How about either of those versus unimaginative toadies?

Then your comments are idle, rhetorical, and naive armchair quarterbacking. It's not that people like you are useless, but you're cannon fodder; mindless parrots.

Sigh! We've already gone over the different types of people involved with "Anonymous," and their lack of an explicit connection to one another (e.g. there's not even tacit approval necessary from one cell to the next). No one capable of posting is as dense as this, so it can only be dishonesty. Which follows, given that your position relies on framing things apples-to-apples that just ain't so.

Should it be an impersonal matter? I guess if one's involvement is theoretical, it follows.

You don't need to qualify your remarks. My feelings won't be hurt. Some will know of them as e-terrorists because they read articles about some script kiddies; some will know them as goofy protesters; some will know them via ominous videos and graphic design campaigns. Each view is, in its way, self-legitimating, partly valid, and yet incomplete. They are what they are, but their effects will lie with what people think they are. The prevailing impression may be something benign, or something radical, or even extremely negative. One calling themselves "Anonymous" could walk into a Denny's and start spraying automatic fire into the patrons; and that would be the big, lasting impression. This is what a movement looks like; what every movement looks like, really (including modern atheists and skeptics); presented honestly and without its training wheels. We're always on the edge, worrying about credibility (or not worrying about it at all). What it is is as varied as the individuals represented, and as homogenous as the basic idea they've clustered around (different ideas, actually). It's different from a formal organization in that it's not laboriously, and often disingenuously, presenting a united front. "We are legion" is a slogan someone came up with, and others adopted, because it was fun to repeat, or threatening, or appealed in some other way. I've had something to do with a few videos, and no one told me what to do. I took from it whatever symbols of unity I wanted to, and the rest was my own invention.

I'm seeing the falsehood of the formal organization; which I liken to codified morals. There's a Euthyphro problem here. It's not so much that a formal organization necessarily functions well, beyond impressing some of its members with a sense of committed obligation (which affects some people constructively, and causes others to dig their heels in against any authority), it's that what doesn't work is stricken from the record. The rogue limbs are amputated, keeping the body pristine, albeit smaller. Look at the Dawkins thing. That's how it is when you have to play politics. Nasty things happen, but you have to keep up appearances.