Ah, avoiding arguments when backed to a wall. Masterful argumentative technique you have there.

AH, the ol' repeating the same thing over and over despite me asking new questions. Back at ya.

I'm sorry if it appears that I am ignorant of such things. I'm simply ignoring the things I don't agree with or have already addressed.

1. Sony couldn't have done it because CIA and homeland security would find out about it. They certainly wouldn't use it to lie to congress either. Yes, there would be motivation to do it, but there isn't the ability to do it. Everything loaded onto the server has a "birthdate" (and to counter the other guy) an "upload" date. I can say with 100% confidence that everything this guy did, was done at the same time, within a span of minutes. Additionally, date changes can be tracked, so they're not capable of changing the date to alter the data. I'm sure you know what the penalties are for tampering witha crime scene, as well as the penalties for lying to a congressional body.

2. This is the issue I'm having with your argument; this is my problem with your logic.  You say things, but you don't explain the "how". You just say broad generalizations like, "lead them away from the actual hacker". If someone were to casually read your point, they'd say, "that makes sense". But, my problem is deeper, and it's something you've yet to address within context. That problem....that question, is, "how exactly does framing an anonymous, bodyless entity, nay, idea help the hacker not get caught".

You say, "more time spent hunting anonymous". That is like saying "more time hunting the public", or "more time hunting internet users". Anonymous is a concept, it's an idea. It's not an organized group. Anonymous IS some douche in an Eastern European country. Anonymous IS a company CEO. Anonymous is everyone and anyone. So when you make it seem like it's redirecting, you're wrong. Like I said previously, it's not like saying, "Al-jafira claims another victory against imperialists". CIA can look at Al-jafira, take the information they have on the group, and investigate using operatives. This is not the case. THAT would be leading the CIA in the wrong direction, because what is actually a tangible group with a regional presence that can be outlined, with communication pathways that can be tracked.

So, that also cannot be the case. You may argue that he is too dumb to understand that, and just did it without thinking it through. Well, I'll admit that I can't really counter that argument. A fools actions are hard to justify.

The last paragraph (which I editted to be a paragraph) makes sense, but then the question becomes, "why leave anything at all".

Look, if you're out to not get caught, and you live in one of those countries, why leave any message at all? Anonymous is anyone. Anonymous can be someone from the Netherlands, or Australia, or China, or Nicaragua. If anything, claiming Anonymous allows for a broad interpretation. It does not make it smaller. It doesn't point away from your home country. "We are anonymous, we are legion" is a saying known throughout the world in the online communities.

So, I don't really understand you point about the message being left to somehow "point away from themselves". It simply doesn't. And while I've asked before, you can't explain how it makes sense. That takes away substantially from your position.

Just be reasonable, it's easier than you think. Put yourself in their shoes. You just hacked into a mainframe with 100 M CC numbers. Do you leave a text file? If so, what do you write? (in all honesty, if you please)

I woud dlove for you to restate what your new questions were, because I don't see any unanswered questions. Just your evasions.

Edit: Let me outline just how stupid you are sounding. Ail states that they don't gloat because they may end up going to jail if caught, if they decide to gloat. Yet a text file WHICH CAN BE CREATED BY ANYONE, stating "Anon was here" was left behind. So they completely defeat the purpose of not saying who it is that did it, without getting any of the benefit of ridiculing the company. That is where you are headed with this? This is on top of the fact that Anonymous has ridiculed every company they have hacked before? It doesn't take more than 3 brain cells to add 2 and 2 together here.

2. You are overthinking it.  It may not keep the person from being caught at all.  But if I was a cybercriminal trying to steal client information from a company that had recently pissed off a known cyberterrorist group, I might leave something stupidly simple like a document giving credit to that group.  Would it work? who knows? but the document would have taken probably 2 minutes to type and upload.  Since part of any type of terrorism is taking credit for their actions, it doesn't seem like a horrible idea.  Copy "We are Legion", open txt doc, paste "We are Legion", upload.  Done.

"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.