How Anonymous broke its own rules to break free

Before the summer of 2011, Anonymous was an amorphous collective of hackers and pranksters ready to pour cold water on members' nascent political aspirations. By 2012, a growing antiauthority, anticensorship, anti-surveillance sentiment asserted itself, and everything changed.

Your feelings mean nothing to us. … We have no culture, we have no laws, written or otherwise. … We do not sleep, we do not eat and we do not feel remorse. We will tear you apart from outside and in, we have all the time in the world.—Anonymous

Before the summer of 2011, Anonymous was an amorphous collective of hackers and pranksters born in a meme pool. Its operations were still largely unexpected and isolated; it was difficult for the media to wrap a narrative around them. There was no hero, not even an antihero.

By 2012, all of that had changed. Political aspirations, once mocked, came to represent a growing antiauthority, anticensorship, anti-surveillance sentiment. An Anonymous splinter group, LulzSec, captivated the media with a series of sometimes harmless but always high-profile attacks. And it wasn't the attacks that seemed to generate the most press attention; it was the swaggering Twitter feeds of LulzSec's members.

Up until that point, the lack of a protagonist, or even an official spokesperson, made it difficult for the media to explain even what Anonymous is to an audience that wants to hear of criminal organizations with Al Capone–like masterminds. It also ramps up the risk of embarrassment, since anyone claiming to be Anonymous can say whatever he or she wants about the group's character and motives. If the press runs with it, and it turns out to be a troll, the reporters look infinitely foolish.

With LulzSec members broadcasting a daily salvo of tweets, growing cockier as their list of victims expanded, the media finally found its foothold. These guys on Twitter, some of whom may not have had too much to do with actual hacking operations, gave the press a verifiable source. They could throw a caveat up on every story, saying, "We're not sure if this guy's the real deal, but he's the best we've got," and issue the occasional redaction if their source turned out to be a goof.

Eventually, even my Luddite parents had heard about the group on the nightly news.

In the fall of 2011, Anonymous announced an unofficial partnership with several like-minded organizations, most notably Adbusters magazine, who'd launched a protest called Occupy Wall Street. The call to action was simple, as presented in one YouTube video:

On September 17th, Anonymous will flood into Lower Manhattan, set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades, and occupy Wall Street for a few months. Once there, we shall incessantly repeat one simple demand in a plurality of voices: We want freedom. This is a nonviolent protest. We do not encourage violence in any way. The abuse and corruption of corporations, banks, and government ends here. Join us. We are anonymous. We are legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Wall Street, expect us.

In Lower Manhattan that morning, more than a hundred policemen barricaded off Wall Street's bronze bull. Several hundred people gathered at a nearby square, the heart of the protest. Protestors passed around a megaphone and bellowed progressive talking points—everything from animal rights to immigration reform to an audit of the Federal Reserve.

To my surprise, I saw only a half dozen Guy Fawkes masks, the calling card of Anonymous. But as I walked through the crowds I noticed that a wide semicircle of cameras, microphones, and tired cameramen surrounded each person wearing a mask. Meanwhile, the mass of the protesters were ignored by the media.

Why?

The narrative of Anonymous as mysterious band of elite cyber-terrorists, modern-day Robin Hoods bringing down multinational corporations, plays well on TV. The press has reinforced this perception among the public. Even WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange once sported the mask while demonstrating outside of London's St. Paul's Cathedral. Anonymous' greatest hack is of the press itself, manipulating the media cycle by performing outrageous stunts.

But this doesn't explain why the Anonymous story resonates so strongly with the average news viewer. The rise of Anonymous represents a strange new presence on the world stage. Unshackled by technology, Anonymous seems omnipresent, striking with precision, sometimes to make a political statement, sometimes just for fun. The government and corporate America eyes them with the same fear, disdain and derision that the '60s counterculture received. Just when we think we've figured them out, they morph into something else.

The rise of Anonymous signifies a progression in activism brought about by technology, wherein leaders are not needed and egotists are despised—at least on paper. Members of Anon take pains to avoid the emergence of recognizable figureheads, and, as a result, it has managed to stay alive. Members can wear the mask (real or figurative) today and take it off tomorrow, and they can use it to protest economic disparities in New York or criminal drug cartels in Mexico.

