|
On February 01 2017 17:15 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 13:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
So what if different terrorist groups started having a cross site discussion. You'd post at forum A, they'd respond in forum B, and you have a loop of like 10 forums that you all know the sequence to understand what the chat is about. That would be a form of steganography. But what exactly is your point, that terrorists can use public forums to coordinate? Yup, they could. But in most cases it's far easier to just send an encrypted message. Steganography is mostly used when you want to send a secret message without anybody knowing there even was a message at all. Its secrecy lies in that you need to know how to find it in otherwise mundane letter/picture/video. With cryptography you don't mind people knowing that you sent something secret, you just don't want anybody to know what it says.
Only that posting encrypted messages (gibberish) online isn't suspicious at all. Internet is full of gibberish, and the vast majority of encrypted data you can find online, I assume, is not terrorist plans. It's not like NSA is going "aha, encrypted data! Terrorist communication!!".
I don't think posting plain English text over multiple forums has any real advantage over encrypted public data through high traffic channels.
|
On February 01 2017 20:54 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 17:15 Acrofales wrote:On February 01 2017 13:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
So what if different terrorist groups started having a cross site discussion. You'd post at forum A, they'd respond in forum B, and you have a loop of like 10 forums that you all know the sequence to understand what the chat is about. That would be a form of steganography. But what exactly is your point, that terrorists can use public forums to coordinate? Yup, they could. But in most cases it's far easier to just send an encrypted message. Steganography is mostly used when you want to send a secret message without anybody knowing there even was a message at all. Its secrecy lies in that you need to know how to find it in otherwise mundane letter/picture/video. With cryptography you don't mind people knowing that you sent something secret, you just don't want anybody to know what it says. Only that posting encrypted messages (gibberish) online isn't suspicious at all. Internet is full of gibberish, and the vast majority of encrypted data you can find online, I assume, is not terrorist plans. It's not like NSA is going "aha, encrypted data! Terrorist communication!!". I don't think posting plain English text over multiple forums has any real advantage over encrypted public data through high traffic channels.
You misunderstood me. I wasn't making any value judgement of one over the other. I was pointing out what steganography IS.
But if you want to know, I agree with you. You have to use TOR and a load of proxies, so the message cannot be traced back to you, and similarly, readers should do the same. Then all any intelligence agency can say is that there was an encrypted post that was probably coordinating something, but we don't know between who (due to TOR) and what it's about (encryption).
Steganography has a whole load of downsides which are difficult to work around (mostly that the signal to noise ratio has to be really really low (as evidenced by xMZ's idea of making multiple posts over many different forums in order to relay 1 message), which generally leads to it being a lot more trouble than it's worth. Steganography has its purpose, but communication within a terrorist cell doesn't seem to be one of them.
|
On February 01 2017 21:00 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 20:54 Cascade wrote:On February 01 2017 17:15 Acrofales wrote:On February 01 2017 13:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
So what if different terrorist groups started having a cross site discussion. You'd post at forum A, they'd respond in forum B, and you have a loop of like 10 forums that you all know the sequence to understand what the chat is about. That would be a form of steganography. But what exactly is your point, that terrorists can use public forums to coordinate? Yup, they could. But in most cases it's far easier to just send an encrypted message. Steganography is mostly used when you want to send a secret message without anybody knowing there even was a message at all. Its secrecy lies in that you need to know how to find it in otherwise mundane letter/picture/video. With cryptography you don't mind people knowing that you sent something secret, you just don't want anybody to know what it says. Only that posting encrypted messages (gibberish) online isn't suspicious at all. Internet is full of gibberish, and the vast majority of encrypted data you can find online, I assume, is not terrorist plans. It's not like NSA is going "aha, encrypted data! Terrorist communication!!". I don't think posting plain English text over multiple forums has any real advantage over encrypted public data through high traffic channels. You misunderstood me. I wasn't making any value judgement of one over the other. I was pointing out what steganography IS. But if you want to know, I agree with you. You have to use TOR and a load of proxies, so the message cannot be traced back to you, and similarly, readers should do the same. Then all any intelligence agency can say is that there was an encrypted post that was probably coordinating something, but we don't know between who (due to TOR) and what it's about (encryption). Steganography has a whole load of downsides which are difficult to work around (mostly that the signal to noise ratio has to be really really low (as evidenced by xMZ's idea of making multiple posts over many different forums in order to relay 1 message), which generally leads to it being a lot more trouble than it's worth. Steganography has its purpose, but communication within a terrorist cell doesn't seem to be one of them.
