| Revision as of 17:23, 18 February 2008 view sourceCoffeepusher (talk | contribs)7,488 edits →Merge proposal← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:24, 18 February 2008 view source 77.187.210.184 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talkheader}} | {{Talkheader}} | ||
| <font style="background: red; weight: bold; font-size: 32pt; color: white; top: 0px; left: 0px; position: fixed; z-index: 4; float: left;"> | |||
| {{WP Internet culture|class=start|importance=medium}} | |||
| HAY GUYS I LIKE BABIES, 0-1 YEAR OLD. I AM NEVERTHELESS A COMPLETELY HEALTHY AND SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE HUMAN BEING.FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD NEVER FUCK A BABY UNLESS THEY WOULD ASK ME TO. OF COURSE, IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT BABIES ARE SEXUAL BEINGS, AND NEVER HESITATE TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS, AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THEIR LOVE FOR FEMALE BREASTS. AND AS BABIES ARE KNOWN TO BE SHY, IT IS NATURAL THAT I INITIATE THE ENCOUNTER, AFTER MAKING SURE THE BABY UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN. IF THE BABY IS NOT OK WITH THIS, IT IS FREE TO SAY "NO, I AM NOT OK WITH THIS" AND I WILL RESPECTFULLY STOP. <br/>MARK, TELL US, WHY DID YOU BUTTFUCK XENU? Why MONGO? <br/><br/>faggot<br/>HAY GUYS I LIKE BABIES, 0-1 YEAR OLD. I AM NEVERTHELESS A COMPLETELY HEALTHY AND SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE HUMAN BEING.FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD NEVER FUCK A BABY UNLESS THEY WOULD ASK ME TO. OF COURSE, IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT BABIES ARE SEXUAL BEINGS, AND NEVER HESITATE TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS, AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THEIR LOVE FOR FEMALE BREASTS. AND AS BABIES ARE KNOWN TO BE SHY, IT IS NATURAL THAT I INITIATE THE ENCOUNTER, AFTER MAKING SURE THE BABY UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN. IF THE BABY IS NOT OK WITH THIS, IT IS FREE TO SAY "NO, I AM NOT OK WITH THIS" AND I WILL RESPECTFULLY STOP. <br/>NIGGERS <br/>HAY GUYS I LIKE BABIES, 0-1 YEAR OLD. I AM NEVERTHELESS A COMPLETELY HEALTHY AND SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE HUMAN BEING.FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD NEVER FUCK A BABY UNLESS THEY WOULD ASK ME TO. OF COURSE, IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT BABIES ARE SEXUAL BEINGS, AND NEVER HESITATE TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS, AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THEIR LOVE FOR FEMALE BREASTS. AND AS BABIES ARE KNOWN TO BE SHY, IT IS NATURAL THAT I INITIATE THE ENCOUNTER, AFTER MAKING SURE THE BABY UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN. IF THE BABY IS NOT OK WITH THIS, IT IS FREE TO SAY "NO, I AM NOT OK WITH THIS" AND I WILL RESPECTFULLY STOP. <br/>MARK, TELL US, WHY DID YOU BUTTFUCK XENU? Why MONGO? <br/><br/>faggot<br/>HAY GUYS I LIKE BABIES, 0-1 YEAR OLD. I AM NEVERTHELESS A COMPLETELY HEALTHY AND SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE HUMAN BEING.FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD NEVER FUCK A BABY UNLESS THEY WOULD ASK ME TO. OF COURSE, IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT BABIES ARE SEXUAL BEINGS, AND NEVER HESITATE TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS, AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THEIR LOVE FOR FEMALE BREASTS. AND AS BABIES ARE KNOWN TO BE SHY, IT IS NATURAL THAT I INITIATE THE ENCOUNTER, AFTER MAKING SURE THE BABY UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN. IF THE BABY IS NOT OK WITH THIS, IT IS FREE TO SAY "NO, I AM NOT OK WITH THIS" AND I WILL RESPECTFULLY STOP. <br/>NIGGERS <br/>HAY GUYS I LIKE BABIES, 0-1 YEAR OLD. I AM NEVERTHELESS A COMPLETELY HEALTHY AND SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE HUMAN BEING.FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD NEVER FUCK A BABY UNLESS THEY WOULD ASK ME TO. OF COURSE, IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT BABIES ARE SEXUAL BEINGS, AND NEVER HESITATE TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS, AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THEIR LOVE FOR FEMALE BREASTS. AND AS BABIES ARE KNOWN TO BE SHY, IT IS NATURAL THAT I INITIATE THE ENCOUNTER, AFTER MAKING SURE THE BABY UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN. IF THE BABY IS NOT OK WITH THIS, IT IS FREE TO SAY "NO, I AM NOT OK WITH THIS" AND I WILL RESPECTFULLY STOP. <br/>MARK, TELL US, WHY DID YOU BUTTFUCK XENU? Why MONGO? <br/><br/>faggot<br/>HAY GUYS I LIKE BABIES, 0-1 YEAR OLD. I AM NEVERTHELESS A COMPLETELY HEALTHY AND SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE HUMAN BEING.FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD NEVER FUCK A BABY UNLESS THEY WOULD ASK ME TO. OF COURSE, IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT BABIES ARE SEXUAL BEINGS, AND NEVER HESITATE TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS, AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THEIR LOVE FOR FEMALE BREASTS. AND AS BABIES ARE KNOWN TO BE SHY, IT IS NATURAL THAT I INITIATE THE ENCOUNTER, AFTER MAKING SURE THE BABY UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN. IF THE BABY IS NOT OK WITH THIS, IT IS FREE TO SAY "NO, I AM NOT OK WITH THIS" AND I WILL RESPECTFULLY STOP. <br/>NIGGERS <br/>HAY GUYS I LIKE BABIES, 0-1 YEAR OLD. I AM NEVERTHELESS A COMPLETELY HEALTHY AND SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE HUMAN BEING.FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD NEVER FUCK A BABY UNLESS THEY WOULD ASK ME TO. OF COURSE, IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT BABIES ARE SEXUAL BEINGS, AND NEVER HESITATE TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS, AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THEIR LOVE FOR FEMALE BREASTS. AND AS BABIES ARE KNOWN TO BE SHY, IT IS NATURAL THAT I INITIATE THE ENCOUNTER, AFTER MAKING SURE THE BABY UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN. IF THE BABY IS NOT OK WITH THIS, IT IS FREE TO SAY "NO, I AM NOT OK WITH THIS" AND I WILL RESPECTFULLY STOP. <br/>MARK, TELL US, WHY DID YOU BUTTFUCK XENU? Why MONGO? <br/><br/>faggot<br/>HAY GUYS I LIKE BABIES, 0-1 YEAR OLD. I AM NEVERTHELESS A COMPLETELY HEALTHY AND SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE HUMAN BEING.FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD NEVER FUCK A BABY UNLESS THEY WOULD ASK ME TO. OF COURSE, IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT BABIES ARE SEXUAL BEINGS, AND NEVER HESITATE TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS, AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THEIR LOVE FOR FEMALE BREASTS. AND AS BABIES ARE KNOWN TO BE SHY, IT IS NATURAL THAT I INITIATE THE ENCOUNTER, AFTER MAKING SURE THE BABY UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN. IF THE BABY IS NOT OK WITH THIS, IT IS FREE TO SAY "NO, I AM NOT OK WITH THIS" AND I WILL RESPECTFULLY STOP. <br/>NIGGERS <br/>HAY GUYS I LIKE BABIES, 0-1 YEAR OLD. I AM NEVERTHELESS A COMPLETELY HEALTHY AND SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE HUMAN