"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.

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.

You are saying I sound stupid and putting Ail's words in MY mouth? Are you fucking trolling me?

AND "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."

WHAT? HOW? WHO?

say who did it: check
ridicule company: check

wow dude, 10/10 troll. I'm baffled. Seriously baffled.

Maybe your formatting is terrible, but I am still not quite clear which part of what I explained is it that you don't understand.

1. Is it how you can have an amorphous group with a purpose, which leads to temporary "leader" figures? Because I am fairly sure I explained that.

2. I also fail to see how someone can deduce from what I said that Sony hacked themselves, but weirder things make sense in peoples' heads.

"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."

3.No problem here either. If it wasn't anonymous who put the text there I doubt they were expecting Sony to just blame them out of the blue. If they did put the text file there and announced it was them, it would be the same as if they had gloated, except all the ridicule. Not how Anon rolls given previous hacking jobs they have done.

4. The only point of failure of this argument comes down to your lack of understanding.

I am not putting his words in your mouth, you replied to my reply to him so I assumed that you were backing his point. Why talk otherwise?

How did you get the check for "ridicule company?" Do you know what ridicule means to Anon? Here let me educate you:

http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/2294/internetsanon.jpg

That is ridiculing, on top of just the hack.

Anonymous comes with a culture, one that seems to have been fairly consistent with their hacking. I have evidence of their previous hacks backing me up. Where is your evidence that they don't publicly ridicule whoever it is they hacked?