Joseph Menn, one of the authors of the article, called me before writing it. He doesn't bother to actually quote any of my points even though I spent ten minutes explaining these things to him. More importantly, he is the fellow who believed Aaron Barr when Barr claimed to have identified our "founders" when it was already rather common knowledge that Anonymous was not founded, but grew out of 4chan and came to modern fruition through the work of several people who launched Chanology behind the scenes, none of whom are those whom Barr and Menn portrayed as such in support of an FBI contract and alleged "scoop," respectively. If some other journalist had obtained these secret sources and presented the case against us based on hearsay, it might be worth looking into. But Menn has already shown that he is willing to report on hilariously false stories put to him by enemies of Anonymous. There's also little reason to believe he knows the difference between someone who is actually a participant and supporter of Anonymous and the various people who claim to be such in order to give weight to their claims against the movement. On the other hand, we are forever indebted to Menn for having fallen for Barr's self-aggrandizing and demonstrably false nonsense and having been the only journalist who would run with such assertions; had that not happened, Anonymous would have never bothered to investigate the fellow and his criminal firm, and we would not have thereby exposed the various conspiracies being run by Hunton & Williams, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Justice Department, Palantir, Belrico, Booz Allen Hamilton, and the other firms that have since been written about by other, more competent reporters. That Menn is still being allowed to write about Anonymous despite his article having been shown to be nonsense through our subsequent actions - and is in fact being allowed to determine who is and isn't an Anonymous "member" despite having demonstrably fucked that up before - is frankly astonishing.