Yes, sorry, I didn't mean to disagree. Just argued why that approach didn't make sense in this case, imo.
|
|
|
On February 02 2017 01:21 JimmiC wrote:
The funny thing about pigions is it would work. A lot of low tech transmissions such as couriers is how Osama stayed hidden for So long.
I think smoke signals are going to be the next technique.
Would fusing both technologies improve it? Smoked pigeons?
|
Sure, i'm pretty certain that burning a Pigeon generates a ton of Smoke.
|
If there really is a possibility that large volumes of seemingly nonsensical posts on internet forums are actually there only to hide bits of clandestine information, I think I have finally found an explanation for this thread 
|
|
|
On February 01 2017 20:54 Cascade wrote:
Only that posting encrypted messages (gibberish) online isn't suspicious at all. Internet is full of gibberish, and the vast majority of encrypted data you can find online, I assume, is not terrorist plans.
I don't think posting plain English text over multiple forums has any real advantage over encrypted public data through high traffic channels.
BLSIKW^[KUVCAUA[PT]TYJIH^OKNPS\AOQCJNUQWIK^WVSLXVCW\SDGHDPVWSBMCLKIVZCNPY\QQK^MLUBQ\G_MAE\BDJUSR`YRO\GU^]_\KLM]U[HTLXDQIUPUZFFWL
Moving on...
There is an advantage to multiple-forums from a sigint perspective. If you're sharing encrypted text over one channel, a snooper can put an upper limit on how much information you sent. If you're using multiple forums, a snooper can't be sure they found everything.
|
On February 02 2017 03:27 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2017 01:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 02 2017 01:21 JimmiC wrote:
The funny thing about pigions is it would work. A lot of low tech transmissions such as couriers is how Osama stayed hidden for So long.
I think smoke signals are going to be the next technique. Would fusing both technologies improve it? Smoked pigeons? Yes, because as mentioned after they would generate desired smoke AND you could have a delicious meal AND stop the issue of over crowding with pigeons. Solve world hunger, communicate clandestinely, make America streets less covered in bird poop again, communicate with smoked pigeons. That can be our vision statement.
Viva le Revolution!
|
On February 02 2017 04:16 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 20:54 Cascade wrote:
Only that posting encrypted messages (gibberish) online isn't suspicious at all. Internet is full of gibberish, and the vast majority of encrypted data you can find online, I assume, is not terrorist plans.
I don't think posting plain English text over multiple forums has any real advantage over encrypted public data through high traffic channels. BLSIKW^[KUVCAUA[PT]TYJIH^OKNPS\AOQCJNUQWIK^WVSLXVCW\SDGHDPVWSBMCLKIVZCNPY\QQK^MLUBQ\G_MAE\BDJUSR`YRO\GU^]_\KLM]U[HTLXDQIUPUZFFWL Moving on... There is an advantage to multiple-forums from a sigint perspective. If you're sharing encrypted text over one channel, a snooper can put an upper limit on how much information you sent. If you're using multiple forums, a snooper can't be sure they found everything.
If they know which channel you send encrypted messages, then why can't they know which forums you use?
