Jake Sully, Anonymous and "WhatIsThePlan" - PsyOps?

[Gonzo]

Theoretically, the kill switch, developed by Israelis, I believe, could use advanced hybrid filtering. So, instead of strictly filtering/blocking certain domains through DNS or IPs, it would look for content, author, consumer, etc., as well. Once the filter is set for a specific profile, it wouldn't matter if a server switched IPs, as the filter would still catch the other aspects of the stream that meet the criteria and kill it before it completes its route.

Such a system would require a learning ability, otherwise it would need constant human configuration and modification.

Has your friend noticed how well "spam filters" work? Then what about entire nations that refuse to filter and floating proxy servers?

Hi Guardian,

I was going to reply here but thought it might be too OT for this tired thread. I posted a response in a new thread Internet Kill Switch http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,24956

Thanks,
Gonzo

 

[PlanningAhead]

False. Anonymous doesn't get used by anyone. It's not possible. If whoever this guy is you're talking about calls himself an anon, he is an anon, period, no matter how much you might not like him.

That doesn't make any sense to me. Just because someone claims to be an Anon doesn't mean they couldn't be lying through their teeth in order to get closer to people who are Anon. In other words, false pretenses. In that case, every Anon who associated with that person would be used regardless of any names or labels being held out by the lying party.

Not trying to argue with you. Just pointing out that, in my perspective, it'd be the actions that determine when a person is being used and/or abused.

-shrug- The fact that you don't understand it doesn't make it not true. Don't know what to tell you.

Not about 'not liking him' - it's about looking at the objective facts of his actions and it being blatantly clear that the guy is a deviant. Not a moral deviant - I don't really believe in such things, since morals differ from culture to culture. A clinical, pathological deviant.

So? I get that you have some sort of a beef with him, but I think you're missing the fact that he can't possibly be some random guy trying to use Anonymous. He's calling himself an anon and he's using anonymity to protect his actions. That makes him a "member" of Anonymous. And tbh the calling himself an anon thing isn't exactly necessary, either. So he's a clinical, pathological deviant. So are most Anons. Color me unsurprised.

I get your point on the Anonymous thing and - I gotta tell ya - for a group that isn't a group, but is a group, and isn't identifiable, ya'll sure do seem to get touchy about what Anonymous is and isn't. I honestly don't mean any disrespect by that at all, it's just a curious thing. Thanks again for your clarification, this has been a truly edifying thread.

Not a matter of touchiness, a matter of difficulty with definitions.

 

[Chunky Mcfats]

cassiopaea is anon, they just don't know it yet.

A point about trolling: it has many definitions, forms, and functions

Trolling can be a time-killer, a vehicle for humor, a satirical point, or just plain harassment
Seems to me though, its most important function is to help test an idea or a proposal. It's the method used by chan forums to challenge new ideas and new people. Think of it as a snarky devil's advocate, in some usages.

A great idea, coherently argued for, is untrollable.

If an idea can't withstand criticism or satire, it doesn't deserve acceptance. If a poster is too emotionally invested in their idea and responds self-destructively to ad hominem attempts to get under his skin, then his/her idea was most likely borne of a personal agenda or vendetta.

The fact that cassiopaea showed a minimal amount autocannibalistic tendency when subject to a light-to-fair dose of trolling, means that its ideals must have at least some merit, and its members are (somewhat) stable and mature.

 

[clerck de bonk]

cassiopaea is anon, they just don't know it yet.

anon is cassiopaea, you just haven't decided yet ;)

A point about trolling: it has many definitions, forms, and functions

Trolling can be a time-killer, a vehicle for humor, a satirical point, or just plain harassment
Seems to me though, its most important function is to help test an idea or a proposal. It's the method used by chan forums to challenge new ideas and new people. Think of it as a snarky devil's advocate, in some usages.

Wouldn't know 'cause I don't troll(imo)

A great idea, coherently argued for, is untrollable.

I would add uncontrollable and say; Indeed yes!

If an idea can't withstand criticism or satire, it doesn't deserve acceptance. If a poster is too emotionally invested in their idea and responds self-destructively to ad hominem attempts to get under his skin, then his/her idea was most likely borne of a personal agenda or vendetta.

Yes absolutely! As has been stated repeatedly in this thread, this forum is much about ridding your machine of "personal agenda or(if need be) vendetta"

The fact that cassiopaea showed a minimal amount autocannibalistic tendency when subject to a light-to-fair dose of trolling, means that its ideals must have at least some merit, and its members are (somewhat) stable and mature.

You're so kind :)

 

[Laura]

cassiopaea is anon, they just don't know it yet.

Only we don't like being anonymous even if we are sort on the same wavelength/path. Most of us have the idea that we like to stand behind our words and put our lives on the line when we say and do stuff. Yeah, I know, sometimes a person ends up being martyred that way, but sometimes that's important too.

<snip>

The fact that cassiopaea showed a minimal amount autocannibalistic tendency when subject to a light-to-fair dose of trolling, means that its ideals must have at least some merit, and its members are (somewhat) stable and mature.

That's an interesting way to approach Ponerology - because that is what it is - the study of pathology in groups large and small. If ya'll weren't so anonymous, I'd send you some free copies of the book to share around. How about a PDF?

Anyway, I think that this thread needs to be closed now because I just don't think there's any more to be learned about Jake Sully and his career with whatever-he-was-up-to. Any Anonymous folks that want to join us in Moonbattery are welcome to post and intro and dive in (assuming they've read the guidelines and agree) and certainly, if there is anything we can help with, including publishing articles on SOTT (vetted), we'll be glad to do so.

Oh... one thing: I notice that there is a general dislike of Scientology among Anons. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, I think CoS is a sort of psy-op run by pathological types but I don't get the point about putting so much energy into going after them when there are bigger and nastier fish that better deserve that sort of attention IF one is inclined to tell people what they should or should not believe, or how they should or should not live their lives or spend their money. How about the Dominionists and other fundies? The Catholic Church and all it's mind-control and secrets? Judaism and its control of media etc. You see my point? It's the mainstream churches that are in bed with the government (though CoS undoubtedly has cosied up in recent years) and are part of the oppressive control system.

Anyway, the point I want to make here is the guy "Jean" - who basically dragged us into this from one side (while Jake Sully AKA whatever) dragged us in on the other side, one promoting us, the other denouncing us (funny, that), is worse than a CoS fanatic. He's actually acting more like CoS than anything because I know that they go after and attack people who have left their fold and that's what "Jean" is doing to Marie. She left his control, his brainwashing, his abuse, his taking of all her money and resources, etc, and he's defaming us in an effort to force her to come back, yet he can be "Anonymous"? Geeze, what about standards?

Yeah, I get the idea that anyone who says they're Anonymous IS Anonymous because that's the whole deal about being anonymous, but this guy is a real weakling (as men who seek to abuse women and children always are) and once he gets under some pressure - which is coming, I should mention - they betray anybody and everybody to save their own skins. What I'm trying to say is I hope nobody else has made themselves vulnerable through him.

Okay, that's it. Let's close it. If anybody has anything crucial to add, send me a PM and I'll consider re-opening.