Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister
 
PerlMonks  

Re^4: to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em

by ww (Bishop)
on Sep 29, 2011 at 20:32 UTC ( #928663=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^3: to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em
in thread to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em

Does jenda's suggestion, at Re^2: to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em, remove the basis for this objection?

Please, consider carefully, this is NOT -- IMO -- a restriction of any individual's right to annonymity*1; rather, it is an internal, encrypted (non-transparent) means to allow the individual to retain his/her annonymity, while allowing the rest of us to distinguish among AMs -- without in any wise knowing their actual identities

.

*1 OK, conceeded: it might be viewed as a limit on a writer's ability to perform a (harmless and highly illustrative) jape such as appears well down, at Re^4: to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em ...Re^3: to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em, but I would (and do) argue that such a limit is insignificant, in as much as an alternate method (immediately below) to create the same illusion/illustation is readily available

Re^2: to distinguish between Anonymous Monks in a thread, brand 'em [id://123456]
by Anonymous Monk on Sep 31, 2011 at 09:11 GMT+5
This is Comment 1. It's actually devoid of substantive content but is being extended (well beyond reason) in order to enhance this illusion -- namely, that this an an actual node.reply
msg
Re^3: to distinguish between Anonymous Monks in a thread, brand 'em [id://924823]
by Anonymous Monk on Sep 31, 2011 at 09:12 GMT+5
Contradictory Comment 2 or "I don't agree that the above lacks substance. It appears to /me to contain in excess of 180 characters, some of them, perhaps, unique within that node and certainly not insubstatial."reply
msg
Re^3: to distinguish between Anonymous Monks in a thread, brand 'em [id://924823]
by Anonymous Monk on Sep 31, 2011 at 09:12 GMT+5
Comment 3. The above completely lacks substance and is completely without any reference to Perl. Thus, I think it should be reaped immediately without recourse to consideration or voting.reply
msg
Re^3: to distinguish between Anonymous Monks in a thread, brand 'em [Re: 78/80 chars perl line still a meaningful rule
by Anonymous Monk on Sep 31, 2011 at 09:11 GMT+5
And besides, ww is all wet! H/She knows that any preference for an absolutist construction of freedom of speech in los Estados Unidos is subject to counter-construction by SCOTUS. For example, consider:
  1. one.
  2. TWO.
  3. Tres.
  4. der vierte!
reply
msg


Comment on Re^4: to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em
Re^5: to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em
by CountZero (Bishop) on Sep 30, 2011 at 20:07 UTC
    In my book --but YMMV-- anything which allows one to distinguish between one AM and another AM, takes away his anonymity. Whether this is between threads or inside threads only, makes no difference to me. I am already anonymous by using a self-chosen nickname here, so using the robes of AM has nothing to do with being linked to a real world physical person, but it takes this basic anonymity which we can all enjoy already to a next level. Distinguishing between AMs takes this ability away.

    CountZero

    A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James

      ...anything which allows one to distinguish between one AM and another AM, takes away his anonymity...

      But how?

        Reading the question as rhetorical, I agree with the implication that it's hard to contrive a convincing and logically consistent interpretation of the proposal.

        Taking it as a serious question, for the sake of arguement only, the proposal at the root of this thread, perhaps modified in line with some of the replies, would NOT allow anyone "to distinguish between one AM and another AM" as individual persons; it only allows a reader to determine if the AM posts are by a single, still-anonymous writer or more than one still-anonymous writer.

        Or, to cite a bit of wisdom from childhood, "... names will never hurt me." And in this case, there are no links between 'actual persons' and names...AM1 and AM2 are mere labels, but because the underlying label is simply Anonymous Monk there's no nexus between Joe Bagga'Donuts (or anyone else) and any of those labels, except in the privacy of Joe's own mind.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://928663]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others cooling their heels in the Monastery: (13)
As of 2014-09-02 20:12 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite cookbook is:










    Results (29 votes), past polls