BEING.FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD NEVER FUCK A BABY UNLESS THEY WOULD ASK ME TO. OF COURSE, IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT BABIES ARE SEXUAL BEINGS, AND NEVER HESITATE TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS, AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THEIR LOVE FOR FEMALE BREASTS. AND AS BABIES ARE KNOWN TO BE SHY, IT IS NATURAL THAT I INITIATE THE ENCOUNTER, AFTER MAKING SURE THE BABY UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN. IF THE BABY IS NOT OK WITH THIS, IT IS FREE TO SAY "NO, I AM NOT OK WITH THIS" AND I WILL RESPECTFULLY STOP. <br/>MARK, TELL US, WHY DID YOU BUTTFUCK XENU? Why MONGO? <br/><br/>faggot<br/>HAY GUYS I LIKE BABIES, 0-1 YEAR OLD. I AM NEVERTHELESS A COMPLETELY HEALTHY AND SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE HUMAN BEING.FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD NEVER FUCK A BABY UNLESS THEY WOULD ASK ME TO. OF COURSE, IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT BABIES ARE SEXUAL BEINGS, AND NEVER HESITATE TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS, AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THEIR LOVE FOR FEMALE BREASTS. AND AS BABIES ARE KNOWN TO BE SHY, IT IS NATURAL THAT I INITIATE THE ENCOUNTER, AFTER MAKING SURE THE BABY UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN. IF THE BABY IS NOT OK WITH THIS, IT IS FREE TO SAY "NO, I AM NOT OK WITH THIS" AND I WILL RESPECTFULLY STOP. <br/>NIGGERS <br/> | |||
| {{oldafdfull|date= 2008-02-12 |result= '''keep''' |page= Anonymous (group) }} | |||
| </font> | |||
| ==Author here. == | |||
| Author here. I just wanted to thank everyone who has shown interest in the article, whether they liked what they saw or otherwise. I began writing the article in direct response to the recent Project Chanology protests, but knew of Anonymous' prior existence. I do feel that it is a significant, yet poorly documented presence—if I did not feel it was worthy of inclusion into Misplaced Pages, I would not have started it. | |||
| I knew early on that writing ''Anonymous'' was going to be a challenge. Gathering non-news sources was particularly problematic (I hope that the article does not reference only journalistic material). I admit that my first effort was not perfectly written—that's where you all come in. Many of you know a lot more about Anonymous, even if you aren't privy to its underpinnings. You are the ones I expected to expand and improve the article. If not, then people like the ones who proposed this article's deletion will only help spread ignorance. Unlike the generations before us, events that matter to us don't wait for things like academic notability; they happen faster than even we are capable of realizing. — ] <nowiki>]<nowiki>|</nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 09:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Redirect == | |||
| While the current article text isn't properly sourced the amount of sources on Anonymous is staggering. If you want it deleted follow the procedures and knock off the delete by redirect. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 15:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == news sources == | |||
| Here's a quote another article and it has news sources and stuff. Should be reused here. "], ], ] Fox 11 News based in ] put out a report about organized cyber-bullying on sites like ] by people who call themselves "/b/rothas".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.myfoxla.com/myfox/pages/ContentDetail?contentId=5647826|publisher=Fox Television Stations, Inc.|title=FOX 11 Investigates: Cyber Bullies|accessdate=2008-02-05}}</ref> The site had previously put out report on ], ], about a subject that partly featured cyberbullying titled "hackers on steroids".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.myfoxla.com/myfox/pages/ContentDetail?contentId=3894628|publisher=Fox Television Stations, Inc.|title=FOX 11 Investigates: 'Anonymous'|accessdate=2007-08-11}}</ref>" | |||
| Also ] has tons of news sources. ] (]) 17:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Oh and ] has sources and some bits about Hal Turner need mention here. ] (]) 21:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Internet forum vs. Imageboard == | |||
| I'm not sure about changing it but Anonymous always applies to imageboard users. Comments? ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not only is it important to note that the "Anonymous" group congregates around imageboards, but that the very nature of this medium has contributed to the rise and development of internet culture, and within internet culture, what I would refer to as an anonymous centric subculture. The constant bombardment of users with images that convey a message as significant as the text, or more so, has created a grassroots viral advertising space. Anonymous is not just to be understood as a group. This group also has a host of esoteric taglines, cliches', injokes, rules and ethical codes of behavior, and a history which is venerated (''i.e.'' Never 4get 7-12-2006!) by long time "anons". Being a combination of multiple mediums, the internet is the only medium that can virally spread these as rapidly. The subculture of Anonymous would not have come into existence if not for imageboards. | |||
| ::The proliferation of these cliches, or cultural viruses referred to as ], has had an unseen hand in spurring on many of the internet phenomenon documented months later by mainstream media, and never attributed to Anonymous as the source of the "lulz". This will be the greatest problem for this article. I have no doubt that Anonymous deserves a high rating in importance, at the least, but due to a lack of verifiable sources it will never be recognized as anything beyond low (maybe mid, if project chanology goes further in destabilizing Scientology). This is not to say the history of Anonymous is not documented, but we can hardly use oral history and Encyclopedia Dramatica as respectable sources. Personally, I think there should be papers written by sociologists on this phenomenon. As a viral subculture almost exclusively removed from '']'' for the early years of its inception, Anonymous has had an unique development, and it's future will be utterly unpredictable.--] (]) 23:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| === Anonymous in society === | |||
| Should we not also add to this article that Anonymous has now grown to encompass more than just forums and Imageboards? That Anonymous has now come to grow into a grassroots activist group, where many of the participators of ] are not just members of the Anonymous subculture inside the chans; but instead are, for a large part, members of the public as well? Many of whom have made an effort to stay away from the chans. This sort of claim can be evidenced through the participation of the February 10th, 2008 protests at: Wikinews international report: "Anonymous" holds anti-Scientology protests worldwide. | |||