For many, the very idea of anonymity evokes fears of online harassment and identity theft. We know people are entitled to say nasty things about us, but we shake our heads anxiously when, say, a friend's bank accounts is looted by someone who simply got access to her e-mail. We know it could happen to us. If Anon can bring down the CIA's website, what can we possibly do to protect ourselves?

We are experiencing an evolution of human social behavior, but it remains to be seen if the Age of Anonymous will be recollected as an awkward technological adolescence or as the inevitable birth of world where people are free to try on new identities wherever they go. Anonymous is just one manifestation of anonymity, but it represents a global recognition of its value; and a growing unease with the erosion of personal identity ownership.

Anonymous can be whatever you want it to be, and the social power of your idea of "true Anonymous" lies in that idea's viral potential. In fact, the "idea" of Anonymous as a social activist group is just one particularly powerful iteration of this mysterious, ever-changing collective. Before 2007, they weren't in it to achieve social reform—they were in it for the lulz.

Life Ruiners

The term "Trolling" comes from the lexicon of fishing. It refers to dragging a baited hook or lure from a moving boat in order to entice gullible fish. Sometimes anonymous online trolling is harmless, such as when it gleefully manipulates the press into broadcasting phallic imagery (as in a notorious Oprah episode). Other times it tends toward the malicious—one favorite pastime deals with seeking out relatives of deceased teenagers and harassing them via social media.

But trolling has a social purpose: it's a way for members of internet forums to lightheartedly embarrass noobs who'd behave foolishly, bringing them into line. It's a way to defuse flaming—hostile communications; clever trolls remind impassioned users that it's best not to take things too seriously. It's just the Internet, after all.

In 1994, John Seabrook gave an account of his first experience with flaming in the New Yorker:

No one had ever said something like this to me before, and no one could have said this to me before: in any other medium, these words would be, literally, unspeakable. The guy couldn't have said this to me on the phone, because I would have hung up and not answered if the phone rang again, and he couldn't have said it to my face, because I wouldn't have let him finish. If this had happened to me in the street, I could have used my status as a physically large male to threaten the person, but in the on-line world my size didn't matter. ... My flame marked the end of my honeymoon with on-line communication. It made me see clearly that the lack of social barriers is also what is appalling about the net. The same anonymity that allows the twelve-year-old access to the professor allows a pedophile access to the twelve-year-old. The same lack of inhibitions that allows a woman to speak up in on-line meetings allows a man to ask the woman whether she's wearing any underwear. The same safe distance that allows you to unburden yourself of your true feelings allowed this guy to call me a toadying dipshit scumbag. A toadying dipshit scumbag!


Seabrook's breathless reaction to a random insult is now hilariously quaint, a relic of the time when the Internet was only used by university professors, military researchers and students. The discourse was usually intelligent and congenial. This changed with each passing year: especially the "Eternal September" of '93, when America Online first gave its users free access to Usenet.

Soon, the social corners of the Internet became populated by people outside of traditionally geeky circles. Kids are on the Internet, and so are their moms, tut-tutting at the puerile discourse found there. Some network natives felt that they'd lost something special.

But not everyone was willing to let the web lose its fun, frontier-like character.

A decade after Seabrook's essay, Chris 'moot' Poole--then 15 years old--created 4chan. An image board where users could discuss and share their favorite bits of Japanese pop culture, its /b/ board became a clearinghouse for stomach-turning imagery. Adding to the attraction was 4chan's default anonymity and ephemerality, which encourages users to post content that they might not were even pseudonyms attached. Because 4chan's default name field was "anonymous," the community's users began referring to each other as "Anon." When 4chan trolls would reach out beyond their insular subculture, they began to call themselves "Anonymous," collectively.

Naturally, those with mischievous inclinations found it a fitting home, and it became a game to see how hard one could work over others and outdo one anothers' work.

Anonymous's first known trolls took place in the world of online gaming, where they would bring grief to self-serious players. For instance, on Habbo Hotel, a global social networking site for teenagers, an early iteration of Anonymous called the Patriotic Nigras staged a mock suicide cult. In 2006, the Great Habbo Raid saw hundreds of Anons create an identical avatar that they would use to block entrances, disrupt conversations, and flood chat rooms with nonsense.

Early anons shocked gamers in persistent virtual world Second Life by building an entire town populated by the mutilated corpses of furry avatars. Cries of indignation and complaints to moderators delighted the trolls and only encouraged further shenanigans. Journalist Julian Dibbell quoted a mischievous EVE Online player who crystallized the modus operandi of the modern troll: "The way that you win in EVE is you basically make life so miserable for someone else that they actually quit the game and don't come back."

