Friday, May 30, 2014

Internet Loons Declare Me An #Anonymous #Hacker LOL!

Well I guess that settles that question.

If Heather Martin, a registered nurse at St. Pauls Hospital in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan and other Internet Loons declare me an Anonymous Hacker then it must be true. Lol.

After all, they allege:

  1. that they are all 'thorough' researchers 
  2. have a veritable treasure trove of links, and documents that they and other Internet Loons produced 
  3. which they share amongst each other

which say so.

Of course, according to their circular logic, that is 'evidence' and makes their allegations true because, after all, they can reference each others bullshit.

This argument is based on the logical fallacy, Argumentum Ad Populum which simply states: "If many believe so, it is so.

Of course, the flaw in that statement should be obvious here. Everyone used to believe the world was flat and we know that isn't true. In fact, a lot of people believe in a lot of stupid things. If we assumed they were all true just because a lot of people believed them, we'd still be living in caves.

And people wonder why I call them irrational Internet Loons. Lol.


Why is their demonstrated looniness even a question? Is it that human beings are lacking in a general ability to engage in rational thought processes by default?

I think so and I think this is a serious failing in our educational system.

EVERYONE should be taught logical argumentation skills from the time they can speak. It can be done and it should be done or I see very little hope for the survival of the human race.


The kind and quantity of sheer ignorance that gets flogged on the Internet daily and that some people eagerly lap up and spew everywhere is absolutely astounding.

Maybe we should consider licensing people before they're allowed to have blogs? A required Pass in a course on logical argumentation could be the ticket in. Lol.

Anyway, according to their loony logic, given that,

  1. I am in IT (I'm a web and software application developer)
  2. I support the Anonymous concept

therefore I am an Anonymous Hacker. Lol.

This is like saying (Example 1):
  1. All toasters are items made of gold.
  2. All items made of gold are time-travel devices.
  3. Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices.
Or to be more specific (Example 2):
  1. All people in IT are Hackers
  2. All Hackers are Anonymous
  3. Therefore, all people in IT are Anonymous Hackers
BOTH of the above examples have statements that are known in logical argumentation as valid logic. That is, the conclusion (3) logically follows the premises (1 and 2).

So, as you can see by example 1, logic can be valid, even if it is based on statements that are untrue.
"It is important to stress that the premises of an argument do not have actually to be true in order for the argument to be valid. An argument is valid if the premises and conclusion are related to each other in the right way so that if the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true as well." --IEP. Validity and Soundness [in logical argumentation]
And to the idiot, the premises will be assumed to be true therefore the conclusions are presumed to be true.

Herein lies the difference between the intelligent critical thinker and the ignoramus (who can, should and might be willing to learn) or the stupid (who is incapable of or self-servingly refuses to learn).

Whether these irrational Internet Loons who are alleging that I'm an Anonymous Hacker fall into the category of ignoramus or stupid is solely in their hands. I have no control over which they demonstrate, by their own actions, to be. Only they can do that.

All I can do is provide the education and information which will help to educate those interested in learning and that is what I'm doing here.

Now, as you can see, in the demonstration above, valid logic, while it's certainly logical, isn't necessarily true if the premises aren't true. It can be false. It can even be completely nuts unless you think toasters are actually time machines. In which case I'd have to say that you were nuts.

That's why logical argumentation doesn't just require validity. It also requires soundness.

A sound logical argument is one which uses both valid logic (the conclusion follows logically from the premises) AND the premises are demonstrably true.

This is where the irrational Internet Loons fail in all their allegations. In many cases, they are sort of capable of making claims which on the surface might appear to make sense or appear to have some truth to them but as soon as you scratch the surface a little you expose the filthy inner lining of irrational looniness because the premises are false. That is, they intentionally don't or can't present sound arguments.

Their goal is just to fabricate some bullshit that sounds good and that thoughtless people might buy rather than to present truth. The purpose of that goal is defame and discredit those they target with their bullshit.

A sound logical argument about people in IT and Anonymous hackers would look like the following:

  1. Some people in IT hack
  2. Some people in IT support Anonymous
  3. Some people in IT might be Anonymous Hackers

Does this logic support the allegation that people in IT are Anonymous Hackers?

Of course it doesn't.

It supports the allegation that those people in IT who hack and who support Anonymous might be Anonymous Hackers not that they are Anonymous Hackers.

If you replace the term, 'Some people' with my name, does it support the allegation I'm an Anonymous Hacker?

Of course it doesn't.

