3 ms·

Are you are aware it's not actually context if you quote some completely different website you've never mentioned in the thread before? If you'd had actually q

Are you are aware it's not actually context if you quote some completely different website you've never mentioned in the thread before? If you'd had actually quoted from those links initially when making your comments about script kiddies and hactivists your statements would have made sense. But you didn't and instead of realising this you seems to prefer being outraged that nobody could read your mind to find the context you intended but never provided.

rvz 5y ago
> Are you are aware it's not actually context if you quote some completely different website you've never mentioned in the thread before? The whole context of this story is covered by multiple articles and all of them are completely relevant and happened BEFORE GoDaddy ultimately took action to de-platform the website. I assume you also read the Gizmodo article. If you did, you'll find that the article mentions and linked various methods used to directly attack the website which can be described as 'script-kiddie' and 'hacktivism' behaviour, before they themselves suggested their own effective method in getting GoDaddy to de-platform the website. To go further, I substantiated all of my claims with other relevant and reputable sources that gives more detail and covers the context of the whole story. Not just Gizmodo's ones. The whole story cannot be covered with only one source from one news site. So, had you 'actually' read the article rather than only just the title in the first place like many others in this thread, you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself with laughable nonsense like '4d chess type of sarcasm trap' and resorting to baseless suggestions that I directly accused GoDaddy Inc. of taking down the website as 'hacking' or them being 'hacktivists' themselves.
- NelsonMinar 5y ago
  On second thought, apparently you do understand what the term "script-kiddies" means. The real problem in your original sentence "What have these 'script-kiddies' and 'hacktivists' achieved" is that you misused the word "these". Looking forward to your 1500 word rebuttal with citations about the validity of strawman arguments.
  - rvz 5y ago
    > The real problem in your original sentence "What have these 'script-kiddies' and 'hacktivists' achieved" is that you misused the word "these". If you had read the Gizmodo article, you would find that they mentioned that '...trolls flooded the digital tip line with everything from Shrek porn to phony tips' and linked another previously reported article which again covers the methods used to attack and flood the website, before then detailing to others about another effective way to get GoDaddy to shut down the website for ToS violations. These sort of flooding and attacks are what can be described as script-kiddie and hacktivist behaviour as I already said before. I assumed you have at least 'read' the Gizmodo article and its links. You clearly have not. When asked to elaborate further on your original claim of '...misusing the terms "script-kiddies" and "hacktivists"' you couldn't substantiate anything. Now you retreat to attacking another 'argument' and thinking I misused the word 'these'. So even after bringing up more relevant links and citations to support my own claims on top of what Gizmodo already mentioned, another person who also didn't read the article now says it makes sense and then you suggest I'm defending a strawman argument? Have I just proved that both of you just read only the title of the Gizmodo article?

rvz 5y ago

> Are you are aware it's not actually context if you quote some completely different website you've never mentioned in the thread before? The whole context of this story is covered by multiple articles and all of them are completely relevant and happened BEFORE GoDaddy ultimately took action to de-platform the website. I assume you also read the Gizmodo article. If you did, you'll find that the article mentions and linked various methods used to directly attack the website which can be described as 'script-kiddie' and 'hacktivism' behaviour, before they themselves suggested their own effective method in getting GoDaddy to de-platform the website. To go further, I substantiated all of my claims with other relevant and reputable sources that gives more detail and covers the context of the whole story. Not just Gizmodo's ones. The whole story cannot be covered with only one source from one news site. So, had you 'actually' read the article rather than only just the title in the first place like many others in this thread, you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself with laughable nonsense like '4d chess type of sarcasm trap' and resorting to baseless suggestions that I directly accused GoDaddy Inc. of taking down the website as 'hacking' or them being 'hacktivists' themselves.

NelsonMinar 5y ago
On second thought, apparently you do understand what the term "script-kiddies" means. The real problem in your original sentence "What have these 'script-kiddies' and 'hacktivists' achieved" is that you misused the word "these". Looking forward to your 1500 word rebuttal with citations about the validity of strawman arguments.
- rvz 5y ago
  > The real problem in your original sentence "What have these 'script-kiddies' and 'hacktivists' achieved" is that you misused the word "these". If you had read the Gizmodo article, you would find that they mentioned that '...trolls flooded the digital tip line with everything from Shrek porn to phony tips' and linked another previously reported article which again covers the methods used to attack and flood the website, before then detailing to others about another effective way to get GoDaddy to shut down the website for ToS violations. These sort of flooding and attacks are what can be described as script-kiddie and hacktivist behaviour as I already said before. I assumed you have at least 'read' the Gizmodo article and its links. You clearly have not. When asked to elaborate further on your original claim of '...misusing the terms "script-kiddies" and "hacktivists"' you couldn't substantiate anything. Now you retreat to attacking another 'argument' and thinking I misused the word 'these'. So even after bringing up more relevant links and citations to support my own claims on top of what Gizmodo already mentioned, another person who also didn't read the article now says it makes sense and then you suggest I'm defending a strawman argument? Have I just proved that both of you just read only the title of the Gizmodo article?