By 2006, anons wrought havoc off-line as well, using 4chan's boards to mobilize the troops for their raids. A few even called in bomb threats and were subsequently arrested. How-to guides on harassment methods were crafted, drawing from the rich but dubious literary heritage of The Anarchist Cookbook; the "Ruin Life Tactics" doc details some of the most common Web-based pranks, from pizza to personal ads.

A dead simple example:

Report the guy to the police as an anonymous tip for suspicion of selling drugs. Result:
Police harassment
???
Epic win

Usually such calls to action are ignored, but every so often an effort picks up steam.

Such was the case with Parry Aftab, a self-described Internet safety expert and lawyer who was routinely trotted out on Good Morning America and similar morning shows every time a case of cyber-bullying caught the attention of TV producers. In July 2011, her home was swarmed by a SWAT team responding to a call they thought had come from inside her home. The caller told the police he was armed and had two hostages inside Aftab's home. When the police arrived, they shot tear gas inside Aftab's windows, only to find her cat. The prankster had used VoIP technology to mask his identity and remains unknown.

I found myself on the receiving end of some low-level trolling after publishing a portrayal of the group. Though my book was rather kind, the first two Rules of the Internet are (1) Don't talk about /b/, and (2) Don't talk about /b/. By explaining Anonymous to a mainstream audience, I had broken these cherished laws.

The result: thirty pizzas in one night, including a $90 pie with extra of every available topping, and a flood of unwanted magazine subscriptions. Most hilariously, my middle-aged aunt received a rather saucy message from one "Cole Stryker", asking her to meet me for an illicit midnight rendezvous. Vague death threats trickled in.

For the most part I was unfazed: extreme trolls rely heavily on the fear and ignorance of their victims. It's not very fun to antagonize someone who's already aware of the usual tricks, has prepared his friends and family in advance, and has taken measures to shore up his data security. But it's still unsettling that a faceless psychopath was able to obtain my home address within minutes.

"For Great Justice!"

Some Anons, however, use their collective power for good, applying a unique brand of vigilante justice to evildoers. They've used their collaborative sleuthing to expose animal abusers and to identify child pornographers to authorities. Dateline NBC's To Catch a Predator segment featured tech-savvy detectives luring pedophiles by posing as children online; Anonymous uses the same tactics, leading to arrests.

In October 2011, Anonymous became aware of a massive child porn ring made up of more than forty websites. They soon launched Operation Darknet to bring expose its operators, 100GB of child porn and the details of 1,569 customers. But that wasn't enough. Tired of waiting around for the police to act on the leak, enterprising Anons created a honeypot to collect data on users—a common trick used by researchers, law enforcement and spammers alike.

In this case, the honeypot was disguised as an update to Tor, the software system that allows internet users to remain anonymous—and therefore popular among those with an eye for illegal material. The product of a twenty-four-hour coding marathon, the ingenious ploy was devised after Anons, hanging out in a chat room used by Tor developers, caught wind of a legitimate Tor update being prepared for release.

Typically, Tor users' traffic is routed through a series of nodes, making it virtually impossible to trace the source of the traffic. But Anonymous's trap sent users through the honeypot, enabling them to log the IP addresses of 190 visitors to the network. Leaked publicly, the addresses led social media profiles and even real names.

The collective had realized it had the power to make lasting social change, something to be proud of rather than random pranks. But even after graduating from indiscriminate attacks against innocent bystanders to acts of Internet vigilantism aimed at abusers and criminals, Anon remained under the radar.

It was only when Anon went political and transcended the boundaries of the Web—and broke its own rules—that the revolution was improvised.

An expanded version of this article can be found in Hacking the Future, Cole's forthcoming book about the nature of anonymity as a social construct

Published 6:00 am Wed, Oct 17, 2012

About the Author

Cole Stryker is a freelance writer based in New York City, and the author of Hacking the Future and Epic Win for Anonymous. His writing has appeared in Salon, Vice, and The New York Observer.

More at Boing Boing

Threeways to Save Humanity

In episode 184 of the Sword and Laser, Veronica Belmont and Tom Merritt talk of high fantasy, Neil Gaiman and saving humanity.