In order for the logic to be sound, you'd have to have evidence that I hack. The fact that I publicly support Anonymous isn't enough. BOTH premises have to be demonstrably true for the conclusion to be true and argument (allegation) logic to be sound.

Since I have publicly stated that I don't hack and since there is no evidence that I'm lying (you'd need actual demonstrable proof of my alleged hacking not some paranoid unproven accusation), the statement is flagrantly obvious bullshit and most likely intentional lies.

Even if someone fabricated evidence that I hack (and that's what they would have to do since I don't), the statement is still can't be perceived as being necessarily true. The conclusion can still only be that I might be, not that I am, unless there is demonstrable evidence of me participating as a hacker in an Anonymous Op. That evidence would also have to be fabricated since I haven't participated in any Anonymous Ops as a hacker.

Given that some of these Internet loons actually have a proven and demonstrated history of fabricating evidence in order to support their false allegations this is certainly within the realm of possibility.

Of course, my specialty is to expose their lies, fabrications and frame-ups which I have done successfully and repeatedly on my Cyberharassment and the Cyberbullies blog. The loons hate this blog and claim that I'm targeting 'innocent' people on it despite the fact that it contains a great deal of evidence, much of it hard evidence and some of it irrefutable evidence. Lol. This is the real reason they hate it.

If you want to have a good laugh you can read all about their lame attempts at frame-ups and deceptions and watch how I expose their lies using forensic technology and critical reasoning applied to evidence openly available on the Internet or provided to me by others.

sound arguments both start out with true premises and have a form that guarantees that the conclusion must be true if the premises are, sound arguments always end with true conclusions. --IEP. Validity and Soundness [in logical argumentation]

In my company blog I've provided an excerpt from a very good article which defines the different groups of people in IT, what they do, and what the differences are between the groups including the difference between web and software developers like myself and hackers. There's also a link back to the full article which is interesting and worth a read.

Here's an excerpt of the excerpt. Lol.


These words might all mean the same thing to you. Perhaps you hear geek, nerd, and dweeb, but we all know these have very important differences. Knowing the differences also can give you a sense of how deep you want to go on your coding adventure.

  • Coders - Can pretty much figure out it. It'll work, but it won't be pretty.
  • Hackers - usually low level folks, skillful, with detailed understanding of some area deeply, often scarily deeply.
  • Programmer - Write code and understand algorithms. Often work alone and well.
  • Developer - Are the best generalists, can use lots of different systems and languages and get them to talk to each other. Are true and broad professionals, work with people, and communicate well.
  • Computer Scientist - Need to be able to prove how computers work, at a theoretical level. Are usually math people also.

Sunday, May 25, 2014

CyberHarassment: Exploring Solutions

Online abuse is, unfortunately, a common problem. It seems that there are some people in this world who simply get a lot of pleasure out of abusing others and the online world is a fertile ground for finding vulnerable victims. By vulnerable I’m not really referring to people who have any particular physical, emotional , or psychological vulnerabilities but rather the fact that we are all vulnerable in the online world to having our personal and professional reputations injured or destroyed. All knowledge and information about us which is out there is available to be twisted, misrepresented, distorted, exaggerated, lies invented based on it, and otherwise abused to present us in a negative light, in public, amongst those who either don’t know us or only know us casually.

We are also vulnerable to this abuse in real life but it’s harder to do and requires more structure and organization. It’s also harder to prove that it’s going on in real life. In the online world where nothing ever really gets deleted (despite the harassers attempts to remove the evidence) it can almost always be located and therefore the allegations proven.

Someone, somewhere has almost always archived it for posterity.

So, while the lies never get erased, your refutations to the lies also never get erased. If you’ve done your job properly the truth can and will overwhelm the lie and the liars even if they outnumber you.

However, going through that process is time consuming and often quite painful because those who engage in cyberharassment and stalking often have nothing else to do. They can (and do) spend hours doing this because they are dysfunctional people living dysfunctional lives whereas those of us being targeted with this abuse are trying to lead active, normal lives and this nonsense takes us away from that.

While these stalkers and harassers are usually incredibly stupid people, they do excel at lying so you will be dealing with their false allegations with the police, social media sites, friends, family, etc. sometimes for years. In the case of psychopaths, it’s pretty much guaranteed that they’ll be on your case for years or until they get themselves incarcerated in prison or a psych ward.

This is one reason why this type of harassment can’t be ignored or swept under the carpet. The lies, if left to fester can and do take on a life of their own and become ‘truth’ by virtue of the fact that there is nothing out there refuting them.

When it comes to one’s personal and professional reputation these lies can have a deep and often immeasurable impact, especially vicious ones like the current ‘call everyone you hate a pedo’ rage.

