Thoughts about ‘Anonymous’ and the #occupy protests

Why is ‘Anonymous’ so much on my ‘radar’ now?

Couple of reasons…

They are, well, enigmatic…  When a big company picks on little guys – and this appears on their radar – they kick but.  Their aims are altruistic – perhaps idealistic – at least for now.  And they are big-time fans of freedom of speech!

They are techies who are kicking some slick behinds – you have GOT to love that!  (OK, I am indulging in a bit of tribalism here – even if the ‘tribe’ is diffuse and I don’t know them personally. I suspect that most of the people behind Anonymous are Aspies or have strong Aspie tendencies:  they are, after all, techies.  And I like to think that I am rather good at playing ‘spot the Aspie’.  The rules they pick and the way they adhere to them:  very Aspie-like…)

We are still full of the #occupy news….and Anonymous was there first.  No, I don’t think that the majority of people who are there now are in any way connected to Anonymous, but, please, consider the following:

  • before anything happened, Anonymous announced the protests and said to look for them there, on Wall St.
  • when the occupation of Wall St. first started, there was an almost complete news blackout on it
  • Anonymous had hacked into some local CCTV cameras and streamed the signal – that was, at the very beginning, the ONLY coverage of the event
  • then, as time went on, the professional protesters and their media henchmen began to trickle in…and Anonymous disappeared from the picture…
  • now, the protests are creatures of the professional protesters and the big money behind them – including semi-official backing by the US President and his minions, with absolutely no role played by Anonymous (that I can discern)

It is not a coincidence that the vast majority of the people protesting in the #occupy movement have no idea what they want to accomplish with this protest:  it is not a ‘regular’ protest of the sort where people want to accomplish a specific goal, analyze the approaches to achieving this goal and then choose protesting as their tool.  Rather, I suspect, this may have been a bit of an experiment…

…an experiment to see IF Anonymous can harness the power of the professional protest organizers when they need to – and to get an idea of how it would play out.

…an experiment to see how ‘neurotypicals’ (non-techies/non-Aspies) would react and behave, to gage their intelligence, initiative and individuality – or lack thereof in this type of a situation.  How soon and how deeply would ‘mob mentallity’ set in?

…an experiment to see whether ‘if we build it, they will come’ would work with protests.

Recently, when an Islamist group doc-dropped/outed Thunderf00t and his family members and threatened them by urging ‘all Muslims to do their duty’ because he dares to criticize Islam (he criticizes all irrational belief systems – systematically and effectively), Thunderf00t dropped the name of Anonymous as his protectors….and potential avengers!

Which got me thinking:  this is not the first time Thunderf00t has talked about Anonymous in his videos.  So, I went back and looked through his earliest material.  Here it is:

Interesting, is it not?

But there is more here, here, here, here (note the Guy Fawkes mask in the background) and here.

Not just in what Thunderf00t says – and how he says it, but also in how fascinated Anonymous is by Scientology.  Remember how, a few years back, they tried to build some sort of a movement against that cult?  I wonder if this is an indication of their fascination in how brainwashed neurotypical behave in groups … or the source of this fascination.

Don’t get me wrong – I do not think Anonymous has bad intentions.  I rather suspect that they are attempting to figure out how to help neurotypicals help themselves from self-imposed servitude (if this was not a full fledged attempt of its own to get them to help themselves).

But experiments/projects can go wrong – and more people than just Anonymous are keenly watching this and taking notes.

14 Responses to “Thoughts about ‘Anonymous’ and the #occupy protests”

  1. CodeSlinger Says:


    Well, if you’re right, then the experiment has gone very wrong, and Anonymous has breathed life into their own worst nightmare.

    The globalist totalitarians are now in complete control of the #occupy movement.

    What is the first thing we see on the wikipedia page you linked to?

    A sign demanding “Global Democracy NOW”.

    Just who do they think will run this global democracy?

    These poor, deluded fools are begging – no, demanding – to be enslaved by the self same plutocratic oligarchs against whom they think they are protesting.

    They are clamouring for the New World Order against which they think they are fighting.

    End well, this will not.

    Xanthippa says: Codeslinger,

    My very vague guess is that Anonymous wanted to see IF these people were savable.

    But, this is only a guess and I have no facts to support this, only a vague suggestion of a pattern in what I suspect are their actions.

