When I began writing about Anonymous’ protests against the Church of Scientology I had NO idea what to think, expect or envision. As far as I was concerned, they were two sinister organizations battling it out, and it was good idea to stay removed.

During my coverage, I was rickrolled, memed, exposed to weird variations of intentionally misspelled words and utterly lost in this seemingly surreal world. At some point, I visited Encyclopedia Dramatica and the Something Awful forums to do some research on “Anonymous” and I genuinely thought to myself, “how is it possible I could be blogging for over six years and be so clueless about an entire subculture of people.”

In all fairness, Anonymous does have a fairly sordid past, with a strange sense of humor. Both sites listed above have a tendency to make fun of the kinds of people and things that society politely protects due to an abundance of political correctness. The SA and ED sites are not for the PC or easily offended. You’ve been warned.

This however, does not mean that all individuals who call themselves Anonymous, are in fact “Anonymous.” Even those people who are Anonymous aren’t even Anonymous. Does that make sense? It shouldn’t. For months now I have read various parties try to define who Anonymous are and who they aren’t. Most Anonymous feel there is no proper way to define the group, and many are repulsed at the idea of even trying to do so. From my perspective, this stems from the very nature of the word “anonymous.” From Merriam-Websters definition:

anonymous

1 : not named or identified
2 : of unknown authorship or origin 3 : lacking individuality, distinction, or recognizability

Still confused? That’s natural. While I am not an authority by any means, I feel as informed as anyone else in the media to make distinctions. Yes, even in a group calling itself “Anonymous” there are distinctions. And in this case, quite marked.

Glosslip has actively chosen to interact with all sorts of people calling themselves “anonymous” and from what I have observed, there are three distinct groupings of Anonymous. I will attempt to define as best I understand.

(Read the article)

Comments(0)

Was Heath Ledger was a father at 17? News out of Australia is that Ledger may have left behind 11-year-old daughter in addition to the baby he had with Michelle Williams. Ledger’s uncle, Haydn Ledger, says Heath had a brief affair when he was a 17-year-old schoolboy. The woman, then aged 25, reportedly discovered she was pregnant after their relationship had ended and she was living with another man at the time.

Source: D

Comments(0)

Rumor has it that Madonna is serious about doing a remake of “Casablanca” - only updated to modern day Baghdad - and casting herself in the role of Ilsa played by the great screen legend Ingrid Bergman who was in her 20s when she filmed the classic. Imagine combining all three cinematic ‘Kiss of Death’ elements — Madonna + Iraq war movie + remake of a classic — into one Sure Fire Flop!

Source: D

Comments(0)

Heath Ledger’s family has been stunned by new revelations that he may have fathered a secret love child when he was just seventeen years old:

Ledger was a 17-year-old schoolboy when he had an affair with an older woman who is thought to have only discovered she was pregnant after their relationship ended.

The woman was living with another man at the time of the alleged affair.

Yesterday, Ledger’s uncle, Hadyn Ledger said: “There is a very real possibility that Heath was the father.”

If it is confirmed that Ledger is the girl’s biological father, it could split his multi-million dollar estate between his two-year-old daughter Matilda Rose with Hollywood actress Michelle Williams, and his secret love child. […]

Heath was still at school at Guildford Grammar when he began the affair with the woman, then aged 25.

Yesterday another family source said: “She had the baby. Everyone lived under the assumption that she was the daughter of the mother’s boyfriend and that is how she has been brought up.” The woman is now married with a young family.

Heath’s will was drawn up in 2003 and does not mention either Michele or Matilda, who was not born yet. It lists only his father, mother, sister, and half-sisters as beneficiaries, although his father Kim has said that Michelle and Matilda will be taken care of.

The battle over Heath’s estate has highlighted a long-simmering feud in the Ledger family between father Kim and his brothers, stemming from his handling of their father’s estate:

The family feud began when Kim became executor of their grandfather, Sir Frank Ledger’s estate over 20 years ago. He borrowed heavily against the $2 million estate, leaving it heavily in debt before he was removed as executor by the WA Supreme Court in 1994.

It’s interesting that rumors of this love child pop up now, after his death and while his estate is being settled, and not while he was alive. Could there have been tension between Heath and the mother? Could she totally be bluffing? Only a DNA test will tell for sure. Couldn’t they have quietly done a DNA test before releasing this to the media?  That way, if it were not true, life could go on for this child as normal.  Of course, this child (now around ten years old) will undoubtedly hear all about it, and have to readjust from thinking one man is her father to thinking of another man as her father. That’s a big thing for a kid to have to handle. I see a tell-all exclusive interview with the mom in the future, complete with a nice check.

This could have been handled in private. Why can’t people think before they open their big mouths?

Source: k

Comments(0)

Will this woman never stop?  She’s still convinced that she can be as big of a force on the silver screen as she was in music.  Madonna has her sights set on remaking the classic war-time movie Casablanca, and she wants to set it in modern-day Iraq.  Oh, and did I mention she wants the starring female lead for herself?

The singer, whose previous film career has been littered with critical and commercial turkeys, is also planning to take the lead role of Ilsa Lund, which originally made a star of Ingrid Bergman.

A source at a major Hollywood studio that was recently approached by the 49-year-old star said: “She is still determined to make it in the movies.

“She and her representatives have been touting around a project which is a remake of Casablanca. The reception has been lukewarm to say the least. No one can understand why she wants to redo what many people consider the greatest film of all time.” […]

The source said: “Madonna is talking about taking the Ingrid Bergman role for herself, even though Bergman was in her 20s when she played Ilsa and Madonna is nearly 50.

“She wants to update the story and maybe set it in a modern war zone such as Iraq. There is no script yet.

“Madonna and her people are testing the waters to see if this is the right vehicle for her and if a major studio will get behind the project.”

Hmm…if you take the story out of Casablanca, and put it in Iraq, and modernize it, do you really have a remake, or just an entirely new film with a few plot similarities?  You could say that about any movie that’s been made in the last forty years.  Let’s hope that, for once, studios will show some restraint and turn Her Madgesty down flat. There’s no need to remake one of the most famous classic films of all time, unless it’s to try and show off the size of Madonna’s ego.

What is it with famous people, anyway?  They can’t be happy with the talents they have?  Madonna has conquered the music world, but she still feels this need to branch out into acting.  Well, I’ve seen her act, and trust me…Casablanca isn’t going to be remade any time soon.  Besides, no matter how much touch-up work she has done to her face, and no matter how much she exercises, and no matter how much Kabbalah water she drinks, ain’t no way she’s passing for a twenty-year-old, or even a thirty-year-old.

Don’t be too upset, Madonna…we’ll always have Shanghai Surprise.

Source: k

Comments(0)