Comments:Vandalism on online epilepsy forum triggers convulsions
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
Refer to the comments on the Slashdot link to this article for more information as to whether or not this was perpetrated by the "same" Anonymous which is fighting against the legitimacy of the Church of Scientology. link
Hackers didn't do this, you moron. Vandals did it. Can someone please rename this article?. This is just too dumb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.16.141.231 (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. This is really stupid and sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.207.11 (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I concur as well. The term hacker is a complete mislabel in this circumstance. "hacker" doesn't even technically have a negative denotation. If anything, the appropriate word is cracker. Rekov - (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Calling them hackers is plain stupid.
These are not hackers. When you upload an image to a forum, it is not 'hacking'. This is hooliganism at best. This is almost as bad as when ABC news called them "Church of Anonymous" or how about fox's "Internet Hate Machine" like come on, is there any real journalism left?
Read the dictionary, that is what anonymous is. its a bunch of people who don't want their names known. This covers pretty much every positive and negative group you can think of. Placing every single person who calls himself anonymous into the category of 'hacker' or 'cyber terrorist' or anything, is pathetic.
unfortunately everyone wants to cash in on the latest internet phenomenon, so here we all are bashing it, joining it, crying about it... and nobody even seems to know what the hell it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.41.245 (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This isn't the first attack on epilepsy forums. The giefers at 7chan did it last November too. The NSE forums have been attacked numerous times over the last few years too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.146.162 (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It was Scifags, not Anon. Anon's alignment is Chaotic Neutral; we do not attack innocents. Zadernet - (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This was caused by Scientology, scientology was trying to blame this on anonymous, it has been confirmed on many of anonymous websites —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.97.97.106 (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
More 'Blaming Anon' Criticisms
[edit]Anon isn't even a formal group, doesn't have a formal roster, doesn't have a code of anything. How could you blame an attack on them? Fephisto - (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. It is like saying the democratic party is responsible for an attack if a democrat makes a bomb threat. Well, maybe a smaller party, like the green party, but the metaphor still stands. (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is the Pokemon epsiode mentioned here? That happened ages ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.167.59 (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)