Frank Bohn, in describing the methods by which this group of so-called "spittoon philosophers" in the mixed locals is said to have attempted to disrupt the I. W. W., asks, "Is this chair-warming sect now the leading element in the I. W. W.? Is it in a majority? If it is, the I. W. W. is not dying. It is dead."[631] Whatever may be the merits or demerits of philosophic anarchism, it is unquestionable that the anarchist--the _naïve_ anarchist, at any rate--is an unmitigated nuisance. Perhaps the General Executive Board had something of this sort in mind when they said that "word pictures of the ideal will not serve to satisfy the cry for bread for any great length of time regardless of how beautifully they may be portrayed ...," and reminded the delegates that "responsibilities, financial, moral and physical, must be met and not shirked."[632] The Board was more specific farther on in its report: There is an element in the I. W. W. [it declares] whose sole purpose seems to be to disrupt the organization. We refer to the syndicalists or decentralizers, as they are all the same, in their attempt to disrupt the I. W. W.... While we do not believe in a highly centralized organization, neither is the I. W. W. such. In fact, it is the most decentralized movement in the world today. It does not interfere with the action of the locals as long as they abide by the fundamental principles of the organization.... We find a situation in the West that if carried on means a complete disruption of the only industrial organization in the world. In time of strike they sit around the hall talking of what ought to be done or devising ways and means to do away with General Headquarters.... They will talk of sabotage and direct action but leave it to the boss to use it on the few who take up the fight. If these conditions continue, the I. W. W. will die of dry rot.[633] Delegate Foss, in a despondent moment, remarked that there was "a general tendency to prevent organization of any kind in this [I. W. W.] movement."[634] At another time he remarked: "The western portion of this organization does not need any decentralization. Decentralization has got hold of it now and that is the very reason why this organization has no job control in the West...."[635] In 1912 the G. E. B. had assured the membership that they were "not unmindful of the danger that will ever live in centralized power," but they asserted that "it does not follow that to centralize the administrative machinery of your organization necessarily means a centralized power," and that "the only means by which centralization of power can be avoided is by correct education and a thoroughly intelligent membership...."[636]