Peter Kuper, cartoonist

In the latest episode of the RiYL podcast, Brian Heater interviews the author of multiple Kafka adaptations and a sketchbook diary chronicling his time in Mexico.

57 Responses to “How Anonymous broke its own rules to break free”

  1. James says:

    “By explaining Anonymous to a mainstream audience, I had broken these cherished laws.”

    Not to mention blown his own trumpet.

  2. joeskunk says:

    lot of equating somethingawful with 4chan here

    • Theranthrope says:

      Well, 4chan DOES what SA just talks about doing…

      • Theranthrope says:

        …granted, that’s said with the understanding that neither Anons or Goons are separate homogeneous groups, there is a lot of overlap between the two, but Anons tend to younger and dumber (and troll more rashly), while Goons tend to be older and grumpier (and troll with a more deliberate, thoughtful, manner).

  3. Aloisius says:

    But trolling has a social purpose: it’s a way for members of internet forums to lightheartedly embarrass noobs who’d behave foolishly, bringing them into line. It’s a way to defuse flaming—hostile communications; clever trolls remind impassioned users that it’s best not to take things too seriously. It’s just the Internet, after all.

    Uh, what? Does it hurt to have stretched the limits of plausibility that much? I’ve seen more flamewars started by trolls than calmed by them. Heck, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a flamewar calmed by a troll and I’ve been on the Internet since 1992. Derailed maybe, but calmed? No way.

    Lighthearted? Tell that to all the rape victims on feministing who had 4chan trolls invade and mock them about how much they liked to rape women. Yeah, it was super lighthearted, and really, why were they even taking it so seriously? It is just the Internet after all.

    If the author can’t even get something as simple as Internet trolls right, why should I trust anything else in his book?

    • Timothy Krause says:

      Internet trolls =/= simple, but nice ragey rant rant nonetheless.

      • Kimmo says:

        That’s tasty meta.

        • Timothy Krause says:

          I suppose, seemed rather blindingly obvious to me. But I guess that’s tasty? Dunno, hymenopterid articulates a lot of my thoughts directly below. Consensus is so fucking 2003, trolls rule.

          • John Ohno says:

            As a professional internet troll, I approve of this message. Trolling is a public service.

            Of course, it doesn’t calm flamewars. However, by causing flamewars, it forces those engaged in them to take on a level of self-reflection they would otherwise not consider. A good troll will not only cause all the irrational emotional reactions, but (as an often unintended but nevertheless socially invaluable side effect) pit those being trolled against each other in a context in which they are exposed to how ridiculous their own beliefs really are. 

            A flamewar, because it is an ostensibly rational discussion driven entirely by pathos, is a very clear and obvious trace of the irrational or pathological basis at the root of many ostensibly rational beliefs; once someone realizes that some deeply-held conviction is deeply-held because of a single anecdote or some personal psychological need, if they are mature they cease to be emotionally engaged by a simple challenge or a calm discussion of the topic.

            There are plenty of accidental trolls, of course. Any culture clash is indistinguishable from intentional trolling, because alternate reality tunnels are alien in unexpected and unconsidered ways. If we were born where they were born and raised as they were raised, we would believe what they believe; until we are challenged with an incomprehensible set of beliefs, we cannot approach our own set of beliefs in a balanced way and consider whether or not they are sensible.

            Because alien cultures are getting less and less alien and more and more familiar, the impetus for introspection has become the occupation of two main groups: science fiction authors and internet trolls, both of whom synthesize new and alien worldviews by inverting some detail of an existing worldview and taking it to an extreme.

          • I think the best thing about trolls is that the things you truly believe eventually become impervious to the obvious attempts to bait you. In my life, it has made me view cable news as by turns hilarious and boring. I used to think I was being informed.

          • Kimmo says:

            Being half asleep at the time, I forgot to add obvious sarcasm for another layer.

    • hymenopterid says:

      You’re using extreme examples of harassment for your definition of troll.  This may be valid, but he other day someone called me a troll for making a tongue-in-cheek remark.  Clearly this word, like “hipster” has become so unspecific as to be useless.

      I mean really, where does this collective sense of entitlement come from, that we must always encounter words that are unoffensive to us when we enter a shared space?  It just doesn’t happen happen in real life.  The troll reminds us that we are not in control of other people’s actions, no matter how much we may fantasize about punishing them or bending them to our will.  We are in control of how we react to other’s actions, and by getting good at recognizing trolls and not engaging in flamewars with them, we develop our perception and self discipline.  This is true for communities as it is for individuals.  The troll is the irritation which causes the callus to form.  You can not develop a callus wearing velvet gloves.