The more seriously mentally ill the cyberharasser/stalker is, the further they will go with their abuse and lies.

If you:

  1. Challenge their story by challenging the fact that they have no evidence? Voila, evidence gets fabricated in the form of fake photoshopped screenshots, fake pedo web sites set up under the targets personal name as the domain, quoting known liars or people who have an obvious bias, etc.
  2. Expose their lies and their cowardice? Voila numerous false allegations/complaints filed with police, social media sites you’re a member of, government agencies, employers (past and present), schools, social service agencies (if you receive assistance), etc.
  3. Confront their lies? Voila they recruit other stalkers to spew them for them so that they can claim ‘they aren’t the only ones that hate you’. Suddenly you’re surrounded by a goon squad wallowing in its own filth of lies, the intent being to overwhelm the truth with the lies.

So, what are the solutions?

What can we do to deal more effectively with such lunacy online. Aside from having those who engage in this abuse carted off to their local Psych Ward in strait jackets or to prison. While that will certainly help resolve the problem, it isn’t the easiest thing to do and in the mean time we all have to survive the crazies.

While we can’t change the fact that there are seriously disturbed people out there in the world, many of whom have access to the Internet and are going to be problems… there are often small things that can be done that end up having a big impact.

This recent article from Wired provided some interesting examples and insight into this issue:

According to the article, a simple process like providing a specific and detailed explanation for why someone was banned reduced the recidivism of the bad behavior dramatically whereas not providing an explanation resulted in a ‘disturbingly high’ recidivism rate.
The team also found that it’s important to enforce the rules in ways that people understand. When Riot’s team started its research, it noticed that the recidivism rate was disturbingly high; in fact, based on number of reports per day, some banned players were actually getting worse after their bans than they were before. At the time, players were informed of their suspension via emails that didn’t explain why the punishment had been meted out. So Riot decided to try a new system that specifically cited the offense. This led to a very different result: Now when banned players returned to the game, their bad behavior dropped measurably. 
–Extract from Curbing Online Abuse Isn’t Impossible

A solution like this actually accomplishes three things which are excellent for the consumer of the service.

  1. The user has a clear understanding of what the behavior that was considered negative is, and knows that if they want to stay on the site they can’t engage in that specific behavior again.  This creates a solid deterrent for that negative behavior.
  2. The support staff are required to properly examine the issue and provide a specific reason, presumably with the evidence that the person did indeed violate the rules. This has the benefit of ensuring that Support staff do their jobs properly and can actually justify the suspension (or lack of suspension based on a complaint). That is they can justify it based on actual written policy rather than just an arbitrary spur of the minute, get this off my desk fast, decision or I feel sorry for person A, I’m on their side and will help them even though the person isn’t doing what person A says they’re doing, etc.
  3. Most importantly, any sense of injustice or unfairness at the decisions is also removed because everything has been properly explained and justified. This, in and of itself, can lead to self-correcting behavior. Justice has been done.

Of course, the person might find the standard itself objectionable which is a different issue but one that should be addressed by any social media site which actually wants to be a comfortable place for their users. They could have a special forum where these types of discussions can occur directly with Support staff or Development staff. Explanations will resolve 90% of the issues and the other 10% probably need to be fixed. If they can’t be fixed, people are kept informed and things are unlikely to get out of hand. Or, at least less often, than they would without these measures in place.

The reality is that the current recidivism rate for ‘bad’ behavior is disturbingly high on sites like Twitter and Facebook, and the decisions to remove or leave items being objected to are arbitrary, inconsistent, and frequently not based on the written site rules/policy.

Frequently items which obviously violate the social media site’s policy are left while items which don’t are removed and the posters suspended, banned or otherwise punished despite the fact that they didn’t violate any policy or rule.

I’m currently in a battle with Twitter and have been for a nearly a month to get my business Twitter account unsuspended. Twitter refuses to interact with me to provide any explanation, rationalization, or justification for their arbitrary (and unjustified) actions.

I have provided a detailed refutation to Twitter (in several emails now) including the tweets that I was tweeting at the time my account was suspended based on a false complaint, and screenshots of Twitters own interface showing that at least one allegation is completely bogus and without any merit. This has, so far, been completely ignored.

Not only is this frustrating to the user who is the target of cyberbullying / harassment and being further victimized by false accusations of allegedly doing what is actually being done to them, but it enables and encourages the cyberbullies and harassers to take things further and further. After all, their scam worked.