Anyway, you use a channel with a lot of binary traffic, so that your contribution is tiny. Like YouTube, drop box, imgur or something like that. Typing out binary encrypted data on a low traffic (as in little data, and data is plain English) channel like a forum probably isn't the best way.
|
On February 02 2017 08:07 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2017 04:16 Buckyman wrote:On February 01 2017 20:54 Cascade wrote:
Only that posting encrypted messages (gibberish) online isn't suspicious at all. Internet is full of gibberish, and the vast majority of encrypted data you can find online, I assume, is not terrorist plans.
I don't think posting plain English text over multiple forums has any real advantage over encrypted public data through high traffic channels. BLSIKW^[KUVCAUA[PT]TYJIH^OKNPS\AOQCJNUQWIK^WVSLXVCW\SDGHDPVWSBMCLKIVZCNPY\QQK^MLUBQ\G_MAE\BDJUSR`YRO\GU^]_\KLM]U[HTLXDQIUPUZFFWL Moving on... There is an advantage to multiple-forums from a sigint perspective. If you're sharing encrypted text over one channel, a snooper can put an upper limit on how much information you sent. If you're using multiple forums, a snooper can't be sure they found everything. If they know which channel you send encrypted messages, then why can't they know which forums you use? Anyway, you use a channel with a lot of binary traffic, so that your contribution is tiny. Like YouTube, drop box, imgur or something like that. Typing out binary encrypted data on a low traffic (as in little data, and data is plain English) channel like a forum probably isn't the best way.
Is it possible to do both? Encrypted messages sent through different channels? Send a ping through Tor, say "understood" on a porn website, leave a "More please" on a youtube video, then send more info through tor again?
|
On February 02 2017 09:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2017 08:07 Cascade wrote:On February 02 2017 04:16 Buckyman wrote:On February 01 2017 20:54 Cascade wrote:
Only that posting encrypted messages (gibberish) online isn't suspicious at all. Internet is full of gibberish, and the vast majority of encrypted data you can find online, I assume, is not terrorist plans.
I don't think posting plain English text over multiple forums has any real advantage over encrypted public data through high traffic channels. BLSIKW^[KUVCAUA[PT]TYJIH^OKNPS\AOQCJNUQWIK^WVSLXVCW\SDGHDPVWSBMCLKIVZCNPY\QQK^MLUBQ\G_MAE\BDJUSR`YRO\GU^]_\KLM]U[HTLXDQIUPUZFFWL Moving on... There is an advantage to multiple-forums from a sigint perspective. If you're sharing encrypted text over one channel, a snooper can put an upper limit on how much information you sent. If you're using multiple forums, a snooper can't be sure they found everything. If they know which channel you send encrypted messages, then why can't they know which forums you use? Anyway, you use a channel with a lot of binary traffic, so that your contribution is tiny. Like YouTube, drop box, imgur or something like that. Typing out binary encrypted data on a low traffic (as in little data, and data is plain English) channel like a forum probably isn't the best way. Is it possible to do both? Encrypted messages sent through different channels? Send a ping through Tor, say "understood" on a porn website, leave a "More please" on a youtube video, then send more info through tor again?
I guess each encrypted message can contain information about where the next one will come. That account on youtube, or image with that title on 4chan.
I don't see a reason to ever send anything unencrypted. If you insist on using multiple platforms, why not still encrypt everything?
|
On February 02 2017 09:57 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2017 09:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 02 2017 08:07 Cascade wrote:On February 02 2017 04:16 Buckyman wrote:On February 01 2017 20:54 Cascade wrote:
Only that posting encrypted messages (gibberish) online isn't suspicious at all. Internet is full of gibberish, and the vast majority of encrypted data you can find online, I assume, is not terrorist plans.