  2. psema4 Says:


    Although I haven’t posted here since my original comments a few weeks back (an the Pirate Party of Canada), I find I keep coming back and reading though provoking posts like this one. I truly don’t know what to make of Anonymous.

    Several months ago I ran into a concept of theirs called “the plan.” Curious as to what it may be I ran a quick search and discovered that 3 phases were planned over the course of a year. I haven’t really gone back to review it, but if I recall correctly, the Occupy movement would be the second (or possibly the third) phase. If you haven’t seen it, you may find the video “What is The Plan?” interesting; it’s the video on the right-hand side of the homepage.

    For good or ill, these are interesting times and intriguing things are happening all around us. It’s good to know that others are keeping eyes & ears open and asking questions.

    Re: “End well, this will not.”

    This is my fear as regards Anonymous specifically, and Occupy generally; I worry that things could get out of hand very quickly. Then again, the status quo is not working for the vast majority (ie the 99% group) so something needs to be done.

    As usual I find myself stuck in a dichotomy of competing worldviews.

    (PS – Yoda rocks!)

    Xanthippa says: Yes, indeed. It is hard to see the pattern while it is emerging…

    I will go and watch the video: thank you!

  3. Mote thoughts about ‘Anonymous’ and the #occupy crowd « Xanthippa's Chamberpot Says:

    […] Posts How a 13-year-old rape victim's execution is being reportedAspergers and writingThoughts about 'Anonymous' and the #occupy protestsMarriage under Sharia – part 2Aspergers – a guide to my […]

  4. Anonymous has been picking some fights… « Xanthippa's Chamberpot Says:

    […] I have been intrigued by Anonymous, and have blogged my thoughts about them here and […]

  5. Collin Says:

    I am Aspie (so much for solidarity!), and recently I have been protesting Anonymous on progressive websites. Gwendolyn H. Barry said “You poor thing. Be well.” Other than being snarky, what do you think she means?

    Xanthippa says:

    Yes – Aspie power!

    As for what that person might have meant by the comment – perhaps she was expressing the futility of protesting against Anonymous.

    Protests usually only have the power to influence if the protest has the power to harm the reputation of the subject of the protest. It is, in other words, ‘public shaming’ – right?

    So, how could this bother ‘Anonymous’?

    They are not a solid entity or any sort of a well defined organization – so there is no way this protest would harm them economicaly. Its members are not known, so there is no way to hold any individuals accountable for their actions – so the ‘public shaming’ does not work on this level, either…

    So, what could your protest possibly accomplish?

    A few things: chiefly, however, it lets you openly and publicly express your opinion, so that people know that you disagree (or support) certain ideas and/or actions. But that is about you and your image, not about Anonymous and their image. As such, it may help define you in the public perception (if, say, later in life, you go into politics, you can stand up and show you publicly protested unlawful actions even way back when…).

    But that is not likely to affect Anonymous in the least.

    The aim – the goal, how things are supposed to be changed – of most protest is usually well defined before the protest itself taes place. (OK, this is precisely where – and why – the #occupy ‘protests’ failed: they failed to define concrete and definite goals that they wanted to achieve by the protest, so they did not know when or if they were ‘done’.)

    Once you know what end result you want to achieve, you need to select the tools through which you are most likely to succeed in achieving it. Will the protest be a walk, a sit-in, a ribbon campaign, a call for economic boycott, a flyer campaing, a petition – these are just some of the methods of ‘protesting’, and you must decide which actions would be most likely to get you the result you want.

    Now, I do not know the person you named, so it is impossible for me to assess her most likely motivations. However, I could see a person using these words to either be snarky or empathetic – t could go either way – while expressing the sentiment that the form of protest you were partaking in would not be likely to achieve significant results…

    Does that make sense?

  6. Collin Says:

    Yes. BTW, I noticed some conservative links on your blogroll. Please note that I am a staunch supporter of progressive ethics. My beef is with those who claim to be progressives, and who throw in a few token progressive articles, but whose main purpose is to advance a world-view just as hateful and fanciful as that of extreme conservatives.

    One reason I distance myself from the Occupy movement is that I don’t feel like part of the 99%. I’m not literally rich, but I have a richness of ideas that’s hard to describe.

    On the one hand, I believe that science and religion are compatible. On the other hand, I believe that science trumps religion on factual issues.

