4 ms·
I struggle with that article; the "leaked" email it links to is so incredibly poorly-written, I can't see any way to take the rest of it seriously: http://past
by mootothemax 12y ago
I struggle with that article; the "leaked" email it links to is so incredibly poorly-written, I can't see any way to take the rest of it seriously:
http://pastebin.com/RmqxWcnB http://pastebin.com/RmqxWcnB
The fun thing is: even if it was an elaborate secret-service recruitment drive, I'd feel a bit let down that it wasn't something "more."
- vex 12y agoLike the header says, it had been paraphrased/had structure modified to remove watermarking elements unique to each individual it was sent to.
- mootothemax 12y agoLike the header says, it had been paraphrased/had structure modified to remove watermarking elements unique to each individual it was sent to. Yeah, that's kind of what I mean as well. If it'd been written to only a few people, there are an incredible number of ways to watermark the content. E.g. did all of the emails even include a questionnaire? Were some emails 5 words long, and others 5 paragraphs? I guess the easy/lazy way would be to tailor the questions to each unique email. Basically, I think the sanitation excuse is a bit too convenient, and an attempt to buy into the super-secret mythology.
- kawsper 12y agoI like that a group that claims to go without a name signs their emails with "3301".
- snsr 12y agoIt is terribly written - maybe as a form of disguise?