I don't think posting plain English text over multiple forums has any real advantage over encrypted public data through high traffic channels. BLSIKW^[KUVCAUA[PT]TYJIH^OKNPS\AOQCJNUQWIK^WVSLXVCW\SDGHDPVWSBMCLKIVZCNPY\QQK^MLUBQ\G_MAE\BDJUSR`YRO\GU^]_\KLM]U[HTLXDQIUPUZFFWL Moving on... There is an advantage to multiple-forums from a sigint perspective. If you're sharing encrypted text over one channel, a snooper can put an upper limit on how much information you sent. If you're using multiple forums, a snooper can't be sure they found everything. If they know which channel you send encrypted messages, then why can't they know which forums you use? Anyway, you use a channel with a lot of binary traffic, so that your contribution is tiny. Like YouTube, drop box, imgur or something like that. Typing out binary encrypted data on a low traffic (as in little data, and data is plain English) channel like a forum probably isn't the best way. Is it possible to do both? Encrypted messages sent through different channels? Send a ping through Tor, say "understood" on a porn website, leave a "More please" on a youtube video, then send more info through tor again? I guess each encrypted message can contain information about where the next one will come. That account on youtube, or image with that title on 4chan.
Nope because then once you break the encryption you intercept all of them instead of only the portion you run.
The whole point is to hide how much those listening are actually intercepting.
|
On February 02 2017 10:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2017 09:57 Cascade wrote:On February 02 2017 09:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 02 2017 08:07 Cascade wrote:On February 02 2017 04:16 Buckyman wrote:On February 01 2017 20:54 Cascade wrote:
Only that posting encrypted messages (gibberish) online isn't suspicious at all. Internet is full of gibberish, and the vast majority of encrypted data you can find online, I assume, is not terrorist plans.
I don't think posting plain English text over multiple forums has any real advantage over encrypted public data through high traffic channels. BLSIKW^[KUVCAUA[PT]TYJIH^OKNPS\AOQCJNUQWIK^WVSLXVCW\SDGHDPVWSBMCLKIVZCNPY\QQK^MLUBQ\G_MAE\BDJUSR`YRO\GU^]_\KLM]U[HTLXDQIUPUZFFWL Moving on... There is an advantage to multiple-forums from a sigint perspective. If you're sharing encrypted text over one channel, a snooper can put an upper limit on how much information you sent. If you're using multiple forums, a snooper can't be sure they found everything. If they know which channel you send encrypted messages, then why can't they know which forums you use? Anyway, you use a channel with a lot of binary traffic, so that your contribution is tiny. Like YouTube, drop box, imgur or something like that. Typing out binary encrypted data on a low traffic (as in little data, and data is plain English) channel like a forum probably isn't the best way. Is it possible to do both? Encrypted messages sent through different channels? Send a ping through Tor, say "understood" on a porn website, leave a "More please" on a youtube video, then send more info through tor again? I guess each encrypted message can contain information about where the next one will come. That account on youtube, or image with that title on 4chan. Nope because then once you break the encryption you intercept all of them instead of only the portion you run. The whole point is to hide how much those listening are actually intercepting.
It goes for any system, that once you figure it out, you are screwed. Once they figure out your system of jumping between sites, they will also be able to read everything. Any system must rely on the terrorists having secret information that NSA doesn't have, that enables them to read the communication. This can be knowledge about which system of forums you jump between, or the private key to unlock the encrypted messages. I mean, if NSA knows what the terrorists know, they'll be able to read communication as well as them.
Question is how hard is it to break the system without that information. If you post things in plain English, there is still a risk to get caught in the NSA filters, but it's in practice impossible to break encrypted messages when you don't have the private key, especially with an enormous amount of encrypted data flying over the internet constantly, and NSA has no idea which may contain terrorist information.
So in short, it is a lot easier to figure out a system of forum jumping with plain text than it is to
1) figure out which encrypted information is terrorist communication
2) break the encryption (essentially impossible)
|
On February 02 2017 10:08 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2017 10:00 Gorsameth wrote:On February 02 2017 09:57 Cascade wrote:On February 02 2017 09:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 02 2017 08:07 Cascade wrote:On February 02 2017 04:16 Buckyman wrote:On February 01 2017 20:54 Cascade wrote:
Only that posting encrypted messages (gibberish) online isn't suspicious at all. Internet is full of gibberish, and the vast majority of encrypted data you can find online, I assume, is not terrorist plans.