    On the one hand, I accept scientifically proven theories such as evolution and global warming. On the other hand, I reject all attempts to build religion-like rituals from these theories.

    Xanthippa says:

    What an interesting ‘basket of ideas’!!!

    And, I do mean that in its positive sense – just in case you thought I was mocking – I am not.

    Let me explain myself:

    My site contains a lot of ‘conservative’ links, that is true – but it also contains a lot of ‘progressive’ links….let me just state right off the bat that I tend to infuriate people on ALL sides of the political spectrum, because I tend to criticize ideas based on the principles from which they derive rather than on what political stripe they happen to be popular with right now.

    As such, I will promote ideas (and links) which promote individual rights and reject group identity of any kind (religion, race, culture, or whatever else based). Currently, there are very few people on the political ‘left’ who are brave enough to be true to these principles, which are not lefr-right based.

    At different times in history, the ‘individualist’ principle, or, as it is sometimes called, the ‘self-ownership principle’, was defended by ‘the left’. Now it is mostly appreciated only by people on ‘the right’, even though most people on the right are not happy with the reasoned results of principled self-ownership…

    If you believe that science and religion are compatible, it indicates that you have not yet studied either one. That you recognize that science trumps religion when it comes to facts shows that you are a reasoning human being.

    Please, never put ‘global warming’ in the same category as ‘evolution’.

    Evolution is a scientific theory which has been supported by evidence. In the latest bits, scientists have demonstrated – by doing it in the lab – that through environmental pressures it is possible to evole a multicellular life-form from single celled organism like yeast.

    Global Warming – or, more accurately, anthropogenic climate change – is a pseudo-scientific load of dingo’s kidneys, developed by scientific fraud with the purpose of getting money and power to a select group of people. It is not supported by observed evidence! Its predictions have been falsified! And – I do say this as a scientist myself.

  7. Collin Says:

    I was not born yesterday on these opinions. I have seen arguments develop for years. If you think I haven’t studied either science or religion, I shudder to think what you consider “studying”.

    There are some people on the “right” who think they own themselves. But aren’t they actually owned by conspiracy theories?

    And if you think your last paragraph carries any weight scientifically, it’s you who don’t know what science is. Firstly, it’s the same thing Ahran Yahya says about evolution. Secondly, what case do you have, involving original research into both weather and economics, that can explain why the consensus is wrong? What body of evidence is there about global climate over several years, including correlations between all available indicators, that you can show was first developed by scientists and then unanimously hidden by every scientist in the world? How does it show that ACC is actually not happening, rather than just disagreeing on the details?

    Note that debates about details are a major technique used to try to discredit evolution. There have been arguments in biology (e.g., the relationship between dinosaurs, gliders, and birds) that are much bigger than simply how to correlate the “hockey stick” data. Yet we would both agree that evolution is happening.

    P.S. If you’re thinking of responding to these questions with an anecdote, a list of websites and statistics loosely connected by an emotional screed, and an exhortation to discover the “truth”, don’t bother. I know very well that’s not science.

    Xanthippa says:

    Sorry to have got your back up, but…

    The reason science and religion are fundamentally incompatible has nothing to do with what they say, but in how they say it.

    If you have been following this blog, you will have noted that I have spent a lot of time and effort – many posts – (several years ago) going through this, step-by-step. It is far beyond the scope of one comment to explain, but let me give you a brief summary. (For details, feel free to go through my older posts.)

    ‘Religion’ derives from the word ‘religios’ (I maintain that the Jungian definition for ‘religion’ is still most valid, especially from the anthropological point of view, which is the direction from which an overall objective inquiry needs to approach the topic. Since you say you have studied this, I presume you are familiar with these basics.) As such, it is demonstrable that both the language and approach to reality description in religions is archetype-based, but with a twist which is region/time/culture specific.

    Once a religion is entrenched within a culture, the culture has a deeply vested interest in maintaining the established interpretations of the religion, due to the mutual feedback necessarily built in to the culture/archetype platform. Thus, heresy becomes not simply a matter of personal choice, but a dangerous political position.

    It also means that religions do not change based on new information.

    Science is a method of enquiry which is 100% evidence based. The goal of science is to describe reality as accurately as possible – without any regard on how the description will impact the cultural ‘status quo’. Scientists observe (collect data), form hypothesis – along with specific predictions which will confirm or falsify the hypothesis. Then, they present this hypothesis to othes scientist who do their best to disprove (falsify) the hypothesis.