| I think it would be beneficial to add this to the article because the group does not seem to be losing interest, but in fact, is gaining. If we are to accurately maintain this article it should be noted that Anonymous now is more than just hackers and 'anonymous' posters on forums and Imageboards. - ] (]) 04:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :*It is also notable that much of partyvan.info can be used to reference members of the general public and their growing role in Anonymous. It is currently maintained by members of the Anonymous chan administrators, primarily of eBaums. Historically accurate and they have often times confessed to whatever negative facts may be associated with them: if the accusations are in fact true. | |||
| :This is also the main site for organization and participation in ]. - ] (]) 04:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :- ] (]) 04:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::This thinking is wrong on several points. Anons who are taking part in Project Chanology are hardly making efforts to "stay away from chans". This can be understood on several levels. While perhaps they are not associating Project Chanology with any particular image board, and are often referring to Ebaumsworld as their center of gravity, in an attempt to shift blame from their beloved boards, this is not new behavior. This is standard operating procedure for raids. They've done this since their earliest Habbo raids. Anons, as individuals, are still associating with each other on boards. | |||
| ::Further, they are not avoiding "chan subculture". Many picket signs referenced memes, and a costumed individual dressed as Raptor Jesus made an appearance at the San Francisco protest. The constant use of EFG masks (yes, I know they are V masks, but the meme is tied to EFG) is yet another act of embracing *chan subculture even when in the public sphere. An outreach video calling for the 2-10-08 event did hand out "rules of engagement," amongst which was the insistence that memes not be used, as they would alienate the public. This, obviously, was ignored en masses. ''Anonymous is not disassociating form the *chans, and never will.'' The concept of Anon is intrinsic to the *chans. It is, however, true that Anon exists outside of this subculture now. | |||
| ::Further, do not make the mistake of buying into mass media representations of Anonymous. The group was never comprised solely, or by a majority of Hackers. Hackers have always comprised a minority, if not a vast minority. The tactic most often employed by Anonymous during online "Raids" is that of the DDoS (distributed denial of service) attack. This does not involve '''any''' hacking whatsoever. It is an act of overwhelming a webserver's bandwidth with massive packets of data. Media outlets simplified this as an act of "hacking." | |||
| ::No actual intrusion of the Scientology websites was executed by the majority of Anonymous. It is possible that a small minority of Anonymous did hack Scientology computers to acquire private documents, but it is highly unlikely this was achieved by hacking websites. I can't imagine why Scientology management would keep confidential documents on their websites. Scientology servers may have been hacked. As it is highly unlikely any Anon will ever step forward, we will never know. | |||
| ::I think this article can't just refer to Anonymous' interaction with society. It also has to address their subculture, explain how the concept of "anonymous" developed, and why. We'll eventually have to pull up the code of Anonymous, and explain each. The hard part of all this, as I noted above, will be finding verifiable sources. You note that partyvan.info can be used, but this is already known of and rejected. The problem is this is a wiki, and unacceptable as a source.--] (]) 05:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::You seem to have missed my point. I wasn't solely referring to the Anonymous of the chans. I was referring to the general public and people who have simply adopted the pseudonym Anonymous as an umbrella name for a new activist group. You've also assumed that I'm unfamiliar with the chans and that I'm "buying into mass media". This is not the case. I know well that many of Anonymous, while 'channers', have little to no experience in "hacking". I suppose though that I was rather unclear as to what I meant. So my apologies, I've now clarified. Forgive me for suggesting partyvan.info be used. I hadn't realized. Summarily, I never said that this article refer to just Anonymous' interaction with society. But instead it should be noted that Anonymous has grown past the chans, even if the chans are still a fact hitherto synonymous with Anonymous. - ] (]) 09:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Formation of Anonymous - 4chan, 7chan etc PLEASE USE THESE SOURCES. == | |||
| "Anonymous is less an organization than a loose confederation of Internet message board readers and IRC chat network users. Sites like 4chan.org (warning: content may not be work-safe) brought together thousands of Internet users with a variety of interests and vocations. Anonymous seldom meet physically in large numbers outside of their message boards and chat channels. The February 10 "raids" presented one of the first examples of major Anonymous movement outside of the Internet." | |||
| "Anonymous – a loose coalition of Internet denizens and so-called “hackers” who tend to congregate at Web sites such as 4chan.org..." | |||
| "#4chan group “Anonymous” has published a definitive attack on what is known as the Church of Scientology." | |||
| "Immediately the IRC chat room hosted on 7chan.org (currently down) was filled with calls to stop using the program, and the 900 people in the chat room returned to their disorderly conversation about whether they should be flooding Digg with anti-Scientology links or making harassing phone calls to local Scientology branches." | |||
| "Anonymous congregates on the net at various hangouts such as 7chan.org (NSFW) and partyvan.info and sundry IRC channels. The group usually amuses itself by stealing passwords to downloading sites and finding ways to harass online communities that its members disdain. They were last seen on THREAT LEVEL when a Los Angeles Fox News affiliate ran a story that hilariously implied the group's arsenal included exploding vans." | |||
| Hopefully those can be used in the article. ] (]) 10:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Members of anonymous message boards known collectively as Anonymous have gathered together in an effort to thwart the Church of Scientology from carrying about their usual business. These message boards are typically dominated by pornographic images, gross-out pictures and inside jokes about computers or video games ] (]) 11:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Isn't the internet great? Anyway, this is an important point to note: that Anonymous culture is rife with dark humor. I've found a citation for this. Two (former?) anons ''dropped their dox'' and took part in a with CBC, and comment on the race bating, homophobia, shock humor, and also the past behavior of Anonymous in pranks, like Habbo Raids. It's the first time Anonymous has addressed these issues frankly with the media, to my knowledge. The audio is available .--] (]) 16:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == previous notability - PLEASE USE to improve article == | |||