I don't think posting plain English text over multiple forums has any real advantage over encrypted public data through high traffic channels. BLSIKW^[KUVCAUA[PT]TYJIH^OKNPS\AOQCJNUQWIK^WVSLXVCW\SDGHDPVWSBMCLKIVZCNPY\QQK^MLUBQ\G_MAE\BDJUSR`YRO\GU^]_\KLM]U[HTLXDQIUPUZFFWL Moving on... There is an advantage to multiple-forums from a sigint perspective. If you're sharing encrypted text over one channel, a snooper can put an upper limit on how much information you sent. If you're using multiple forums, a snooper can't be sure they found everything. If they know which channel you send encrypted messages, then why can't they know which forums you use? Anyway, you use a channel with a lot of binary traffic, so that your contribution is tiny. Like YouTube, drop box, imgur or something like that. Typing out binary encrypted data on a low traffic (as in little data, and data is plain English) channel like a forum probably isn't the best way. Is it possible to do both? Encrypted messages sent through different channels? Send a ping through Tor, say "understood" on a porn website, leave a "More please" on a youtube video, then send more info through tor again? I guess each encrypted message can contain information about where the next one will come. That account on youtube, or image with that title on 4chan. Nope because then once you break the encryption you intercept all of them instead of only the portion you run. The whole point is to hide how much those listening are actually intercepting. It goes for any system, that once you figure it out, you are screwed. Once they figure out your system of jumping between sites, they will also be able to read everything. Any system must rely on the terrorists having secret information that NSA doesn't have, that enables them to read the communication. This can be knowledge about which system of forums you jump between, or the private key to unlock the encrypted messages. I mean, if NSA knows what the terrorists know, they'll be able to read communication as well as them. Question is how hard is it to break the system without that information. If you post things in plain English, there is still a risk to get caught in the NSA filters, but it's in practice impossible to break encrypted messages when you don't have the private key, especially with an enormous amount of encrypted data flying over the internet constantly, and NSA has no idea which may contain terrorist information.
My mistake, I was under the impression the "terrorists" would be communicating across a variety of sites in code. Not plain English, which seems kinda dumb. Even if you cut up a message your still probably leaving trigger words around, and that initial 'suspect. investigate deeper' is what you want to avoid as long as possible.
|
On February 02 2017 10:14 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2017 10:08 Cascade wrote:On February 02 2017 10:00 Gorsameth wrote:On February 02 2017 09:57 Cascade wrote:On February 02 2017 09:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 02 2017 08:07 Cascade wrote:On February 02 2017 04:16 Buckyman wrote:On February 01 2017 20:54 Cascade wrote:
Only that posting encrypted messages (gibberish) online isn't suspicious at all. Internet is full of gibberish, and the vast majority of encrypted data you can find online, I assume, is not terrorist plans.
I don't think posting plain English text over multiple forums has any real advantage over encrypted public data through high traffic channels. BLSIKW^[KUVCAUA[PT]TYJIH^OKNPS\AOQCJNUQWIK^WVSLXVCW\SDGHDPVWSBMCLKIVZCNPY\QQK^MLUBQ\G_MAE\BDJUSR`YRO\GU^]_\KLM]U[HTLXDQIUPUZFFWL Moving on... There is an advantage to multiple-forums from a sigint perspective. If you're sharing encrypted text over one channel, a snooper can put an upper limit on how much information you sent. If you're using multiple forums, a snooper can't be sure they found everything. If they know which channel you send encrypted messages, then why can't they know which forums you use? Anyway, you use a channel with a lot of binary traffic, so that your contribution is tiny. Like YouTube, drop box, imgur or something like that. Typing out binary encrypted data on a low traffic (as in little data, and data is plain English) channel like a forum probably isn't the best way. Is it possible to do both? Encrypted messages sent through different channels? Send a ping through Tor, say "understood" on a porn website, leave a "More please" on a youtube video, then send more info through tor again? I guess each encrypted message can contain information about where the next one will come. That account on youtube, or image with that title on 4chan. Nope because then once you break the encryption you intercept all of them instead of only the portion you run. The whole point is to hide how much those listening are actually intercepting. It goes for any system, that once you figure it out, you are screwed. Once they figure out your system of jumping between sites, they will also be able to read everything. Any system must rely on the terrorists having secret information that NSA doesn't have, that enables them to read the communication. This can be knowledge about which system of forums you jump between, or the private key to unlock the encrypted messages. I mean, if NSA knows what the terrorists know, they'll be able to read communication as well as them. Question is how hard is it to break the system without that information. If you post things in plain English, there is still a risk to get caught in the NSA filters, but it's in practice impossible to break encrypted messages when you don't have the private key, especially with an enormous amount of encrypted data flying over the internet constantly, and NSA has no idea which may contain terrorist information. My mistake, I was under the impression the "terrorists" would be communicating across a variety of sites in code. Not plain English, which seems kinda dumb. Even if you cut up a message your still probably leaving trigger words around, and that initial 'suspect. investigate deeper' is what you want to avoid as long as possible.