    This is an essential step – without it, the confirmation by other scientists that the observations are consistent and repeatable by others who do not have a vested interest in proving the hypothsis to be true, a hypothsis cannot become a scientific theory. By definition.

    Only once several independent (and competing) groups of scientists have confirmed the validity of a hypothesis does it become accepted as a scientific theory. Even then, further refinements to the theory are constantly made as new data is observed. Far from being threatened by this process, most scientists feel happy when their own theories are supplanted by better, more refined ones: the goal – improving our ability to describe reality more accurately – has become just a little bit closer…

    One contradictory observation is enough to strike a scientific theory from the books: if it can be falsified even once, it is no longer a scientific theory.

    Religions, on the other hand, rely on ‘faith’ – not observations, for their validation. That is such a deep difference that the two cannot be reconciled. Either you accept evidence based on observed reality, or you accept evidence based on faith. You cannot do both! Not without being a hypocrite…

    Since you say you have studied science, I would be interested to know which discipline, so that I may use appropriate language. I myself am a physicist: I specialized in designing data acquisition systems, because scientists who specialize in various forms of research (like genetics) are specialist in that – not in how to collect data. So, they would call in people like me to ensure that they were measuring what they thought they were measuring. Therefore, I have developed a reasonable understanding of the technical jargon specific to many scientific fields. This is why I suggest that we speak in your speciality’s jargon, for clarity and simplicity.

    As to the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Climate Change, the case is very, very simple. The scientific data collected over the last decade does not support the predictions made by the IPCC report – or any of the major research groups instrumental in formulating the hypothesis. Since it has been directly falsified by rigorously documented data (and even Jones & co. admit this openly), ACC cannot be regarded as a scientific theory.

    Their predictions were wrong. This falsifies the hypothesis.

    What more needs to be said?

  8. Collin Says:

    It so happens I’ve read quite a bit from Jung’s book “Synchronicity”. He believed in a collective unconscious, a part of the mind that is identical in all people. Presumably he considered it a deity. He believed it contains the archetypes, which are the engines of reality.

    This theory is a religion, presumably a home-baked religion established by Jung himself. You are defining both religion and science through the lens of Jungism, and you find science good by those definitions. You are therefore demonstrating a compatibility between a religion (Jungism) and science. QED.

    I’ve studied math and computer programming in college. I’ve also read textbooks on relativity and quantum theory, although I don’t understand all of them. As to jargon, if you wish to use it, please stick to what it actually means. Please don’t turn it into misnomers like e.g. Deepak Chopra.

    As to ACC, the claim is that the global concentration of CO2 and the global yearly average temperature have both been increasing for at least the past ten years. The exact details may have been wrong, but what revisions are big enough to actually reverse which way we know either trend is going?

    Fraud happens sometimes among scientists. The Piltdown man was discovered to be a fake, and scientists debunked it. But the theory of evolution is much bigger than that one detail. Similarly, the IPCC said that the Himalayan ice caps will melt by 2035. It’s only 2012, and scientists have already debunked this statement. And thanks to the ability to track information online, we know where the statement comes from. Consider these articles (It’s said that Aspies take things literally, but it seems you’ve been more literal than I. I didn’t say no links at all. I was just trying to preclude the spam-type link lists often posted by fanatics.):

    This is something I suspected years ago, but didn’t seriously consider. It turns out I’m right: Political forces have sent a spy to discredit ACC by attaching an extra claim to it. Note that Pachauri has ties to the oil industry, which has a vested interest in casting doubt on ACC.

    We all have instinctive reactions to shocking news. Often we let these reactions rule, because we assume it’s our own intuition. However, there is always the possibility that the shocking event was manufactured to produce such a reaction. This is especially easy to do if the intended reaction is opposite to the one we’re on the lookout for. Many people suspect that ACC is a fraud and see every climate study as another attempt to get them to believe ACC. Upon hearing of Pachauri’s fraud, they consider themselves vindicated. However, the validity of ACC doesn’t hinge upon the Himalayas, and there’s no logical reason an oil shill would lobby in favor of ACC. However, it’s very logical that an oil shill would realize that the public is bracing for a pro-ACC hit, and could be swept away with an anti-ACC hit before they knew what happened. It’s the tactic of attacking from the unguarded side.

