Different strokes for different folks.

>> ^artician:

Um...

Medieval days were truly dark times, as Anglo-Saxon cultures saw their populations concentrate in large cities which they historically have not accommodated before. Meanwhile burning down all Latin achievements including infrastructure and urban management.

@longde

Cool. Societies need more immigrants that raise the average, and less immigrants that lower the average.


I don't see a link to those stats, but the following stats seem more accurate:

The US Bureau of the Census, 2009, finds that East Asian immigrants score the highest in bachelor's degree attainment: 66%. The numbers skew even more in the 2nd generation (the first generation born here): 72%. Additionally, the numbers likely skew even more for advanced degrees, rather than just bachelor's degrees.


Regarding general populations, we can make confident predictions about the future trajectory of nations based on the high average educational performance of poor areas in East Asia relative to the lower average educational performance of wealthier areas in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and Europe. Anyway, it's good to see the stories of the young scholars in that video.

So it may bring a little more light to your topic above. As I felt this was rather condescending and a personal attack to some degree(even though I am atheist), especially when it comes from someone who claims to have a spiritual connection to God, a good and moral person. There is only ONE Christian way, ONE true religion, and we are all an affront to the light and helpers of the dark. Those that don't hold these beliefs are Gods enemies.

The truth by its nature is exclusive. On the question of what 2 + 2 equals, there are an infinite number of wrong answers and one right answer. Does the fact that there are an infinite number of wrong answers diminish in any way the exclusive truth of the right one? Should we say because there are so many potential answers that there is no actual right answer? Obviously not, so why do you think it is any different for the question of God?

Matthew 12:30

Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

I take heavy stock only in science now. If there is a God it will wait till after my death for my attention--for to follow one here, I may in the end hurt someone. Like in your post above or in broader implications like homosexuality and various other randomly adhered laws and traditions (honor killings, suicide bombers and jihad, corporal punishment, suicidal group pacts, etc...) that consider some people a dangerous threat due to a religion's view.

Hebrews 9:27

And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,

You will not have that opportunity. After you die you will enter into the judgement of God. It is not something you can put off even for tomorrow, but you are not guaranteed tomorrow. You need to get right with God before you die, or you will face judgement for your sins.

Vincit Omnia Veritas, this Latin phrase sums up what I'm willing to follow the most and what I hope is actually true for most of us humans--a true philosophical debate. That is why science gets my attention above all others, philosophy for some moral quandaries and comedy to help in a lot of situations were the outright truth may not.

Only the truth can set you free. Everything else is dwelling in the vain imaginations of mankind.

/I did say I wasn't going to comment on @shinyblurry again, but I thought the way he responded to me was a prime example of a mental attitude towards those he may consider to be in the wrong and that it may give insight into your example above. It seemed almost misanthropic, but I certainly will not label shiny as such as that is up to the person to confirm; certainly not me.

I am telling you what the word of God says. I know that you see me as something else, and you can place any label that you like upon me, but my only intention is to share Gods truth.
>> ^kceaton1

@dannym3141

Great post, it brings up a good philosophical and theological question. I'm assuming in your post with @xxovercastxx you referred to @shinyblurry 's response; if this was not true, please state otherwise. But, this comment should be able to standalone by itself, I think.

@shinyblurry commented on my post above elsewhere (in my blog), where I said basically, "I was a believer in God, I felt his presence or more accurately the Holy Ghost's presence...". His literal response to one of my more important parts of my life (even though I am fully atheist now) was this: (in my blog, if you wish to read it directly; this is also located a few posts above here as well)
"There are two kingdoms in this world, the kingdom of darkness and the Kingdom of Heaven, and they are both supernatural kingdoms. You can get a supernatural experience in a false religion, but it is just a corrupt copy of the real thing. Were you feeling a burning sensation in your chest? What you were feeling wasn't the Holy Spirit, or the presence of God, but the false spirit that pervades the mormon church. The presence of God is something that goes beyond feelings and sensations. This is how people get duped into false religions, because they get a spiritual experience from a false spirit."...