So you mean "in code" like replacing key words like "president" with "duck" and so on, but otherwise plain English? Why not go all the way and properly encrypt the messages then, instead of these perfectly breakable toy encryption?
|
On February 02 2017 10:20 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2017 10:14 Gorsameth wrote:On February 02 2017 10:08 Cascade wrote:On February 02 2017 10:00 Gorsameth wrote:On February 02 2017 09:57 Cascade wrote:On February 02 2017 09:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 02 2017 08:07 Cascade wrote:On February 02 2017 04:16 Buckyman wrote:On February 01 2017 20:54 Cascade wrote:
Only that posting encrypted messages (gibberish) online isn't suspicious at all. Internet is full of gibberish, and the vast majority of encrypted data you can find online, I assume, is not terrorist plans.
I don't think posting plain English text over multiple forums has any real advantage over encrypted public data through high traffic channels. BLSIKW^[KUVCAUA[PT]TYJIH^OKNPS\AOQCJNUQWIK^WVSLXVCW\SDGHDPVWSBMCLKIVZCNPY\QQK^MLUBQ\G_MAE\BDJUSR`YRO\GU^]_\KLM]U[HTLXDQIUPUZFFWL Moving on... There is an advantage to multiple-forums from a sigint perspective. If you're sharing encrypted text over one channel, a snooper can put an upper limit on how much information you sent. If you're using multiple forums, a snooper can't be sure they found everything. If they know which channel you send encrypted messages, then why can't they know which forums you use? Anyway, you use a channel with a lot of binary traffic, so that your contribution is tiny. Like YouTube, drop box, imgur or something like that. Typing out binary encrypted data on a low traffic (as in little data, and data is plain English) channel like a forum probably isn't the best way. Is it possible to do both? Encrypted messages sent through different channels? Send a ping through Tor, say "understood" on a porn website, leave a "More please" on a youtube video, then send more info through tor again? I guess each encrypted message can contain information about where the next one will come. That account on youtube, or image with that title on 4chan. Nope because then once you break the encryption you intercept all of them instead of only the portion you run. The whole point is to hide how much those listening are actually intercepting. It goes for any system, that once you figure it out, you are screwed. Once they figure out your system of jumping between sites, they will also be able to read everything. Any system must rely on the terrorists having secret information that NSA doesn't have, that enables them to read the communication. This can be knowledge about which system of forums you jump between, or the private key to unlock the encrypted messages. I mean, if NSA knows what the terrorists know, they'll be able to read communication as well as them. Question is how hard is it to break the system without that information. If you post things in plain English, there is still a risk to get caught in the NSA filters, but it's in practice impossible to break encrypted messages when you don't have the private key, especially with an enormous amount of encrypted data flying over the internet constantly, and NSA has no idea which may contain terrorist information. My mistake, I was under the impression the "terrorists" would be communicating across a variety of sites in code. Not plain English, which seems kinda dumb. Even if you cut up a message your still probably leaving trigger words around, and that initial 'suspect. investigate deeper' is what you want to avoid as long as possible. So you mean "in code" like replacing key words like "president" with "duck" and so on, but otherwise plain English? Why not go all the way and properly encrypt the messages then, instead of these perfectly breakable toy encryption?
