OUR WEBSITE WAS ATTACKED.

Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
OUR WEBSITE WAS ATTACKED.

Did you notice the issues connecting to the RRS website over the last few days? We were in fact attacked by what is referred to as a DDOS. Such action is a federal crime but due to the nature of the attack, most attackers go uncaught. We will be working with the FBI in an attempt to locate and prosecute the attackers to the fullest extent of the law. We were struck by a similar attack in The War on Easter 06. During this attack NONE of your personal information was violated.

Now a note in how I personally operate...
Whenever someone tries to thwart or take down a project that I believe in, that I believe I can defend logically, instead of getting mad or frustrated I calmly try to determine exactly what the "attackers" intent was. Upon determining intent I make it my goal to counter that intent by working harder on the area that was "attacked." Essentially I find ways to get revenge without actually addressing the attacker at all. An example of this can be seen when I received a funny letter stating that a few Christians were boycotting our site (likely only one), in turn I used the letter as a humorous stunt to attract attention to our efforts, here is the video. Last year we had someone tell us they were going to have our myspace page deleted, I in turn used it as one of the largest single day jumps in membership the RRS ever had, and with the help of the community proceeded to expose the "hater" as someone who was plagiarizing other authors on his myspace blog (here is the thread).

Well this time it was a DDOS attack. I have a feeling the main motive was to merely shut us down, to quiet us, maybe to discourage us from our efforts. In that regard we can speak up more often, I can implore you folks to make more posts here, to talk about religion and it's flaws more frequently, and to just become more active. Aside from that, during the time that our website was down we pulled in no money. Most of you know by now that we're about to take on a heap of expenses in a new home, and therefore money has become more important than ever before. In that regard, as much as we ask for your help, and thanks so much to everyone who helps, I'd like to at least recover the money lost during our downtime, or in an ideal world be able to recover much more than we would've made had the site been up. To that end, there are 3 ways to help.

1. You can donate any amount to Squad operations here

2. You can donate any amount directly to Rook to help cover his moving expenses into the new home by using the chip in module on the left hand side of the page.

3. I have placed a special auction on EBAY. The auction is 3 sets of the same prize package. Some of these items would've been given out for free over the next year, but will now instead be used to recuperate the lost dollars. Please view the auction and bid early. There are 3 lots of the same items!

Ebay Auction RRS Fundraiser

By the way, we don't think we've completely thwarted the attack yet, the site may be down sporadically until we have it resolved. Additionally as a result of the attack, Zero (our server admin) has decided to yet again upgrade our server company and speed of site. He too operates like me, and is responding to the attack by using it as an opportunity to make our sites stronger and faster. When the transition occurs at the end of the month the site will be down for a few hours. Zero is the owner of doubledoh.com, please support him.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
pm9347 wrote: i think you

pm9347 wrote:

i think you might have missed the original point of our conversation. you came into it a little late . my main point was to show that so many people jumped up and said it was a thiest without factual proof , and i can agree that your thinking is probalby sound a thiest would have a motive for an attack. but without proof and factual evidence what are we left with ?? conjecture  or applying who you think is responsible. when you carry hatred of a select group its natural to think they are responsible and by doing that your continuing the cycle hatred. which is why i used the salem which trials as an example of fear and hatred, it might not have been the best way to show my point. 

sorry about the grammar im working on improving it .

Well, I recall  a lot of 'ifs' in people's speculation.  I think you're jumping the gun a bit with the whole 'when you carry hatred of a select group' bit.  If you're going to start accusing that we despise and loathe Christians I'd suggest that you look around at some other threads, since that topic has already been explained. I almost find it humorous that theists can say so many nasty things about non-believers but as soon as a non-believer critizes religion, we become 'hateful'.  Do you think the person who is responsible for the attack is being hateful?