    Xanthippa says:

    You say: “Presumably he [Jung] considered it [collective subconscious] a deity.”

    If you have actually understood Jung’s writings, you would never presume such a ridiculous thing!

    Jung proposed that the collective subconscious was a physiological result of the way our brains evolved and processed experiences. As in, because the underlying hardware was similar in these aspects, it would follow these processing patterns. He believed higher levels were ‘shared’ with one’s ancestors, because there were specific genetic micro-variations in the brain which were reflected in similar physical processing of information.

    Archetypes are the ‘firmware’, if you will… There was nothing ‘religious’ about Jung’s understanding of the human brain – even if he did use it to interpret mystical and religious experiences and, at times, used religious language to do so… He thought they were wonderful, but ultimately biological in origin. How is that ‘a religion’?

    Are you just trolling? Because I have answered you in good faith, taking your assertions at face value. But if you base your whole argument on such an obviously erroneous ‘presumption’ – even self-identifying it as a presumption, yet drawing a simplistic conclusion from it anyway, then, perhaps, I was wrong and you are simply a troll.

    As to ACC: I was, actually, not referring to the Himalayan glaciers. Why? Because these predictions were never based on the hypothesis of ACC! (By the way: I did take the time to trace all the references to ‘peer-reviewed scientific publications’ in two random chapters of the last IPCC report. I followed each one of them up – yes, there were hundreds, but I thought it interesting. Most of the references I found were not published in scientific journals at all – many were actually government policy papers and not published scientific publications (peer reviewed or otherwise) at all. There was more ‘grey’ material than scientific material, by roughly 6:4 ratio.)

    The bit about the Himalayan glaciers was taken from a flyer by a political lobby group whose funding depends on ACC hysteria. It was flagged as ‘wrong’ during the IPCC process by the scientists reviewing it. Since the IPCC report was not, in reality, written by scientists but by political hacks , the scientists’ objections were over-ruled and the glacier claim was included in the IPCC report anyway.

    Many scientists actually sued the IPCC to have their name removed from the report because they said that scientific observations were being suppressed in order to promote a political agenda. Many scientists from the developing world also admitted that they were assigned to chapters which had nothing to do with their expertise and that they felt ‘out of their depth’ – and were blatantly manipulated by their political handlers (who, by the way, outnumber the scientists as ‘authors’ of the IPCC).

    However, this bit of fraud (the Himalayan ice) is so well known, I did not even really consider it worth mentioning. Nor was I addressing the corruption that the IPCC scientists have claimed has taken the IPCC report from the realm of science and into the realm of a policy paper.

    You have, yourself, raised the issue of fraud. Fine. I understand that when their funding is tied to showing that ACC is happening, scientists may be tempted towards fraud – and that we have sufficient evidence to suspect more than a trivial amount of fraud had occurred.

    However, I intentionally did not go there.

    Because I don’t need to.

    Fraudulently or not, the ACC crowd have made specific predictions about the temperatures: not just the amount of warming, but also where it occurs, what effects will be seen at specific altitudes above ground over what regions of the world, and so on. Honestly or not, they have forwarded a hypothesis with specific predictions.

    Not just the levels of warming, but also the patterns of warming predicted by ACC, have not happened. To the contrary, hard, observed data shows that they have most definitely NOT occurred. The small amount of warming which had happened has been seen in areas where the ACC claims it should not be seen…and the areas where we should have seen it according to ACC predictions have actually seen a cooling trend.

    This, regardless of anything else, has clearly falsified the ACC hypothesis.

    As for links – you can find numerous links supporting these statements in my earlier posts on this topic. I have done the homework of compiling them once already, and have published them for all the public to see. If you are interested, follow them up.

  9. Collin Says:

    I’ve read Jung’s book. I saw long arguments about reality being imaginary, and about telepathy and magical symbolism, and nothing about genetics. I know what I read. I don’t need a “study” to tell me what it’s “supposed to” mean.

    You started to compliment me, and then went immediately on to scold me for not participating in your dogma of war between religion and science. You say my acceptance of science shows I’m human, thus implying that if I don’t agree with what you call science you might call me inhuman.

