stitch626 wrote:Its also the illogicality of the statement. Only a few members posted their support (and possible active involvement) with Anonymous. That would be like one person here doing the same, and them saying that DITL was the source for Anonymous (using one person based on the relative number of members... should actually be even less than that).
You're getting two completely separate pieces of evidence conflated - the example of A individuals posting on 4chan was from the Independent, not the Guardian.
The reason I am not considering the article as a source of evidence because of the way they stated their "fact". They did so as if that tidbit was common knowledge, which it isn't. Not even among the 4Chan community (at least the ones I know who I can ask).
You know, on re-reading the article today, my opinion of stitch and Tsu's reading comprehension has plummeted still further:
The full paragraph in question wrote:Anonymous was born out of the influential internet messageboard 4chan, a forum popular with hackers and gamers, in 2003. The group's name is a tribute to 4chan's early days, when any posting to its forums where no name was given was ascribed to "Anonymous". But the ephemeral group, which picks up causes "whenever it feels like it", has now "gone beyond 4Chan into something bigger", its spokesman said.
All emphasis mine.
Right from the horse's mouth. There's your bloody source - an A "spokesman".
How I managed to miss the wood for the trees over the last four pages I don't know. Of course, it doesn't change the matter of what constitutes an acceptable source one iota, but it does handily put this matter to rest.