So it may bring a little more light to your topic above. As I felt this was rather condescending and a personal attack to some degree(even though I am atheist), especially when it comes from someone who claims to have a spiritual connection to God, a good and moral person. There is only ONE Christian way, ONE true religion, and we are all an affront to the light and helpers of the dark. Those that don't hold these beliefs are Gods enemies.

I take heavy stock only in science now. If there is a God it will wait till after my death for my attention--for to follow one here, I may in the end hurt someone. Like in your post above or in broader implications like homosexuality and various other randomly adhered laws and traditions (honor killings, suicide bombers and jihad, corporal punishment, suicidal group pacts, etc...) that consider some people a dangerous threat due to a religion's view.

Vincit Omnia Veritas, this Latin phrase sums up what I'm willing to follow the most and what I hope is actually true for most of us humans--a true philosophical debate. That is why science gets my attention above all others, philosophy for some moral quandaries and comedy to help in a lot of situations were the outright truth may not.


/I did say I wasn't going to comment on @shinyblurry again, but I thought the way he responded to me was a prime example of a mental attitude towards those he may consider to be in the wrong and that it may give insight into your example above. It seemed almost misanthropic, but I certainly will not label shiny as such as that is up to the person to confirm; certainly not me.

remember i am a gnostic so i read the gospels...differently.
i also include ALL the gospels not just those conveniently canonized by the council of nicea.
which is the direction my comment was pointing at.

Ahh, yes, I remember. Before I became a Christian I had gnostic beliefs. I believed in the demiurge for instance, and considered the gospels found in the dead sea scrolls authoratative. However, after much research and some spiritual experience, I have changed my mind. I could bring up objections as to their dates, as many were written far after the fact in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, but my main objection is that I do not believe they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

What gnosticism does is turn Christianity into a dualistic system, with matter being called evil and spirit being good. It recasts the Father as the "demiurge", a petty and evil tyrant who totally bungled the creation. It subtly shifts the blame for the fall from mankind to God. So now man is no longer to blame for sin, but is just a victim to the brute fact of being born in the material world that an evil demigod created. So naturally, rebellion against all his authority is justified.

Futher, the saving work of Christ is turned on its head. Rather than defeating death and sin on the cross, he came to defeat ignorance of the spiritual realities as teacher of secret knowledge (gnosis). Rather than being saved through substitutionary atonement and spiritual rebirth, we must save ourselves by climbing the ladder of spiritual truths and illuminating our "divine spark". All systems of morality and ethics are perceived as relative truths governing the material reality and irrelevent to the true salvation of gnosis.

So, if I could sum up: God is the devil, rebellion is good, man saves himself (enlightenment), death is a release, and do whatever you want. I think I've heard that somewhere, before..

This is in contrast to what Jesus said:

John 19:30

When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Meaning, the work is done. There is nothing more any human can do, or ever could do. He got us the victory, and God put everything under His feet:

Matthew 28:18

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

It is only through Him, and His finished work, that we are liberated

simply put:
the powerful institution known as the church (be it catholic or baptist) have co-opted and twisted the message to fit a narrative which empowers the institution and keeps them relevant.this translates into wealth and political power and influence.
this is the absolute antithesis of christs teachings.
christ held the key.he offered it openly and freely.
THIS disempowered those who desired control and was exactly the point.
those who held seats of power saw this threat clearly and if you cant beat em....co-opt them

While I agree the catholic church perverted the message for their own gain, I think your idea of what the message actually says is a far cry from what the disciples or the early church fathers knew it to say. The baptist church is very much in line with that message. John, for instance, wrote against gnostic teaching when he said:

1 John 4:3

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

He wrote this because of gnostic claims that Jesus was not united to a body but only appeared that way.

for centuries the catholic church has been the greatest offender but in the past 50 years other institutions have wrestled their way to prominent control and espouse a contradictory and perverted message in order to manipulate their own people in order to gain more influence and power.all in the name of god.

i counsel many,MANY a people who were former fundamentalist,catholics,methodists,lutheran who found themselves in a crisis of faith due to this very perversion.
lets remember that for centuries the bible was an incomplete text (still is imo)and was written in languages the common man could not read (hell,most people were illiterate at that time).it was the printing press and the translation into english (and many many other languages) that freed the common man to read the very thing his entire belief system was based on.
this is a good thing.

