2:23 BarrettBrown: It was Cyberactivists Warned of Arrests
2:23 BarrettBrown: I fucked up a word
2:23 BarrettBrown: did it myself in twenty minutes
2:23 ahriman: more like 30
2:23 BarrettBrown: ...
2:23 ahriman: 30 words
2:23 ahriman: it isn't just one title
2:23 BarrettBrown: what thirty words?
2:23 BarrettBrown: Okay, what else?
2:23 ahriman: we found a lot of mistkaes
2:23 BarrettBrown: Okay, list them
2:23 SecurityManKillJoy: okay back to editing the article again, not a big deal
2:23 BarrettBrown: You know I've been writing press releases for Anon for a long time, right?
2:23 BarrettBrown: and op-eds?
2:24 ahriman: Menn publishes another article entitled, "Hackers Admit Anonymous Likely Behind Sony Attack." http://tinyurl.com/anonPR2
2:24 BarrettBrown: right
2:24 ahriman: look at line 26
2:24 ahriman: again, your title wasn't even in google cache
2:25
BarrettBrown: Techmeme: Hackers admit Anonymous likely behind Sony
attacks ... May 6, 2011 ... Hackers admit Anonymous likely behind Sony
attacks By Tim Bradshaw in London and Joseph Menn in San Francisco
Two veterans of Anonymous ... www.techmeme.com/110506/p32 - Block all
techmeme.com results
2:25 ahriman: so you quote one article and link to another?
2:26 BarrettBrown: By Tim Bradshaw in London and Joseph Menn in San Francisco
2:26 BarrettBrown: By Tim Bradshaw in London and Joseph Menn in San Francisco
2:26 BarrettBrown: seriously
2:26 BarrettBrown: don't do that again
2:26 BarrettBrown: I don't deserve to be accused of shit
2:27 ahriman: well here's the other thing, the article didn't say what you claimed
2:27 BarrettBrown: dude
2:28 BarrettBrown: that's two false accusations shot down already
2:28 BarrettBrown: accept that you have failed to understand some things
2:28 BarrettBrown: and move on
2:28 ahriman: uhh... i think both of my assertions are correct
2:28 BarrettBrown: No, the title was indeed in google cache
2:28 BarrettBrown: it's all over google
2:28 ahriman: you even admitted you got the title wrong
2:28 BarrettBrown: I got one word in one title wrong
2:28 ahriman: and then your link didn't match your article
2:28 BarrettBrown: dude
2:28 ahriman: and then your article didn't say what you claimed
2:28 ahriman: read the stuff we wrote
2:28 BarrettBrown: that was the title
2:29 SecurityManKillJoy: I'd say this isn't worth the e-drama
2:29 BarrettBrown: GO LOOK AT THAT LINK
2:29 ahriman: I DID.
2:29 ahriman: but that WAS NOT the link you put in the press release
2:29 BarrettBrown: And you saw that the title I used was indeed the original title of that article?
2:29 BarrettBrown: No, they changed it
2:29 ahriman: i even checked your older link
2:29 BarrettBrown: that's why it still says it at that link
2:29 BarrettBrown: I know, they changed it there then
2:29 BarrettBrown: I work in the media, sweetheart
2:30 BarrettBrown: I know what I'm talking about
2:30 BarrettBrown: That title I used was the title of the article
2:30 BarrettBrown: you went to IRC cops to accuse me of god knows what
2:30 SecurityManKillJoy: yeah so I'm wondering if it should be cited as the old title or new
ahriman: i wash my hands of it, but suggest putting both titles and links to old and new
2:31 ahriman: but let's have the article content match the new, and turn the current article into a pdf
2:31 ahriman: if they change between now and later, we have the PDF to fall back on
2:31 BarrettBrown: can you please tell whichever IRC cops you accused me of potential wrongdoing that you made an error?
2:32 BarrettBrown: I really don't want rumors about me sabotaging Anonymous
2:32
ahriman: if you look through the history here you'll see I included
the possibility of them changing the info - but i was looking at the
google cache
2:32 BarrettBrown: that's sweet of you
2:32 BarrettBrown: just tell them you made a mistake, ok?
2:32 ahriman: I'll present both sides
2:32 BarrettBrown: ....
2:33 ahriman: including the likelihood they changed the article
2:33 ahriman: strong likelihood
2:33 SecurityManKillJoy: what happened to line 20?
2:33 ahriman: line 20 was based on old or wrong data