Real clever to lock previous bread at 666 replies.
Someone refreshed to remove the count of deleted posts
>You are not the arbiter of who is or isn't Anon
Correct. But terms have meaning. And Anon is such a term.
>not sure it can be learned.
It can, but it's hard for narcissists.
^^^^ Nothing more nothing less.
>You got style, Anon.
Why, thank you anon. I do think I'm pretty stylish if I may say so myself.
I challenge you to copy my "style".
>I use Anon to refer to an individual Anon, or say Anons, plural, to refer to the group here.
So do I.
>To you the word Anon obviously means a homogenous group apparently
No… I was talking about individual anons.
>it's not wise to assume
Irony. kek.
>Better luck next time.
Likewise.
>Individuals can definitely have style.
Definitely.
>Shills try and imitate it
If shills can imitate you specific "style", it's more than a style.
>narcissist, a word you happened to use as well
Because that's what it boils down to. Why cry about someone copying your "style" if not for narcissistically thinking you have some special claim to the way you post? kek
Well done. I can definitely tell you are copying me and not some other random anon. Kek.
>Many of the namefags (and some non-, too)
We call the non-namefags you're referring to famefags.
My point stands. if you, by naming yourself or otherwise posting in a way that makes readily identifiable as an individual you are no longer anon. As anon is short for Anonymous, and the moment you can be identified/singled out you are no longer anonymous.
>He's thus still technically anon is he not?
No he's not.
He's the individual known as Tranime.
He can be singled out as an individual and is therefore not anon. He can chose to be anon, by posting without his identifiable traits, but the moment he re-engages said traits he is no longer anon again.
His dox are irrelevant to his status as anon.
>Gonna have to poi dog ponder that one.
I clearly laid my point. It's not hard to understand.
I don't need to know your name or where you live to single you out.
This conversation sprang from a discussion about "style"
>Yeah, but new tangents come up during the stream.
You are either stupid or deliberately obtuse.
I was saying that "style" too is an identifier used to single posters out.
>Can't single them out without moar info in subsequent posts that combines into sharper specifics.
Right.
So if you can't single them out what does that make them…?
I have argued from the start that "style" is meaningless and only narcissists are crying about "shill" imitating them.
Can't believe I almost missed you.
>Bow to their wisdom as they define the conditions for everyone of what it means to be "Anon."
Define anonymity differently for me then?
>Personal details does not equal address, name, photo, phone number
Great, because no one said it did.
>In a time of war where you need to work together anonymously and the enemy is also trying to mingle in that same sphere of anonymity and fool others, how do you convey good intent?
Post good shit?
>They say the personal details as narcissism apparently
Never said that. Kek, you can build a farm with all those strawmen.
> I was opening up without fear to show honest intent, or at least that's how I saw it. KEK!
Good for you! It doesn't change the fact that if anons can identify you individually you are not anon.
>I'm posting under anonymity but I don't claim to be affiliated with that fed controlled faggotry called "Anonymous."
Why you bringing those faggots up now?
Me saying you are not anon, unlike how others might use it here doesn't mean that you are "the enemy", it means that you are not anonymous. As I have stated multiple times now, because anonymous cannot be singled out. Anon is anon, nothing more nothing less.
>There are levels to Anon and even Not Anon.
Agreed.
As pointed out to my obtuse friend
>>He can chose to be anon, by posting without his identifiable traits, but the moment he re-engages said traits he is no longer anon again.
Gotta love your hit'n'run posts.
>their version of anonymity where everyone is the same
You starting a strawman bussiness?
>ounds an awful like communism under anonymity to me
When you lie about my stance to make it sound like communism, it sure does. Kek.
>I prefer freedom in my anonymity.
Irony is off the fucking charts. KEK
>What became the face of "Anonymous?" Some faggot mask where everyone's face is the same perhaps? Now illegal migrants in the UK wear those masks to antagonize the native born populace.
What does that have, at all, to do with our conversation about anonymity and being anon?
So, normies decided that spoopy internet villains in guy fawkes masks calling them selves "anonymous" were cool. Ok?
>How 'bout them apples for a straw man.
Gotta give it to you, you're good.
>I stated my stance. It's not about you and it's kind of…
And you stance was to opposing the stance you described me having, which was clearly wrong and a misread (deliberately or not) of my post.
I'm having fun, you?
>Ah, so me opposing your stance is clearly wrong
Now you are being a nigger.
It's not what I said. But you clearly have no problems misrepresenting others views.
Is it deliberate or pathological?
NO. YOU CAN'T GO. I NEED TO KNOW WHO YOU KNOW I AM. IM SO FUCKING SCARED RIGHT NOW!
kek, you're like a child
It's funny how they claim to "know" who you are, when they are the only ones playing famefags.
Idk… something about style.
~~afterthought~~
"SPAMALAM"
@753