    You tout the book showing that the IPCC has political support, that not all its scientists are certified, and not all its papers are peer-reviewed. In other words, it’s part of the real world, not a cloistered group of intellectual snobs.

    You haven’t shown me you’re anything more just another arty meme-juggler. There are many websites that look very convincing but are wrong. I have no reason to trust your ability to compile links, and I have much better things to do than play spot-the-loony with climate debates.

    Xanthippa says:

    You say: I have much better things to do than play spot-the-loony with climate debates.

    Yet, you troll here…

    Just wait a few years: the evidence falsifying ACC claims is growing. It’s just a matter of time…

    • Collin Says:

      I started by clarifying myself, to make sure you know where I stand. I came here because of my concern about Anonymous, and my role as a progressive American aspie. You changed the subject. You jumped all over my words “evolution and global warming”.

      You started this fight. I defended myself, and you call me a troll. Yes, the “evidence” fabricated by groups like the Heartland Institute is growing. I thought you were enough of a philosopher to be wary of such trends. Obviously, I was wrong.

      Xan says:

      You are the one who equated the scientific theory of evolution with the falsified hypothesis of Anthropogenic Climate Change. You know I am an Aspie and that as such, I could not possibly let such an insult to the theory of evolution and affront to the scientific method go without challenge!

      I have done much work, gathered the non-ACC evidence, written it up and meticulously evidenced and documented it. It took me hundreds of hours, over the period of 4 years.

      As I had made perfectly clear, right off, from the beginning: it is beyond the scope of a simple comment to go and re-create all this work. I have responded to you honestly and ardently, only to have you call me a loony, simply because I do not have the time and energy to spend hours and hours of effort simply to re-do the work I have already done and published.

      Even so, I have taken you at your word that you have done your homework on the ACC debate and simply referenced specific parts of the body of evidence now in existence which contain specific data which falsifies the ACC hypothesis predictions. It is not my fault that the high-atmosphere above the equator has cooled, instead of warming, thus completely destroying the ACC hypothesis.

      You have been the one to raise the fraud – which is rampant among the ACC proponents and inherrent in the IPCC. Yet, I did not rely on that to make my case… Instead, I relied on actual observed data. You chose not to dispute the data but, instead, to call me names.

      In my book, that is trolling.

      • Collin Says:

        I never said I did “homework on the ACC debate”.

        You said if I think religion and science are compatible, I’ve never studied either. In saying this, you insulted the principle of American free thought, and you insulted my intelligence. I couldn’t let that stand.

        I’ve never thought my classification of telephone poles makes me an authority on electricity. And if I got angry at someone for classifying them differently, and I saw their reaction escalating, I would swallow my pride and apologize.

        The climate is not the main issue here. It’s your attitude toward life. You had a data collection that is, literally, of worldwide importance. Now you say it’s dispersed throughout your blog and you don’t have time to collect it again. Why would you need to? Aren’t you proud enough to have a central reference? Aren’t you proud enough to discuss it with climate experts?

        I’m sorry I called you names, but that’s what I’m upset about. I’m not arguing data because data isn’t the issue. The issue is your disregard for the role you could be playing in putting forth a real theory to replace ACC. This is, and always will be, a political world. Everyone is, in some way, a political hack. I’ve learned to see beyond the politics and address the issue of getting real knowledge discussed. Only those who can forgive and forget the fraud can come together to figure out the truth.

  10. Collin Says:

    It occurred to me when I said I’ve seen arguments develop, you might have taken that to mean homework. I meant I’ve seen how people argue. I’ve seen the patterns of divisiveness and rhetoric drowning out any attempts to bring in intelligent reasoning.

  11. Collin Says:

    I knew it! I knew you’d delete that comment! I pointed out how a real Aspie values his/her collection. You realized you can’t dupe me anymore. You’re a fraud.

  12. Collin Says:

    Now you try to make a fool of me by undeleting it? Well now I pasted it into Notepad and saved it as a text file. I have the evidence that you can’t defend your claim to have a climate data collection. Bet you didn’t know I could do that, huh?

    Xanthippa says:

    I’m sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about.

    Yes, I have been away and tardy approving comments – my apologies, things got a little hectic in the non-blogospere life thing. But I have never deleted any comments, yours or anybody elses (though I do not approve obvious spam comments or foreign language comments that don’t seem to make much sense after they were run through a translation program).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: