I'll bite. I read that as a report on the normal birth pains of a new, unformed movement with young, untrained leaders written by a biased observer. The bias is so obvious one cannot believe any of the article is reported fairly. Even so, the reporter got in, which is better than many Republican campaign activities.

And then the straw man argument.

"A Chill Descends On Occupy Wall Street; "The Leaders of the allegedly Leaderless Movement"

As if any movement could be leaderless. What sort of a ruse is this? That's all one needs to know about that article, that the author will set up a straw man and others will knowingly quote him.

Now do you see what I mean about learning to debate fairly, reasonably? That it has to be learned, that some shots are cheap and designed not to debate but to "win" in appearance to the ill-educated? That this is well-nigh irresistible to Conservatives?

Arf