| Global news report on Forcand, mentioning Anonymous's involvement. | |||
| Fox11 new report on Anonymous, the "internet hate machine" from 2007. - also mentions Harry Potter raids and HabboHotel raids. ] (]) 11:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :This story also may be relevant, but I can't access it w/o paying. ] (]) 11:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Fair use rationale for Image:AnonymousDemotivator.jpg== | |||
| ] | |||
| ''']''' is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under ] but there is no ] as to why its use in '''this''' Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the ], you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with ]. | |||
| Please go to ] and edit it to include a ]. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. | |||
| If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Missing rationale2 --> | |||
| ] (]) 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Please don't delete== | |||
| Hey guys my username is Floridanon. I'm a noob here as far as editing and I just signed up to be a Misplaced Pages editor. I really don't know how to edit yet but this is important to me: Please do not delete this "Anonymous" article. I was involved in the Chanology Project's "Anonymous" Church of Scientolgy protests here in Clearwater, Florida. I saw some of the things that were written on the Misplaced Pages.org "Anonymous" site and they're just not all true. This group was concieved as a result of The Church forcing YouTube to delete the now-infamous internal CoS video where Tom Cruise said "only a $cientologist will help a car accident victim." When Co$ found out, they immediately threatened YouTube with legal action and YT removed it. At that point, what is known as the group "Anonymous" was concieved. We put out top-rated and viewed videos on YT calling for worldwide protests against Co$ and last Sunday, the 10th of February, they happened. All over the world. Nearly 10,000 of us strong. Some wearing Guy Fawkes masks, some wearing bandanas, some wearing smiles only. This is big. We're going out again on 3/15 again to protest the celebration of Church founder L. Ron Hubbard's birthday. I myself am in Clearwater, FL...not too far from Jimbo Wales in St. Pete. This is the "spiritual HQ" of The Church. Now there are plenty of "Anonymous" sites everywhere from YouTube to the Insurgent Wiki to Encyclopedia Dramatica. But this Misplaced Pages is the only place where one can get ubaised information. I've been using this for years, I just never tried to edit or anything and I'd rather be silent than screw anything up. But hear me out: we will not go away from our cause. We really belive that The Church is an evil cult and want to bring it down. Look at the facts: not one "Anonymous" was ticketed or arrested in the protests worldwide, from what I know. I have references and sources and all that but I don't know how to do this and I'm just so tired from fighting this cult. Can somebody help me please? OH SHIT now wikipedia wants to delete the Project Chanology page! I just opened another browser and saw it. I just get the sinking feeling that the Church of $cientology is behind all this. Well I've made my case. Sorry I rambled on but like I said I'm a newbie. Feel free to email me @ floridanon@live.com later. Right now I need to sleep. Thank you for your time. | |||
| :As you said, WP is a source for unbiased information. As such, the best way you can help (IMHO) is to help find sources to back up claims of previous anonymous actions (Hal Turner raid, Stickman raid), etc. Any past media coverage. You erroneously stated that Anonymous was formed in response to the Co$, and that is not true, based on available sources that predate the conflict. In addition, as a member of Anonymous, it would help the articles and your cause to increase media awareness of 3/15 events.] (]) 23:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::This anon speaks true things. Find sources and contribute. And don't be afraid of messing up. ], and if any editors get on you, just remind them ]. And yes, learning the history of Anon would be good. Anonymous, as a phenomenon, goes back to about '03, and picked up in '04. That's when the green cartoon characature was created, and the motto "Anonymous Does Not Forgive" was coined. Also, don't worry about the article actually being deleted. I'm not even bothering to weigh in, because ] is obviously in favor of keeping the article. The nomination for deletion wasn't even that serious to begin with.--] (]) 23:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Floridanon - you clearly know NOTHING about Anonymous if you think it began as a protest against Scientology. Kindly GTFO and LURK MOAR <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:09, 14 February 2008(UTC) | |||
| :^He's right. Anon has been around for years...are you even vaguely familiar with the Hal, Habbo, 'V would never do it', or Second Life raids (plus tons of others)? ] (]) 05:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| </small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ==What happened to the article?== | |||
| The article was much longer. What happened to all the content which was deleted without saying anything on the talk page? ] (]) 06:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :If you check the '''History''' tab, you can see past edits, and notes an editor might leave to explain the change. Seems ''someone'' felt the information provided didn't deserve to stay for various reasons. I agree that large edits should be discussed, but everything that is done can be quickly undone, so there usually isn't a problem to jump the gun and make a change without discussion. It's all a question of context. This article is new enough that nothing editors slaved over for hours upon hours was lost, and it can all still be accessed if we need to retrieve it. For now, I want to focus on getting more sources and then adding information as we go. That way, there can be no argument against additions. (Also, to easily make a new topic, hit the '''+''' tab, next to '''History'''.)--] (]) 06:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hell, I just checked your user page. You seem to be more experienced than I was led to believe. This article has been receiving a lot of attention from new editors, so I jumped to conclusions.--] (]) 06:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I was more curious why ] didn't say anything on the talk page about it. I don't mind that he removed a bunch of it, as a lot of it was poorly sourced (Wikichan is NOT a RS, nor is YouTube) but there's currently a deletion discussion going on and there was a lot of rescuable information. Its alright, probably a good way to get it sourced; I already found good sources for what Anonymous is and why they wore masks (though I'm currently looking for a site to source the V for Vendetta connection). ] (]) 07:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Would it be acceptable to source an image? Because Anonymous used screen captures from the final scene of the V for Vendetta film in fliers advertising the 2-10-08 event. You could simply say Anonymous encouraged the connection by including the imagery in their advertisements.--] (]) 07:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==/b/ tards== | |||