Why speak in words at all?
, could be president - could be "red herring please ignore" {}) could be from the south while {}} could be "Don't forget to bring coffee" which is code for "2:30am meeting"
|
Oh wow this is some fucking top tier drama shit right here. This is not a question but this isn't worth a blog and I can't think of a more fitting place to post about it than this thread which might as well be called "general bullshit".
+ Show Spoiler +I've been playing videogames with this dude I've known for 5-6 months who lives close to here in Canada (he has a long-time girlfriend) and this girl from Denmark. I find that the two have a weirdly romantic-looking relationship but idk maybe they're just broing out so I don't say anything for the most part. I call her his side-chick jokingly yesterday and he got mad. He's 26-27, she's 18. The girl is the most shy, precious little delicate flower who's afraid to talk and is afraid to play badly and she's just all around terrified of everything.
Today she shows up and asks me to tell him to re-add her. Curious as to why they'd have fallen out, I investigate. I work it out: she planned to come to Canada to visit him, and he told her she shouldn't. He said they shouldn't talk anymore, as they've gotten too close. So now I understand the full picture, she's balls deep in love with him. And he grew a conscience and pushed her away. Good on him, I thought, not to lead her on or whatever.
So, understanding this and knowing that this girl is vulnerable, I thought I'd just tell her to keep her feelings in check since he has a girlfriend. Assumed she knew this already. She didn't. Poor girl is super sad and heartbroken, it's her first time if she's to be believed (which is not confirmed).
So I check with other girl buddy and he was flirting with her too, she also didn't know about his girlfriend.
This dude just screws with internet girls and leads them on before dumping them. So now my crew of internet friends is in disarray. I'm mad at the guy because not only is he kind of a dick to the other girl, he's also kind of semi-cheating on his girlfriend.
What the fuck.
|
On February 02 2017 11:03 Djzapz wrote:Oh wow this is some fucking top tier drama shit right here. This is not a question but this isn't worth a blog and I can't think of a more fitting place to post about it than this thread which might as well be called "general bullshit". + Show Spoiler +I've been playing videogames with this dude I've known for 5-6 months who lives close to here in Canada (he has a long-time girlfriend) and this girl from Denmark. I find that the two have a weirdly romantic-looking relationship but idk maybe they're just broing out so I don't say anything for the most part. I call her his side-chick jokingly yesterday and he got mad. He's 26-27, she's 18. The girl is the most shy, precious little delicate flower who's afraid to talk and is afraid to play badly and she's just all around terrified of everything.
Today she shows up and asks me to tell him to re-add her. Curious as to why they'd have fallen out, I investigate. I work it out: she planned to come to Canada to visit him, and he told her she shouldn't. He said they shouldn't talk anymore, as they've gotten too close. So now I understand the full picture, she's balls deep in love with him. And he grew a conscience and pushed her away. Good on him, I thought, not to lead her on or whatever.
So, understanding this and knowing that this girl is vulnerable, I thought I'd just tell her to keep her feelings in check since he has a girlfriend. Assumed she knew this already. She didn't. Poor girl is super sad and heartbroken, it's her first time if she's to be believed (which is not confirmed).
So I check with other girl buddy and he was flirting with her too, she also didn't know about his girlfriend.
This dude just screws with internet girls and leads them on before dumping them. So now my crew of internet friends is in disarray. I'm mad at the guy because not only is he kind of a dick to the other girl, he's also kind of semi-cheating on his girlfriend.
What the fuck.
There`s a letting off steam thread, might work there. But man, shitty that people can't just be upfront and end up ruining groups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