Yes, I agree, it is a very good thing that everyone is able to read the word of God; the catholic church definitely engineered that situation of massive ignorance when they banned all translations except the latin vulgate. I also agree that the massive apostacy in the church is leading many people to reject the church altogether. This is very sad and unfortunate, and many of us have much to answer for. It is written that in the last days, many would fall away and believe false doctrines, and because of the increase of sin, the love of many would grow cold.

I must ask you though, what are you teaching these people? Are you telling them there is no such thing as sin and they need to save themselves?

you have a unique starting point in understanding the bible.simply by the fact you were not indoctrinated as a child and can study,research and formulate your own understanding of biblical teachings based solely on your own studies.

This has been an advantage, in that I can better relate to the secular world than most Christians. Even more of an advantage was my spiritual journey of about 8 years before becoming a Christian, where I explored all of the various religions and belief systems.

i have witnessed over a fairly short amount of time an evolution in your comments and responses pertaining to faith and belief.
this is such a good thing to see for it tells me your ravenous curiosity has driven you to attempt to understand.
the path is long and never truly ends but at least you ask the questions and do not blindly follow.
i am interested in seeing where you are in a year...or two..or twenty.
because nothing saddens me more than to discuss religion with someone who is incurious and seeks to be told what to think or how to feel in regards to faith and belief.

I am not incurious, no. I have followed God without any doctrine at all, so it isn't a frightening prospect to consider things from many different angles. One of the reason I do so much witnessing to atheists is because their questions bring me to many different areas of inquiry, and serve to illuminate and enhance my understanding.

I understand the objections people have, because I've had them too. My experience, especially my spiritual experience, has confirmed to me the truth of the word of God, which is universally applicable and experiential in nature. The Holy Spirit guides into all truth, and through Christ, I lack nothing. So, God has answered my objections. This is the truth I recognize:

Proverbs 3:5

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

When you shift the basis of your reason from God to man, you have made yourself Lord over Him. If it only by trusting God to provide the answers that you can understand anything.

if christianity had more people like you and less people like pat robertson or ted haggard,the discussion would be so much more..interesting.
you seek to KNOW.you seek wisdom.that is a very very arduous path and can be a solitary one.
i encounter so many people who seem to conflate the ability to recite biblical chapter and verse as somehow translating to wisdom.
this is a falsehood and the epitome of lazy and is also the reason why they become enraged and will many times resort to the most intellectually dishonest trap of deeming the person who revealed their laziness as coming from the devil.

Christianity has many people like me, but too many who are half-hearted in their faith. What I am interested in is the truth, and not something that merely comforts me. I would rather die than live out a comfortable lie. All wisdom comes from God, it is something He gives freely. Whatever understanding I have is from Him, and not something I accomplished by myself. A lot of Christians are content with a superficial understanding of their faith, but this is mostly due to sin. They take what they want from the message and ignore the parts that command that they change their ways. This leads to much error and ignorance.

What I believe about the devil is that he is the father of all lies. I do not think that someone who believes a lie worships the devil, but I do believe that all those who sin are a slave to sin. There is a difference between worshipping the devil and being fooled by him. Some people do worship him knowingly, but most are simply following doctrines that he created to lead people away from the truth.

so i applaud the path you have chosen.
does this mean you will come to the same conclusions as i?
hehe..probably not.we will most likely still disagree but that does not mean i will not appreciate you as a human being nor dismiss your insights simply due to our disagreeing.

as always,
your brother.