      • wysinwyg says:

         There’s value in dealing with ideas that make us uncomfortable but that’s not really what trolls are about.  Trolls are about discomfort for the sake of discomfort.  There’s no ideas there.  You’re right to some extent that adversity is character building but for the most part we don’t make each other’s lives harder than they need to be just for the sake of “toughening each other up.”  Trolls try to make other people miserable to amuse themselves.  They’re not doing it to make the world a better place.  I have no idea why you’re trying to give them so much credit.

        Diseases can strengthen the immune system.  Doesn’t make them good.

        • hymenopterid says:

          Knowing that diseases exist, is it not better to have a strong immune system than a weak one?  If a small malady causes your immune system to become strong enough to survive a truly dangerous disease, is that not a good thing?  Eradicating all the trolls from our society is about as practical as eradicating all diseases.  I think the more  practical outlook is to accept that there will always be trolls and to adjust ones disposition accordingly.

          Thanks for the response.

          • wysinwyg says:

            Even “small maladies” kill millions of the more vulnerable.  That’s why doctors treat even “small maladies”.  Whether or not trolls serve as social purpose that is certainly not their intention.  They certainly don’t deserve any credit for any social good they may inadvertently provide in the course of going out of their way to antagonize other people.

            As far as the practicality of eradicating trolls…well, your argument applies equally well to murder, theft, rape, and a whole lot of other heinous human behaviors.  In all such cases there seems to be some consensus that these behaviors should be discouraged even if they can’t be entirely eradicated.  Likewise, we can discourage trolling while acknowledging we’ll probably never be rid of antisocial fuckwads in our midst.  I think that’s a more practical outlook.

          • hymenopterid says:

            Since trolling can cover a variety of different activities I should probably clarify my views a little.

            When it gets to the level of harassment that people are calling your house or your parents or doing whatever to ruin your life, then yes, I think you can compare trolling to rape or murder.

            I do not think all people have the same concept of trolling.  To some, trolling can be as simple as attributing a Picard quote to Kirk.  I am not making this up:  http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/troll-quotes Another is telling people to hit Alt+F4.  I believe that is what the author is referring to when he speaks of “lightheartedly” trolling noobs.  This sort of thing used to be called pulling someones leg, and it has the effect of teaching people to not take things at face value.

            Outing someone or trying to ruin someones marriage, or harassing them until they commit suicide is another matter and I totally agree with your comparison to other heinous crimes.

          • wysinwyg says:

            I wasn’t making the comparison you apparently thought I was.  I was pointing out that your “defense” of trolling — that, realistically, it can never be eradicated (and that therefore we should do nothing about it) — can be applied equally as well to heinous crimes — which can also never be eradicated but which most people think we should at least try to do something about.  I was not saying that trolling is as bad as those crimes, just that your argument is terrible.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      But trolling has a social purpose: it’s a way for members of internet forums to lightheartedly embarrass noobs who’d behave foolishly, bringing them into line.

      Social controlling by bullying.  What could possibly be wrong with that?  This works particularly well when you understand that “noobs” means anyone who isn’t a heterosexual, white male with a narrow field of interests and a complete absence of empathy or social skills.

    • Jim Kelly says:

       I be troll. I live under bridge. I never get in boat and drag hook.

  4. welcomeabored says:

    In the early eighties, we used the word ‘trolling’ to refer to how and what we used socially to make ourselves attractive to others (‘baiting our hook’) and draw them to us (‘reeling them in’).  Back when ‘facetime’ was really the only way to get to know someone initiallly.  Since then, everytime I see as article like this one, I have to mentally shift for the internet definition:  trolling>bad=don’t do it.  It’s sometimes sad, the way the connotations of words change with time and technology, and sadder still the effect this has on human relationships.

  5. William Burke says:

    >sigh<
    No.
    Anonymous is not your personal army, not your political arm, not on your side, does not have an agenda or a political aim.  Just because a *few* people do choose to associate with some political agenda and *also* choose to call themselves "Anonymous" does not mean Anonymous has that political agenda.  Every single person may choose to be anonymous, may speak up anonymously and may even take action anonymously.  In that sense, every single person on Earth *is* part of Anonymous.
    Quit trying to "own" Anonymous or explain Anonymous.

