"How are you statements not mutually exclusive? You explain how a person can be a member of anon without anon even knowing, and then say, "then why did anon not know about it"?"
"Let me spell it out for you then. Random group of people gets together. They want to achieve 1 specific goal. Any time a situation like this happens, where there is one common specific goal, a "leader" will emerge, in this case it's probably Random Guy #732 who knows what he is talking about when it comes to the given situation. Next time it could be Random Guy #17. When they are done said leaders, or Random Guy #673 who knows how to make a statement without getting caught, goes out and gloats about how some company got screwed or not."
"2. Again, you're bringing a leader into this. You're once again creating a group context for a lone gunman."
"2. Except that you don't seem to understand that your "lone gunman" would be Random Guy #59, and in the end if a given end was the goal of the current set of people who associate with Anonymous at the time, they would be gloating about it. Anonymous is the label given to the group of people behind the current effort, and if a result is reachd, the group will gloat about it. The Anonymous that hacked into Gawker, is probably not the same one that hacked HBGary. If they gloat in the next few weeks, I wouldn't be surprised, however since they haven't gloated yet, it is just plain stupid to think it's them."
At the beginning I asked how you could explain the stateless entity that is anon, and yet treat them like a group of people who are all on the same page. You've done it 3! THREE times now, and your only tiny little acceptance that you may be wrong is "haven't gloated yet"- "yet", followed by "it's just stupid to think it's them".
It's stupid to think it's them, and by your own logic, it's smart to think it's Sony.
OH OH OH, by the way, you also said, "So wait, are you implying that Anonymous wouldn't gloat until the victims found out it was them? If not, then there is no point to your argument."
You used the following three posts to support your claim by saying that anon would have claimed it by no, and that they have "failed to claim", so it can't be them.
And now you say you won't be surprised if they claim in the next few weeks.
I don't care to continue the argument. You are practically admitting that you are wrong, but your ego is too fragile to outright say it.