Thanks bro. Neither would I throw out your observations based on our disagreement. I believe Jesus is the only way to know God, and I hope you will come to this conclusion as well, but in the meantime I am sure there is a lot of fruitful dialogue to be had. I have learned a few things from investigating various point you have brought up, and appreciate your insight. I respect your right to believe as you want, and I extend my hand to you as a fellow human being in the image of our Creator.

>> ^enoch

Please do not confuse classical liberalism (now known as libertarianism) with the marxist and communist twaddle known as "modern liberalism", a preventable mental disorder that will be the ruin of Western Civ.

Political correctness is your training program to be a good slave.

YOUR training, not mine, Numbnuts.




>> ^Fade:

Liberalism is western democracy/civilization moron.
Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally, liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion.[3][4][5][6][7] These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century.
Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as nobility, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property.
The revolutionaries in the American Revolution and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Latin America, and North America. Liberal ideas spread even further in the twentieth century, when liberal democracies triumphed in two world wars and survived major ideological challenges from fascism and communism.
Today, liberalism in its many forms remains as a political force to varying degrees of power and influence on all major continents.>> ^quantumushroom:
The real illness in that Orwellian police state is found in the mental weaklings (proles) who called the cops over hateful, offensive speech. If the roles had been reversed and it was a Black person spouting racist rubbish, there would be no arrest or "bobbies" looking for her. It won't be much longer.

>> ^Skeeve:
While her tirade makes me sick, the fact that she was arrested for this makes me even more sick.
Freedom of speech means nothing if you don't have the freedom to offend people. The aim should be to draw the line where it causes harm - whether by inciting violence or by denying someone a job, etc.

They were just as often called Nazarenes.

The point is that, contrary to what the video suggests, the word Christian comes from the 1st century, and has historically been the word followers of Jesus Christ use to refer to themselves. A christian is simply someone who accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior:

christian - Χριστιανός (Christianós)

Do you realize anyone called a follower of the Messiah would basically be considered a lunatic, since the Jews believed in the coming of the Messiah and it had a different meaning. It is basically like being a Raelian.

The Jews rejected Jesus because they were looking for a war Messiah who would install them as rulers of the world. Jesus came as the suffering Messiah who would die for the sins of the world as predicted in Isaiah:

53:4-6

4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

As noted in the OT, the jews were constantly under punishment because they ignored the direct commands of God, and constantly persecuted and murdered the prophets God sent to them. In this case, it was no different.

Can someone explain how if it is the magic word of God, can you just remove 1/4 of it? And just pretend we won't read these parts anymore after they were in there for almost two centuries? Some magic powers the God has, he can't even keep his Words from being censored.

Show me what you're referring to, specifically.


>> ^joedirt:
You mean the Kings James version of the Bible?
1st-century 27 Books of the New Testament (IN GREEK)
4th-century Translated to Latin Vulgate (IN LATIN)
1000 AD Translations of The New Testament (IN ANGLO-SAXON)
1455 AD Gutenberg printing press (IN LATIN)
1522 AD Martin Luther's German New Testament (IN GERMAN)
1526 AD William Tyndale's New Testament from Vulgate (IN ENGLISH)
1568 AD Bishops Bible Printed (IN ENGLISH)
1611 AD King James Bible Printed (IN ENGLISH) (80 books)
1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769 KJV revised
1885 AD "English Revised Version" Bible Revision of the KJV. (IN ENGLISH) (only 66 books)
They were just as often called Nazarenes.
Do you realize anyone called a follower of the Messiah would basically be considered a lunatic, since the Jews believed in the coming of the Messiah and it had a different meaning. It is basically like being a Raelian.
Can someone explain how if it is the magic word of God, can you just remove 1/4 of it? And just pretend we won't read these parts anymore after they were in there for almost two centuries? Some magic powers the God has, he can't even keep his Words from being censored.
>> ^shinyblurry:
You, sir, don't know much about our history. btw, the word Christian appears in the bible

You mean the Kings James version of the Bible?