Without fact or proof, you are left with speculation - which is what everyone here is doing.  Speculating. 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: pm9347

BGH wrote:

pm9347 wrote:
did i lose everybody? i didnt get any response to my last 2 post , could it be true. do people really believe that there is too much hatred being generated here ?? wow cool

No, you are wrong! The reason a christian attack was first proposed and the reason it is still the leading theory boils down to "probable cause".

When law enforcement performs an investigation the first suspects that are questioned are ones with probable cause. You are right, it could be anyone, but usually it is the suspect with the most motivation.

 pm9347, since you have failed to respond to the last two posts, I will make the same assumption you did. You realized we were right and have nothing to say. Thank you.

Wow, cool. 


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
pm9347 wrote: one person

pm9347 wrote:
one person even went on to say god failed again.

Coming from a non-theist, I surely hope you realize that saying "god failed again" is with tongue firmly in cheek. 

pm9347 wrote:
when i read this site i see nothing but agressive argument instead of facts to support an athiestic point of view.

Well, being as there's no way to prove a negative (e.g. there is no god), what did you expect? 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


pm9347
Theist
pm9347's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2007-03-12
User is offlineOffline
sorry about being away for

sorry about being away for so long, life has a way of disrupting the flow of things. susan , im sorry i dont understand what your saying in the first part of your last response. as for the second part what i was expecting ,was that your site act in a way which it states its objectives,  that is to look at an attack with rationality and not respond  with revenge or to accuse a group of people without clear cut facts.


Named
Named's picture
Posts: 18
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
pm9347 wrote: i think you

pm9347 wrote:

i think you might have missed the original point of our conversation. you came into it a little late . my main point was to show that so many people jumped up and said it was a thiest without factual proof , and i can agree that your thinking is probalby sound a thiest would have a motive for an attack. but without proof and factual evidence what are we left with ?? conjecture or applying who you think is responsible. when you carry hatred of a select group its natural to think they are responsible and by doing that your continuing the cycle hatred. which is why i used the salem which trials as an example of fear and hatred, it might not have been the best way to show my point.

sorry about the grammar im working on improving it .

 

Do you not agree that it's the logical assumption to make? I personally don't care either way, however - and considering evidence is hard to come by in such a matter - it is more than likely a disgruntled Theist attacked the site than any other. If you weren't aware, this community attracts a great deal of the hate you assert is internally abundant.


My advice to you is to read the mailbag. You will understand.

Live 'til you die.


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
pm9347 wrote: sorry about

pm9347 wrote:
sorry about being away for so long, life has a way of disrupting the flow of things. susan , im sorry i dont understand what your saying in the first part of your last response. as for the second part what i was expecting ,was that your site act in a way which it states its objectives,  that is to look at an attack with rationality and not respond  with revenge or to accuse a group of people without clear cut facts.

No one is planning any major revenge and no group has been accused of doing this, so I'm not quite sure what the problem is.  Do many people speculate it was a theist?  Yes.  It seems a logical speculation.  Are people doing things in retaliation?  Of course not (at least not that anyone knows of).

If god takes life he's an indian giver


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Bah.

Given how agonisingly slow the site is and the fact it crashes after every post I think a hack is the least of your worries.

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.


pm9347
Theist
pm9347's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2007-03-12
User is offlineOffline
no i dont agree that its the

no i dont agree that its the logical conclusion, the website could have been attacked by anyone maybe an athiest no one knows, when you assume someone is responsible than you close your mind off to the truth. i feel this is an excellent example of the athestic point of view , people hear of a fact or a statistic and apply a feeling to it. then they form an opinion and try to find others that feel that way to certify it .maybe not everybody does this but many do. as for hate its generated by everbody in someway i can agree with you on that even christans that take a hostile approach to your website need to be reading their bible more often. its a loss in every aspect


pm9347
Theist
pm9347's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2007-03-12
User is offlineOffline
i disagree with your