  6. welcomeabored says:

    Aw, poop.  I really wanted to respond to ‘dramatica’.  *throws her arms over her head and stomps off*

  7. taras says:

    This article/book was necessary, because not enough explanations of the “Anonymous” story exist yet.

    • What I really like about this response is the idea that there are plenty of Anonymous’ stories. I remember when I was more active as an anarchist realising that there were as many “anarchy”s (or more formally, “theories of what anarchy is and/or how anarchy works”) as there were “anarchists” – mine was merely another in the milieu.

    •  4/10 would respond again. Grade inflated due to venue.

  8. elix says:

    From John Seabrook’s quote:

    The same anonymity that allows the twelve-year-old access to the professor allows a pedophile access to the twelve-year-old.

    In 2004, I was twelve years old. It’s depressing to see that concern trolls were out there from the beginning.*

    It was interesting to watch the community response after Anonymous began Operation Chanology and started real-world protests in front of Scientology offices around the world. While these new social activists were discovering themselves (with guidance from a few veteran non-Anon scientology protestors) and finding that they could make use of Anonymous to accomplish real change, there was a vocal segment of Anonymous that wanted the “moralf*gs” to stop having serious.

    The ball just kept rolling from there.

    *I’m not saying that we should be blasé about predators on the Internet, far from it. But, you need to learn how to use and treat the Internet. It doesn’t have the same rules as ordinary in-person interactions. At 12, I knew this better than my parents did.

    • Jim Kelly says:

      I wouldn’t call Seabrook a “concern troll.” This was 1994, and he was trying to explain Internet phenomena to an audience (readers of the New Yorker) who for the most part had not yet had the chance to “learn how to use and treat the Internet.”

      As hard as it may be to believe, back then hardly anyone was hyping online danger to kids. If my memory’s correct, that really didn’t start until a few years later.

      But you know, my memory’s not what it used to be [falls asleep in rocking chair and drops laptop].

      • elix says:

        I didn’t exactly intend on calling Seabrook himself a concern troll, although I can see how that sentence implies it pretty hard. However, the actual concern trolling started quite a while ago, and that’s a good reminder that we still haven’t really figured out how to integrate the Internet into society. There’s still a long way to go.

        • Theranthrope says:

          I think the term your looking for is “moral panic”; a particularly vicious form of IRL concern trolling which does destroy lives and sometimes entire industries (with the “Seduction of the Innocent” comic book scare of the 1950′s), usually for no-good reason.

          • elix says:

            One follows the other, yes; you’re spot on. When I was a kid, it quietly poked on my subconscious to wonder why there were no male kindergarten teachers. What I didn’t know was that I was growing up in the immediate wake of the Satanic-abuse daycare hoax (albeit I don’t know that it happened much in my actual area).

            Harmful to Minors by Judith Levine inevitably returns several times to the endemic moral… well, it’s not so much a panic as a reflex, at this point, revolving around children and any sort of expression of sexuality whatsoever before age 18. And we wonder why teens are going off the rails so badly.

  9. Has anyone done an investigation of where “Anonymous” actions and US intelligence aims coincide?

      • Theranthrope says:

        Conspiracy-theorism is a bug in a human’s cognitive pattern-recognition “software” (firmware? wetware?), like seeing shapes in clouds, or religious iconography in a dog’s anus; for example.

        It’s forming patterns where none exist; it’s also is a personal irritant of mine, because all conspiracy theories involving the government assumes a dangerous level of competence from those least capable of expressing it: politicians and bureaucrats.

        There are real conspiracies out there, but they are boring, as they are typically involve things like price-fixing or regulatory-capture.

  10. That_Anonymous_Coward says:

    *tears up*
    I feel a lot of love in here tonight…

  11. Yo Vinny says:

    We used to call it “Churning the Turnips.”

  12. Anon learned to love itself through the grace of Boxxy.

  13. spinach says:

    The term you’re looking for is not ‘trolling’ but ‘trawling’. Trawling is a word from the fishing lexicon. As in the following sentence, “I am a troll who trawls message boards to catch authors who make spelling and grammar errors.” You big dummy!

  14. spinach says:

    Daarrgghn you weasily kids! I could’ve won this one if it wasn’t for you booky wooks. I’ll just skulk back under my bridge now.

Leave a Reply