1st-century 27 Books of the New Testament (IN GREEK)
4th-century Translated to Latin Vulgate (IN LATIN)
1000 AD Translations of The New Testament (IN ANGLO-SAXON)
1455 AD Gutenberg printing press (IN LATIN)
1522 AD Martin Luther's German New Testament (IN GERMAN)
1526 AD William Tyndale's New Testament from Vulgate (IN ENGLISH)
1568 AD Bishops Bible Printed (IN ENGLISH)
1611 AD King James Bible Printed (IN ENGLISH) (80 books)
1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769 KJV revised
1885 AD "English Revised Version" Bible Revision of the KJV. (IN ENGLISH) (only 66 books)

They were just as often called Nazarenes.

Do you realize anyone called a follower of the Messiah would basically be considered a lunatic, since the Jews believed in the coming of the Messiah and it had a different meaning. It is basically like being a Raelian.

Can someone explain how if it is the magic word of God, can you just remove 1/4 of it? And just pretend we won't read these parts anymore after they were in there for almost two centuries? Some magic powers the God has, he can't even keep his Words from being censored.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You, sir, don't know much about our history. btw, the word Christian appears in the bible

Liberalism is western democracy/civilization moron.

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally, liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion.[3][4][5][6][7] These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century.

Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as nobility, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property.

The revolutionaries in the American Revolution and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Latin America, and North America. Liberal ideas spread even further in the twentieth century, when liberal democracies triumphed in two world wars and survived major ideological challenges from fascism and communism.

Today, liberalism in its many forms remains as a political force to varying degrees of power and influence on all major continents.>> ^quantumushroom:

The real illness in that Orwellian police state is found in the mental weaklings (proles) who called the cops over hateful, offensive speech. If the roles had been reversed and it was a Black person spouting racist rubbish, there would be no arrest or "bobbies" looking for her. It won't be much longer.

>> ^Skeeve:
While her tirade makes me sick, the fact that she was arrested for this makes me even more sick.
Freedom of speech means nothing if you don't have the freedom to offend people. The aim should be to draw the line where it causes harm - whether by inciting violence or by denying someone a job, etc.

Really!? You mean the apostles weren't born in America? Sigh..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ

"The word is used as a title, hence its common reciprocal use Christ Jesus, meaning "The Messiah Jesus". Followers of Jesus became known as Christians (as in Acts 11:26) because they believed Jesus to be the Christ, or Christos, or Christian Messiah, prophesied in the Old Testament - therefore they often call him Jesus Christ, meaning Jesus is the Christos."

If you don't believe that America is founded on judeo-christian beliefs then you don't know anything about American history. This isn't one of those subjects where you can look at the evidence and plausibly say it could go either way. It is totally beyond a shadow of a doubt.

For instance, did you know that the act which established the public school system in this country is called "The Old Deluder Satan Act"? The reason it was called that is because they wanted the public to be able to read and understand scripture so they wouldn't be deluded about the truth by Satan. Is it getting clear to you yet?

http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/deluder.html

"It being one chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures, as in former times by keeping them in an unknown tongue, so in these latter times by persuading from the use of tongues, that so that at least the true sense and meaning of the original might be clouded and corrupted with false glosses of saint-seeming deceivers; and to the end that learning may not be buried in the grave of our forefathers, in church and commonwealth, the Lord assisting our endeavors."

