This article misses the point completely, and makes me wonder if the author has spent time observing the group or talking to them. The Times' coverage was snarky, but it was accurate.
This group could easily have gotten publicity if that's what they want. Their mistakes as far as geography and timing are obvious -- curious that this author doesn't mention them, nor does he discuss their "leaderless" model, which is largely responsible for how the group is perceived.
I think they are discovering the limits of "leaderless." It will be interesting to see how that evolves.




Reply With Quote