of. Some are in it for the social aspect, or just because their mates are, and a huge number are just doing it for the lulz.

The rest of that article was spectacularly clueless about the whole thing. I approve of Rob trying to inject some sense into it though.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:53, archived)
# The first comment
on that article made me laugh.
(, Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:56, archived)
# ha! that's brilliant
that's exactly my point and better expressed than I did it.
(, Sun 12 Dec 2010, 0:24, archived)
# Well there goes my theory regarding b3ta membership number.
(, Sun 12 Dec 2010, 0:29, archived)
# arf!
(, Sun 12 Dec 2010, 20:53, archived)
# Oi dickwad
Back to your tentacle invasive CP with you. We haz srsz bizboz on here.
(, Sun 12 Dec 2010, 10:07, archived)
# Can he not get a good old thwack from the banhammer?
(, Sun 12 Dec 2010, 10:36, archived)
Where's the picture ?
(, Sun 12 Dec 2010, 14:03, archived)
# Are you available for kids parties?
(, Sun 12 Dec 2010, 21:02, archived)