>> ^Diogenes:

i know less than some, and i know more than some... but i certainly won't be learning any history from your trollish spiels
the word 'christian' appears in the bible, huh? you mean it appears in an english translation of the bible, right? because none of the original manuscripts that came to form the new testament contained any english
the original texts were in greek, aramaic, and hebrew - we see khristos derived from the nominative greek, which was simply a direct translation from the hebrew meaning of messiah or annointed one - latin added the '-anos' suffix to create the adjective form
hey! did you know that the swahili word 'mafuriko' appears in the epic of gilgamesh? yes, it means 'flood'
>> ^shinyblurry:
You, sir, don't know much about our history. btw, the word Christian appears in the bible
>> ^Diogenes:
you, sir, are full of dumb

i know less than some, and i know more than some... but i certainly won't be learning any history from your trollish spiels

the word 'christian' appears in the bible, huh? you mean it appears in an english translation of the bible, right? because none of the original manuscripts that came to form the new testament contained any english

the original texts were in greek, aramaic, and hebrew - we see khristos derived from the nominative greek, which was simply a direct translation from the hebrew meaning of messiah or annointed one - latin added the '-anos' suffix to create the adjective form

hey! did you know that the swahili word 'mafuriko' appears in the epic of gilgamesh? yes, it means 'flood'
>> ^shinyblurry:
You, sir, don't know much about our history. btw, the word Christian appears in the bible
>> ^Diogenes:
you, sir, are full of dumb

not puma.
the latin name for puma even literally means 'pale'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_panther

Anonymous advised its members to protect their online identities, and not to wear the traditional Anonymous mask in public, or even purchase them online, as a core group decides if it should take on a Mexican drug cartel that is said to have kidnapped a member of the group.

The hacker group had earlier threatened to expose the identity of members and supporters of a Mexican drug cartel by Nov. 5, in retaliation for the kidnapping of a group member, and hacked the web site of a former state official, alleging that he has associations with the dreaded Zetas cartel.

But there are fissures showing among the leaders as fear of handling the drug cartel builds up, with some expressing concern that new, inexperienced members could get quickly exposed and compromised.

The action has been cancelled, Sm0k34n0n wrote in a Twitter message in Spanish on Monday. High-profile colleague anonymouSabu described sm0k34n0n as one of the campaign's promoters in another Twitter message. But other groups from Latin America are said to be considering a core action group, and warning other members to stay away. AnonymouSabu was all for the action late Sunday.

A video in Spanish posted on YouTube on October 6 by a person calling himself "MrAnonymousguyfawkes", threatened that Anonymous will publish the names, photos, and addresses of police officials, journalists, and taxi drivers that collaborate with the drug cartel, hoping the government will arrest them.

"You made a huge mistake by taking one of us. Release him. And if anything happens to him, you (expletive) will always remember this upcoming November 5th," said a masked person in the video, according to a translation provided by another user of YouTube.

November 5 is known in the U.K. as Guy Fawkes day after his November 5, 1605, conspiracy to attempt to blow up the British Parliament. The Guy Fawkes mask, popularized by the movie V for Vendetta, has been adopted by Anonymous.

Anonymous claimed on Sunday to have defaced the website of a former official in the Mexican state of Tabasco. On Monday, the website bore a message in Spanish by Anonymous Mexico stating that he was a part of Zetas.

"We all know who they are and where they are," said the speaker in the video. Anonymous did not however claim that its hacking skills gave it special access to information on the cartel. Nor are its traditional tactics such as DDoS (distributed denial-of-service) attacks on websites likely to be of use against armed gangs, according to various analysts.

The drug cartel has killed people who have criticized them on blogs and other social media, according to reports. The Committee to Protect Journalists in New York reported in September the murder of a journalist in direct retaliation for information posted on social media.

As newspapers are censored by fear, Mexican citizens, and many journalists, are turning to social media and online forums to share news and inform each other, said Sara Rafsky, a research associate in CPJ's Americas program. "So it should be no shock that drug cartels are turning their attention to the Internet."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/242845/anonymous_threatens_to_expose_mexican_drug_cartel.html

Thanks! High praise indeed.

Whatever is said in Latin, high above the sounds. (I love Latin--I wish I knew it)

In reply to this comment by luxury_pie:
Congrats Jim from Idaho! You are the best Jim from Idaho I know - siftwise