BGH, i disagree with your example, law enforcement must use clues to establish a motive and then narrow a focus to a possible suspect , the problem lies in the fact that there were no clues to be found and yet there was an immediate reaction where people felt it had to be a thiest speculation or not 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
pm9347 wrote: BGH, i

pm9347 wrote:
BGH, i disagree with your example, law enforcement must use clues to establish a motive and then narrow a focus to a possible suspect , the problem lies in the fact that there were no clues to be found and yet there was an immediate reaction where people felt it had to be a thiest speculation or not

You are in serious denial if you think a theist wouldn't have more motive just because of the nature of this website. I don't think any of the posters claim to know for sure, it was speculation based on who would have the most likely motive. 


Edger
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-01-14
User is offlineOffline
pm9347 wrote: no i dont

pm9347 wrote:
no i dont agree that its the logical conclusion, the website could have been attacked by anyone maybe an athiest no one knows, when you assume someone is responsible than you close your mind off to the truth.

When a crime is committed investigators look for motive and opportunity. It isn't rocket science. Seeing how many Christians have made it clear they believe RRS should be silenced- we have motive. If there was a criminal investigation into the attack, this is where it would start. The next step would be to find Christian extremists who've had opportunity to arrange the attack. If said extremists were found, investigators would try to rule them out or in based on available evidence.

No need for assumption. Inductive reasoning works much better.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: pm9347

Susan wrote:

pm9347 wrote:
one person even went on to say god failed again.

Coming from a non-theist, I surely hope you realize that saying "god failed again" is with tongue firmly in cheek.

pm9347 wrote:
when i read this site i see nothing but agressive argument instead of facts to support an athiestic point of view.

Well, being as there's no way to prove a negative (e.g. there is no god), what did you expect?

pm9347 wrote:
sorry about being away for so long, life has a way of disrupting the flow of things. susan , im sorry i dont understand what your saying in the first part of your last response.

 I was attempting to say that when a non-theist says "god failed again" (because the site is still up and running), it was obviously a joke.

pm9347 wrote:
as for the second part what i was expecting ,was that your site act in a way which it states its objectives,  that is to look at an attack with rationality and not respond  with revenge or to accuse a group of people without clear cut facts.

You switched that a little.  The comment I was responding to was that you stated we respond with aggresive arguments instead of facts to support an atheistic point of view.  Now it seems that you're talking about a DDOS.

Revenge?  I don't recall seeing any posts in this thread about any kind of revenge.  (Of course, I may have missed some since I've read so many posts tonight.)

And the discussion has simply been stating that it would probably be theists who would most likely be behind a DDOS attack and why. 

If you've been around the other forums/threads, you'll see that we get messages saying that we should be shut down, we should sit down and shut up and similar suggestions (usually with foul language).  One post is particularly amusing because the author of an email is going to start a petition to get the RRS off the web. 

Are you perhaps insinuating that everyone should refrain from posting thoughts and ideas about this?  I don't think that'll ever happen because free exchange of ideas is one of the things we like.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


minorwork
minorwork's picture
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Sagan quote

BGH wrote:
I thought so, the site seemed to be behaving like it was compromised. Good work Brian!

The Sagan quote can also be expressed:

None dare call it Treason
In the sixteenth century Sir John Harrington wrote:
"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."


pm9347
Theist
pm9347's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2007-03-12
User is offlineOffline
ohhh  now i understand, its

ohhh  now i understand, its tough to get a real idea of what is being said without body language and just typing. i dont feel this site should be shut down and christians that say that are in my opinoin, wrong. this site lets christians and athiest debate the existence of god and jesus christ. that is a good thing not a bad thing. however people are inspired to act based on there religous need  and dont take time to examine what others are trying to say with patience and understanding, which is why  the hate mail comes in. I myself according to my religion cannot deny christ. but i can try to bring to everyone my knowledge of what i know to be true, with patience and understanding as my religion also requires. but consider this i didnt see anyone offer any other alternative to the website attack other than a christan .