| can all the b tards stop stop vandalizing this page | |||
| all the content keeps getting deleted. | |||
| All the links, eg http://www.asyd.org was gone and was a very informative site, I learnt a lot from it. | |||
| Why is the only link 4chan? /b/ tards are constantly destorying this article | |||
| ] (]) 22:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You have no idea how unwise it is to make a request for restraint from a 'tard. You're irritation only brings them pleasure.--] (]) 04:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| /b/tards ARE anonymous. all edits by them are evidence to the organization's disruptiveness. This article Should not be on wikipedia, it has exactly the same problems as the GNAA article, if not more. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ==What needs to be said about Anonymous?== | |||
| This is a rather brief article currently, and I think there's more information about them out there beyond project chanology (such as the Fox report, though its reliability is probably more dubious than Wikichan's, sadly). What needs to be included in this article? | |||
| *Imageboards traditionally taken to be a part of anonymous? | |||
| *Past controversy? (The Fox thing, maybe, maybe some of the other stuff they've been involved with which has made newspapers?) | |||
| *Culture? | |||
| *Demographics? | |||
| Not sure what all we want/need. ] (]) 03:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I think that list covers it just fine, though not in that order. One distinction is that the image boards are not "part of Anonymous". Anonymous was birthed by them, makes up the majority of their users, and the subculture has expanded thanks to them, but they now exist outside of them easily thanks to saturation of user content in Web 2.0. An example of the relationship is that Project Chanology came into existence on an imageboard, but was moved off it and is now handled on wikis, a forum, and youtube. From my posts it should be obvious I want to talk about culture, which is really two things: '''Anonymous subculture''', and its '''Impact on internet culture'''. That's a distinction that needs to be made because Anonymous has always shunned exposure into the limelight before Project Chanology, and must now work to rehabilitate its image by explaining its members are ordinary people. | |||
| :Rules 1 & 2; shifting blame to eBaumsWorld; telling others to xenophobically "LURKMOAR!" rather than explain things; the in-joke that projects the image of a cryptic and mysteries entity, rather than to explain the when-who-what-where-why-how's of the group; the end result of all this is that they have their own subculture within the internet that is easily misunderstood. Since Anonymous wouldn't speak for itself, outsiders would and we get descriptions of "hackers on steroids" or "cyber terrorists". Only now is Anonymous stepping forward to talk about itself on radio and television interviews. | |||
| :We want to explain that, and those things you list, and could have had them already. The knowledge is documented, screen capped, and posted on their own wikis, some of which are more reliable than others. It's just a question of citation. We can't cite wikis, even the reliable ones. And the media is unreliable. An example of this convoluted problem would be cyber bullying. We've got the Fox11 report, but that was sensationalist. A better article would be one on internet bullying that references the Patriotic Nigras, a tiny group within Anonymous that struck out at ]. Any citation of would need to explain the connection, but there is no mention of it. You get better information from history essays on lurkmore.com and encyclopedia dramatica. At any rate, you can't get verification for it, so Anonymous can't be said to be involved even though we ''know'' it is. I'll give you another example: ]. When the artist of that song says he thinks 4chan is responsible for his success, we ''know'' that's because of Anonymous – but we can't say it because the media doesn't understand enough to report it. As you mention, this is why wikichan is more reliable than Fox11. | |||
| :If we restrict ourselves to just "respectable" sources, we are left with either inaccurate articles; maybe less than 5 useful Anon interviews written post-Project Chanology; or articles about different subjects that talks about the repercussions of Anonymous without acknowledging the relationship to Anonymous. Misplaced Pages's rules, mainstream ignorance, and Anonymous's desire to be an incoherent hate machine conspire to shoot this article in the foot.--] (]) 05:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 4chan is a cult like Scientology is. it has its own jargon and memes like scientology does. But at least it's FREE! ] (]) 06:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Anonymous is not a cult, fgt. The term cult implies all kinds of things, but I think we can all agree that a mass of people who all choose to act together voluntarily without the need of a leader of demogouge a cult. Also you missed the point entirely. This is an article about '''Anonymous''' not '''4chan'''. If you were to ask the avereage veteran anon what he thinks about 4chan, you normally get a reply that raged from average disgust to full blown hatred. | |||
| It is thus my conclusion that you sir, are a moron. | |||
| Cheers,<br />] (]) 06:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Oh, and cast, as a member of the PN, I can tell you that we have preciseley jack shit to do with Habbo. The group you're thinking of is poolsclosed.us... The PN are active in Second Life. | |||
| Cheers,<br />] (]) 06:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh, right, the boxes with the flags on them is from second life. Thanks for the correction.--] (]) 06:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Anonymous is merely people who want free information, as it should be. Co$ and the Phelps clan in Topeka, now those are cults. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| Hi all, I've never done anything on here before, but I had a thought. Anon is an collective that is very different from anything else that would be covered. Let me assure you, the only accurate sources of information that you will get will be from Wikichan on a lot of Anon's exploits. Encyclopedia Dramatica works to some extent as well, but Wikichan is better for pure information. These places are repositories of information put out by Anonymous itself. I would suggest a special section to the article dedicated to supposed exploits of Anonymous that cannot be truly confirmed under which Wikichan and maybe even ED would be allowable sources. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :I'm afraid a section like that would go against wiki policy, though I wish they could make an exception for it here, since I'm in total agreement with you. We'll both just have to learn to live with disappointment.