http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Terryeo

You pose your statement as to say there is justification as to anon lulz in its dealings of revealing identities, so comparing an organization of which whether it is true or not, believes it has threats and responds to it is somehow less justification as to how anon reveals identities for lulz.

As for COS harassing its critics, yep I think they are childish esp the looping LA bigscreen, as for Bob and LMT, both were personal and Bob, Bunker and crew acted no different in chasing them down. In watching all those vids they fed off of each other. Kieth Henson is my fav though, you should give him a PI badge.
What I find ironic is that many critics of the past are still around and criticizing and yet no masks. COS could do no different than what it does now with or without masks to anon.

FLUNK

do I really have to explain the lunacy of anon’s reasons for giving one’s identity. please.

As for blame, here is my issue. I have dealt with anon well before COS and the original attack against COS from anon was typical, a freedom of intellectual property. I have had many the debate on that. So anon jumping on board was based on invalid and misunderstandings of fair use. That said, enturb anon vs the chans I find problems with many innocent anon that have no clue about anon, just that it is fun and has a cool mask. I have argued this since day 1. Most people will not take anon seriously in protesting COS, so I say to the entrubs, why affiliate with anon? Make your own group, one without a history or filled with lingo that the rest of the world will never understand. Thus this is why I assign blame.

Say you work at a supermarket. Today another employee was caught stealing from the register and was arrested for the theft. Because you work at the supermarket, should you be arrested too, simply because of your employment there?

Similarly, certain members of Anonymous (pre-protest Anonymous, mind you) are guilty of revealing the identities of others. However, this does not mean EVERY member of Anonymous should be held responsible for the actions of a few, should it? The people identified in the videos were identified simply because of their involvement in the protests, nothing more and nothing less.

So its ok for Anon lulz against others but not the other way around? A double standard?

However, I do see a technicality here.

Bunker is suspended because viacom holds the infringement over his head, if they removed the complaint, Bunker could get back on.

Youtube holds the infringement of COS’ head and thus must have been reconciled.