And you can rest assured they will be smugly gloating about the fact that it worked while coming up with ways to escalate things even further. Of course, they’ll blame you for the escalations. How dare you stand up to their abuse and do so publicly. That’s cyberbullying them according to their sick and twisted thinking. Lol.

To Facebook’s credit, they have banned Michael Babcock from Facebook because of his ongoing bullying and harassing behavior, defamations, lies, etc. They closed down over 20 Facebook sites set up by him for no other purpose than to personally attack, defame and spread lies about social activists on Facebook. Particularly anti-pedophilia social activists. Babcock is just one of a group of people that are part of this current harassment campaign and instigating numerous Tard Krews into senselessly targeting innocent people who are anti-pedophilia social activists.

All this accomplishes, of course, is to protect the real pedophiles since those who are going after them, the anti-pedophilia social activists,  are being discredited and defamed by this group of people: Antonio F. Lopez /Kree Love Dallas, TX (impersonating UK teen Kree Love) et al, Thomas Schroeder aka Thomas Cook aka Juliet Biehl et al, Julie Ann Larson aka Rusalka Sireen aka Javeria Laila et al, Christopher Joseph Erwin aka Jason Steele, Michael Babcock aka N2KMaster aka CoderHyguru aka Coder Hyguru.

The article proposes the following and I agree because it’s focusing entirely on the behavior that’s exhibited rather than the content of what is said. What is said only matters when it leads to negative behaviors and on those grounds free speech has always had some limitations.

You can’t shout ‘fire’ in a theatre because of the impact that will have on behavior.

CyberBullying and harassment are the same. When you falsely call someone a Pedo or Pedo enabler and post it all over the web in numerous blogs, web sites, torrents, pastes, on DarkNet with personal information in Doxbin, etc. etc. there is an impact not only to the person targeted but to others who might decide to interact in negative ways with the target because of those false allegations.

So, this isn’t about free speech. It’s about bullying and harassing behaviors.

Extracted from the article:

What would our social networks look like if their guidelines and enforcement reflected real-life community norms? If Riot’s experiments are any guide, it’s unlikely that most or even many users would deem a lot of the casual abuse, the kind that’s driving so many people out of online spaces, to be acceptable. Think about how social networks might improve if—as on the gaming sites and in real life—users had more power to reject abusive behavior. Of course, different online spaces will require different solutions, but the outlines are roughly the same:

  • involve users in the moderation process,
  • set defaults that create hurdles to abuse,
  • give clearer feedback for people who misbehave,
  • and—above all—create a norm in which harassment simply isn’t tolerated.
–Extract from Curbing Online Abuse Isn’t Impossible

Update May 27, 2014: Babcock has returned to Facebook. Whether this is with or without Facebook's knowledge is unknown at this time. His usual game is to sneak around using socks. However, his pages and sock accounts are being closely monitored by quite a few people. Any defamatory libel, abuse or pathological lies about anyone will be immediately reported. Babcock created numerous pages whose sole purpose was to harass and defame innocent people with the lies he likes to fabricate. Facebook did the right thing to remove these harassment pages. There are no constitutional protections for people to lie and defame others. If he wants to call innocent people pedophiles or peophile enablers he should provide the evidence or shut the fuck up. While he claims to have Gigabytes of evidence, it's all nothing but misinterpreted nonsense which has for the most part been taken out of context and doesn't mean what he alleges it means. He's either a pathological liar, has extremely poor reading skills (elementary school level at best), or so mentally ill that he can't even interpret the written word correctly. His technical skills are so shoddy that he can't even interpret the simplest forensics software results correctly either.

Thursday, May 15, 2014

#Anonymous: Operation Net Storm

Published on May 10, 2014



LOCATION: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th St. SW, Washington, D.C. (

E-MAILS: List of FCC commissioners and their twitters, emails, blogs, instagrams, etc: //



They have taken action:

What is Net Neutrality:

MUST WATCH: (via description)

The Monopoly:

Don't know how to contact your representative? Find out who they are and let them know:





NOTE: The description of this video will continuously be updated ONLY if necessary. Please check the description of this video daily for any updates.

Follow @TheAnonMessage on Twitter for the latest.


"What's Happening To Me (Alt 1) - Extreme Music / 2 Steps from Hell", musical composition administered by:
AdRev Publishing
Nonprofits & Activism
Standard YouTube License
Show less

Saturday, May 03, 2014

Anonymous OpJamaica

Frankly this applies to ALL of the Caribbean.

Trinidad and Tobago and other Caribbean Islands should all be included in this Op. Just saying :-)

Very well researched video.  Recommended.