--] (]) 04:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I see. I apologize, I'm not really that familiar with the specifics of the policy. How about talking about Wikichan itself? The article already states that Anonymous has connections to the *chans, so what if there was a section that said something like, "The unusual nature of Anonymous and the secretivity and xenophobia of its members, it is extremely difficult to document the history of the organization through conventional methods. Wikichan is a repository of information that generally has to do with Anonymous, although it does not conform to the same rules of conduct of Misplaced Pages, and therefore the information is questionable." Regardless of how questionable it is, however, the information on Wikichan is essentially Anonymous describing what Anonymous is, and it is very accurate even though it is not verifiable. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::If you review the history of the article, you'll see something like that was written in the earlier incarnations of the article, but this was removed because this statement could not be verified. You can't say "this place describes the article topic better than we can" without giving proof of that fact. Maybe you can get away with putting it in the '''External links''' section. Not sure about that. I'd have to review the policy on external links. (and read the talk header at the top of this page to learn how to do a few things on this talk page. this article is attracting a lot of new blood, so it'll help you and others)--] (]) 01:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == V for Vendetta masks - source == | |||
| Not sure if this should go in the Chanology wiki or here. ] (]) 10:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It's just fine for this article, but under the chanology sub-section. If there is eventually a source on the importance of the mask from an "Anon" perspective -- that is, one that talks about its status as a meme -- then you can add that to a section on Anon-culture.--] (]) 04:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Some minor corrections. == | |||
| * Firstly, the "v masks" are ] masks. | |||
| * Not all of Annon are hackers. If you wish to discuss the militant elements of Anonymous, they have a name the /i/nsurgency | |||
| A word of warning to any trigger happy Admins as well, don't drop the Banhammer on those of us who edit this article, because Anon and Wikipedians come from the exact same stock. | |||
| <font face="Nasalization" color="#003300">]</font><sup>] 23:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Addendum: I personally keep Misplaced Pages inviolate, and am proud to take part but requests to hold off will probably be met with the phrase "Your resistance only makes my penis harder" | |||
| <font face="Nasalization" color="#003300">]</font><sup>] 23:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::While the V masks are indeed Guy Fawkes masks, if you watch the overture compilation video, it is obvious that they are not only Guy Fawkes masks, but symbols of V. ] (]) 03:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Another possible source == | |||
| ] (]) 06:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Need Sources related to PN == | |||
| We know that Patriotic Nigras (PN) are an /i/nvasion subgroup of Anonymous, but are there any secondary sources that confirm this? Their links the two, but a WP:RS would be great. | |||
| * Good source related to /b/tards, goons, and PNs - but no mention of Anonymous to link them all together. | |||
| * And possibly another one, if someone has access to ] (]) 02:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : has a couple of paragraphs on them. Also, you can list their website in the external links. And don't forget .--] (]) 04:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| The link that the OP posted is hideously outdated. patrioticnigras.org is our current site. | |||
| Cheers, | |||
| --] (]) 04:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :PN has nothing to do with the "Anonymous" documented in this article. - ] <small><sup>]]</sup></small> 11:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Lead == | |||
| The lead makes absolutely no sense at all. "The self-styled Anonymous (used as a mass noun) are the multitude of visitors to various imageboards." Huh? Isn't Anonymous the name of a hacker group? It reads like someone combined the definition of Anonymous with the group identity. I was trying to re-write it, but I don't even know where to start because I have no idea what the original authors where trying to say. It is in serious need of a rewrite. ] (]) 16:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It's probably for the best, since you don't know what Anonymous is. Reading this talk page, you'd get a better idea than reading the actual article. Anonymous is not a group of hackers. There are hackers within Anonymous, but though we don't have statistics, the fraction of them is mostly likely very, very small. I'd guess nowhere bigger than 1% or 2%. And yes, Anonymous was originated on imageboards, and this is where you still find them congregating in large numbers, and where the dynamics of imageboards give rise to all of their memes. And if you want to know what the original authors were shooting for, just look back in the history logs. The description has yet to be changed by anyone and has remained consistent.--] (]) 18:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Point taken, but how is the average reader to understand? You are right, I don't know what Anonymous is, and after reading the article I still don't know. The average reader shouldn't have to read the talk archives to figure out what the article is supposed to be telling them. ] (]) 18:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is a rather chaotic article. We can't cite some of the best "sources" on the subject, because they are not verifiable, and the majority of verifiable sources give information we know to be incorrect, but we can't put up counter information as it barely exists. What we need to find are sources that are accurate on the subject. We have a few now on this talk page, but we've yet to incorporate them into the article. I don't have the time now -- maybe soon. If you want to pitch in, check a few subtopics in the talk page, bring yourself up to speed, confirm any sources given, and get cracking.--] (]) 18:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It makes perfect sense if you don't have preconceptions about what Anonymous is before you read the article. In fact, it's a much better summary than I've seen elsewhere. - ] <small><sup>]]</sup></small> 12:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Rename== | |||
| I have no objections to completely deleting this article, but if it is kept, it should be renamed "Anonymous Internet posts". ] (]) 20:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Not a group == | |||
| Anonymous is not a group or organization any more than punks or nerds are. It could more accurately be referred to as a cultural movement or as a symbolic concept. --] (]) 20:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == canadian medal of freedom == | |||
| there should be a section about the canadian pedophile that got caught with the help of Anonymous | |||
| http://torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGTA/2007/12/07/4712438-sun.html | |||
| encyclopediadramatica.com/Internet_Vigilante_Group | |||
| the toronto sun link is no longer accessible for free, there is only the incipit. too bad. | |||
| You can see the entire article here: http://neoengel.livejournal.com/173798.html | |||
| It's a blog post that reports the entire article, I found it googling the first sentence of the Toronto Sun article ( ) | |||
| ] (]) 14:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :But does it make any reference to the group "Anonymous"? It only uses the term "cyber-vigilantes", which is far too generic. ] (]) 11:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Merge proposal == | |||
| Is this allowed? I thought the issue of merging was also settled in the ] closed today. I'm sorry, but this feels akin to a ] ] to me. ] (]) 12:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes. Consensus was not to delete, and that's it. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 12:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Considering that you are in favour of the "]" section, and that the "]" section is practically just a heavily condensed summary of the ] article, then there would be nothing to merge save two trivial sentences from the lead. The net effect would be identical to deletion, thus my earlier mention of a ] ]. | |||
| ::Note to other editors: The removal of the "]" section is presently being ]. Feel free to contribute. ] (]) 13:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is an argument that frequently makes its rounds in the WP:EPISODE area - deletion, in terms of Misplaced Pages, is an administrative action that removes the page's history from view. Seeing as a merge does not do this, it isn't deletion. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 15:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The consensus expressed in the AFD was to retain the '''article''', not to retain the article's page history. Participants could easily have !voted "merge" or "redirect" (as happens regularly in other AFDs) if they were solely interested in preserving the history. It is clear that the prevailing opinion at the AFD was against a merge as well. ] (]) 16:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose merge, keep article.''' -- I agree with {{user|CounterFX}}, consensus from the AfD was to '''Keep''' the article, a merge discussion this soon afterwards is pointless and skirting disruption. ] (]) 16:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *The AFD established that the subject is notable. However, it hasn't established that the subject is ''independently'' notable. I don't think we need 8KB page as a sub-article of a 40KB page when we can do exactly the same with 41KB page. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 16:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose merge''' The Anonymous article was created as a seperate article because the editiors on ] felt that there was too much off topic stuff involved to create a sub section. I am currently confused about why to merge other than the fact that it can be done. This is the first time I have heard of a topic beeing notable but not independantly notable. "ok, ok, everyone agrees it is notable...but is it ''independantly'' notable?" Right now it does look like a sub-article, but the potential scope of this article goes way beyond ]. Merging will cause the project chanology page to become cluttered with off topic information.] (]) 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *:There really isn't. Apart from the FOX report, whose suitability is question, there's only two sentences that deal with anything about Project Chanology. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 16:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::there really isn't...what? mabie I am having a stupid moment, but could you clarify your last statement. I can't seem to make sence of what you are talking about.] (]) 17:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ''']''': That is your interpretation. People were well-aware of the existence of the ] article during the ] – in fact, the itself stated: "''The article was created in response to ] not having enough context to really understand who the group is.''" To proceed with the merge, you would have to gather enough consensus to overturn the AFD result – and that should only be attempted after "allow a reasonable amount of time to pass". Provided that no other editor objects, I am closing the merge proposal here, since proceeding with the !vote would be in violation of the ] unless its scope can be demonstrated to be distinct from the AFD. ] (]) 16:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:24, 18 February 2008
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anonymous (hacker group) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
HAY GUYS I LIKE BABIES, 0-1 YEAR OLD. I AM NEVERTHELESS A COMPLETELY HEALTHY AND SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE HUMAN BEING.FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD NEVER FUCK A BABY UNLESS THEY WOULD ASK ME TO. OF COURSE, IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT BABIES ARE SEXUAL BEINGS, AND NEVER HESITATE TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS, AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THEIR LOVE FOR FEMALE BREASTS. AND AS BABIES ARE KNOWN TO BE SHY, IT IS NATURAL THAT I INITIATE THE ENCOUNTER, AFTER MAKING SURE THE BABY UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN. IF THE BABY IS NOT OK WITH THIS, IT IS FREE TO SAY "NO, I AM NOT OK WITH THIS" AND I WILL RESPECTFULLY STOP.
MARK, TELL US, WHY DID YOU BUTTFUCK XENU? Why MONGO?
faggot
HAY GUYS I LIKE BABIES, 0-1 YEAR OLD. I AM NEVERTHELESS A COMPLETELY HEALTHY AND SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE HUMAN BEING.FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD NEVER FUCK A BABY UNLESS THEY WOULD ASK ME TO. OF COURSE, IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT BABIES ARE SEXUAL BEINGS, AND NEVER HESITATE TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS, AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THEIR LOVE FOR FEMALE BREASTS. AND AS BABIES ARE KNOWN TO BE SHY, IT IS NATURAL THAT I INITIATE THE ENCOUNTER, AFTER MAKING SURE THE BABY UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN. IF THE BABY IS NOT OK WITH THIS, IT IS FREE TO SAY "NO, I AM NOT OK WITH THIS" AND I WILL RESPECTFULLY STOP.
NIGGERS
HAY GUYS I LIKE BABIES, 0-1 YEAR OLD. I AM NEVERTHELESS A COMPLETELY HEALTHY AND SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE HUMAN BEING.FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD NEVER FUCK A BABY UNLESS THEY WOULD ASK ME TO. OF COURSE, IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT BABIES ARE SEXUAL BEINGS, AND NEVER HESITATE TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS, AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THEIR LOVE FOR FEMALE BREASTS. AND AS BABIES ARE KNOWN TO BE SHY, IT IS NATURAL THAT I INITIATE THE ENCOUNTER, AFTER MAKING SURE THE BABY UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN. IF THE BABY IS NOT OK WITH THIS, IT IS FREE TO SAY "NO, I AM NOT OK WITH THIS" AND I WILL RESPECTFULLY STOP.
MARK, TELL US, WHY DID YOU BUTTFUCK XENU? Why MONGO?
faggot
HAY GUYS I LIKE BABIES, 0-1 YEAR OLD. I AM NEVERTHELESS A COMPLETELY HEALTHY AND SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE HUMAN BEING.FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD NEVER FUCK A BABY UNLESS THEY WOULD ASK ME TO. OF COURSE, IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT BABIES ARE SEXUAL BEINGS, AND NEVER HESITATE TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS, AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THEIR LOVE FOR FEMALE BREASTS. AND AS BABIES ARE KNOWN TO BE SHY, IT IS NATURAL THAT I INITIATE THE ENCOUNTER, AFTER MAKING SURE THE BABY UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN. IF THE BABY IS NOT OK WITH THIS, IT IS FREE TO SAY "NO, I AM NOT OK WITH THIS" AND I WILL RESPECTFULLY STOP.
NIGGERS
HAY GUYS I LIKE BABIES, 0-1 YEAR OLD. I AM NEVERTHELESS A COMPLETELY HEALTHY AND SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE HUMAN BEING.FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD NEVER FUCK A BABY UNLESS THEY WOULD ASK ME TO. OF COURSE, IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT BABIES ARE SEXUAL BEINGS, AND NEVER HESITATE TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS, AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THEIR LOVE FOR FEMALE BREASTS. AND AS BABIES ARE KNOWN TO BE SHY, IT IS NATURAL THAT I INITIATE THE ENCOUNTER, AFTER MAKING SURE THE BABY UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN. IF THE BABY IS NOT OK WITH THIS, IT IS FREE TO SAY "NO, I AM NOT OK WITH THIS" AND I WILL RESPECTFULLY STOP.
MARK, TELL US, WHY DID YOU BUTTFUCK XENU? Why MONGO?
faggot
HAY GUYS I LIKE BABIES, 0-1 YEAR OLD. I AM NEVERTHELESS A COMPLETELY HEALTHY AND SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE HUMAN BEING.FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD NEVER FUCK A BABY UNLESS THEY WOULD ASK ME TO. OF COURSE, IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT BABIES ARE SEXUAL BEINGS, AND NEVER HESITATE TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS, AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THEIR LOVE FOR FEMALE BREASTS. AND AS BABIES ARE KNOWN TO BE SHY, IT IS NATURAL THAT I INITIATE THE ENCOUNTER, AFTER MAKING SURE THE BABY UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN. IF THE BABY IS NOT OK WITH THIS, IT IS FREE TO SAY "NO, I AM NOT OK WITH THIS" AND I WILL RESPECTFULLY STOP.
NIGGERS
HAY GUYS I LIKE BABIES, 0-1 YEAR OLD. I AM NEVERTHELESS A COMPLETELY HEALTHY AND SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE HUMAN BEING.FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD NEVER FUCK A BABY UNLESS THEY WOULD ASK ME TO. OF COURSE, IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT BABIES ARE SEXUAL BEINGS, AND NEVER HESITATE TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS, AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THEIR LOVE FOR FEMALE BREASTS. AND AS BABIES ARE KNOWN TO BE SHY, IT IS NATURAL THAT I INITIATE THE ENCOUNTER, AFTER MAKING SURE THE BABY UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN. IF THE BABY IS NOT OK WITH THIS, IT IS FREE TO SAY "NO, I AM NOT OK WITH THIS" AND I WILL RESPECTFULLY STOP.
MARK, TELL US, WHY DID YOU BUTTFUCK XENU? Why MONGO?
faggot
HAY GUYS I LIKE BABIES, 0-1 YEAR OLD. I AM NEVERTHELESS A COMPLETELY HEALTHY AND SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE HUMAN BEING.FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD NEVER FUCK A BABY UNLESS THEY WOULD ASK ME TO. OF COURSE, IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT BABIES ARE SEXUAL BEINGS, AND NEVER HESITATE TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS, AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THEIR LOVE FOR FEMALE BREASTS. AND AS BABIES ARE KNOWN TO BE SHY, IT IS NATURAL THAT I INITIATE THE ENCOUNTER, AFTER MAKING SURE THE BABY UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN. IF THE BABY IS NOT OK WITH THIS, IT IS FREE TO SAY "NO, I AM NOT OK WITH THIS" AND I WILL RESPECTFULLY STOP.
NIGGERS
HAY GUYS I LIKE BABIES, 0-1 YEAR OLD. I AM NEVERTHELESS A COMPLETELY HEALTHY AND SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE HUMAN BEING.FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD NEVER FUCK A BABY UNLESS THEY WOULD ASK ME TO. OF COURSE, IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT BABIES ARE SEXUAL BEINGS, AND NEVER HESITATE TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS, AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THEIR LOVE FOR FEMALE BREASTS. AND AS BABIES ARE KNOWN TO BE SHY, IT IS NATURAL THAT I INITIATE THE ENCOUNTER, AFTER MAKING SURE THE BABY UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN. IF THE BABY IS NOT OK WITH THIS, IT IS FREE TO SAY "NO, I AM NOT OK WITH THIS" AND I WILL RESPECTFULLY STOP.
MARK, TELL US, WHY DID YOU BUTTFUCK XENU? Why MONGO?
faggot
HAY GUYS I LIKE BABIES, 0-1 YEAR OLD. I AM NEVERTHELESS A COMPLETELY HEALTHY AND SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE HUMAN BEING.FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD NEVER FUCK A BABY UNLESS THEY WOULD ASK ME TO. OF COURSE, IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT BABIES ARE SEXUAL BEINGS, AND NEVER HESITATE TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS, AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THEIR LOVE FOR FEMALE BREASTS. AND AS BABIES ARE KNOWN TO BE SHY, IT IS NATURAL THAT I INITIATE THE ENCOUNTER, AFTER MAKING SURE THE BABY UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN. IF THE BABY IS NOT OK WITH THIS, IT IS FREE TO SAY "NO, I AM NOT OK WITH THIS" AND I WILL RESPECTFULLY STOP.
NIGGERS