1) I was responding to a thread within the post. The thread: "why do people hate on Anonymous?" I gave some reasons. 2) You are correct in that it wasn't a very comprehensive analysis and that "set" rather than "group" is more appropriate. My point is really more that individuals who have chosen to be associated with what we call "Anonymous" have done some actions that are questionable and have made headlines. Many people, myself included, have objected to them. 3) What I haven't said, but I would also add is that while this group/non-group doesn't always act in concert, their silence on some of the actions taken in the Anonymous name suggests quiet support. I am no fan of Iggy Azalea or really care about her views, however a group of masked hackers decide that they can be a para - judicial system where they are judge, jury, and executioner using illegally obtained private information to trounce on anyone person's right to freedom of speech. It is particularly Pyrrhic and virulent when said person has no say in any sort of legislation. No one of them denounced an act that, if unchecked, becomes a dangerous precedent, especially for a group that touts social awareness. Silence can be just as loud as words. 4) Yes, they are the Jeet Kune Do of the hacking world. 5) If we are going to say that, given the independent nature of Anonymous, the whole of it can't be vilified, then this whole discussion is asinine because, reasonably and by the same logic, they can't be glorified. The article is in itself irrational. 6) The pedantry in my previous post is matched by your lack of understanding in rhetoric and concern for useful spreading of information. It doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to know that any effective discussion shuts down when one person begins with "you're a fucking idiot whose fucking idiot brain can't handle a complex situation like this." If you WERE interested in being helpful, you'd come down from your ivory tower.