Originally Posted by I

I was paraphrasing a thing that's been said from the start.

his actions and how much we praise and respect him for it haven't changed, but when we refer to 'anonymous' we refer to the anonymous collective that works as one (theoretically) and is all the things that 'anonymous' is, and that we keep trying to explain to the press (although more are getting it recently).
although he still participates in that anonymous and is part of it anonymously (well, under a name on here, but he can be anonymous again if he wants), but not under his name. that name is not a part of anonymous, and should not be mentioned as anonymous (definitely not leader), because anonymous cannot be described by the individual actions within it.

all the philosophical stuff aside, people who get namefagged aren't officially known as part of anonymous any more (even if what they actually do doesn't change, or the way we see it) so that they don't get blamed for all the shit we get up to.

it's one thing going on a forum or on the radio or being on the street in a mask explaining that yes, anonymous has done illegal things, hideous things, etc, but the anonymous that is doing this is different, by the very nature of such groups, than the anonymous that did those, it's another to be a person, with a name attached, talking about anonymous, because it suddenly matters whether you were involved in those things.

remember, he's not excluded from anything, he can still do what he did/does or more. obviously, people will think of all that they know when he posts under the name gregg, and stuff he posts under that name (at least on here) can be linked to him, but he doesn't need to post under that name.

the only thing that has changed is the ways he can be referred to. it's purely a semantic/philosophical thing, but one we should be pedantic about with the media and the CoS.