Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
No such thing as a small change
 
PerlMonks  

Once again ... is it time to get rid of the Anonymous Monk?

by sundialsvc4 (Monsignor)
on Mar 18, 2013 at 13:40 UTC ( #1024035=monkdiscuss: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

Perlmonks is unique among all sites that I know, in that it is possible to post anonymously.   It’s also my recollection (from 2,500 posts and 7 years ago, so I’m a little fuzzy on this) that the authentication is also weak ... do we in fact send an e-mail to an e-mail of record, and, having done so, do we ever send it again?).

Anyhow ... the reason why I ask is that lately we’ve seen that our Anonymous Friend is getting a lot of flack, e.g. the sixth reply in When cpan returns the dreaded "won't install without force" which links to Re^3: Updating Config.pm and so on.   (All of which, for the curious, is not me ... but my jaw dropped anyway.)   All of this makes me wonder whether Anonymous (the monk, not the mask) needs to go bye-bye for good.   I think so.

For one thing, I think that it should be pointed-out that “Anonymity” is very often accidental ... a session can vanish while you are writing or simply vanish, period.   Also, since we do not require it, many folks do not seem to take the time.   Okay, they just don’t.   I do not think that, at least in the majority of cases, anyone is trying to avoid attribution or to guard their own XP.   Okay, I simply don’t choose to entertain that notion on behalf of anyone else.   Yet we certainly must consider the very real chance of misattribution.   This is social networking at its oldest and finest, and even though the dynamics of any hallowed place of contemplation might sometimes lead to a fight, it might also lead to a chalice of wine being spitefully poured on the head of someone who had nothing to do with whatever-it-was.   (When the right thing to have done with the wine would have been to get jush a littul bit tipshee ...)

Therefore, maybe it’s time to update the technology of the site.   (Just a little... please don’t panic, vroom...)

Let’s take a well-known site like The Huffington Post, a media site which coincidentally and AFAIK is driven by Movable Type™, also a Perl-based platform.   The site wants to encourage spontaneity, so you can write a response right away.   But in order to post it, you must log in.   Then, the posting appears.

Perlmonks, on the other hand, does not.   The posting is anonymous.   Furthermore, if for any reason your session “simply disappears,” your posting will appear as anonymous.   You are no longer logged-in, but you might not even know it.   Also, since the posting is now owned by Anonymous Monk, which BTW is the parking-place for over 73,000 writeups, you can’t edit your own words.   And if you do log-in, your posting in progress is probably lost.

We’ve talked about this before ... and I submit that it is high time to do it.   All postings should be attributable to someone.   E-mail addresses should be subject to some kind of cleanup and re-verification, without which the ability to post is suspended.   These are basics of most other sites, and they all seem to work well enough.

I think that we should do this now, because personalities often are touchy here, and opinions are even stronger.   We’re supposed to be communing about Perl and not talking about one another, but the reality of social networking is always what it is.   The information-quality and/or social-quality of the interactions might be being harmed by anonymity even when it happens by accident or convenience.

Comment on Once again ... is it time to get rid of the Anonymous Monk?
Re: Once again ... is it time to get rid of the Anonymous Monk?
by marto (Chancellor) on Mar 18, 2013 at 13:46 UTC

    Once again, no. I see no compelling argument for raising the bar for posting/contributing. Recently I've seen some great contributions from anonymous posters. The existing janitoring/moderation processes work pretty well. If trolling is a concern tye has many great posts on the subject which are worth searching for and reading.

    At time of posting, the thread you link to has two replies from Anonymous monk. I don't see any of them as being a reason to change how things currently work.

      Hello monklian colleagues.

      DISCLAIMER: I myself am the monk indicated where the OP, in the Top Node mentions that there has been flack:

      the sixth reply in "When cpan returns ..." which links to "Re^3: Updating Config.pm" - that's me and so on.

      Kindly notice that I didn't have to put that "disclaimer" on at all. Given the level of attentiveness that is exemplified by marto's reply (not high), a lot of readers would not even have noticed.

      marto writes:


      Once again, no. I see no compelling argument for raising the bar for posting/contributing. Recently I've seen some great contributions from anonymous posters. The existing janitoring/moderation processes work pretty well. If trolling is a concern tye has many great posts on the subject which are worth searching for and reading.

      At time of posting, the thread you link to has two replies from Anonymous monk. I don't see any of them as being a reason to change how things currently work.



      I disagree with marto's statements. And I am going be detailed in explaining that.

      This is how I disagree:

      marto has 3 kinds of statements here.

      • Statements of conclusion (summary opinions). His are:
        1. Once again, no.
        2. The existing janitoring/moderation processes work pretty well.
      • Statements of fact. His are:
        1. At time of posting, the thread you link to has two replies from Anonymous monk.
      • Statements of unsupported opinion. His are:
        1. Recently I've seen some great contributions from anonymous posters
        2. I see no compelling argument for raising the bar for posting/contributing.
        3. I don't see any of them as being a reason to change how things currently work

      Before I go on, I'll state that my own philosophy regarding my posting on Perlmonks is now guided by 2 of the Principles articulated by BrowserUK in his often-seen .sig line. marto's comment demonstrates either ignorance of these principles or an inability to see how he can apply them to his own participation on Perlmonks. As a reminder, those Two Principles are:

      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

      I call these the Principles of Dispassionate Objectivism.

      Note: there are 5 postings by Anonymous Monk in the thread as I write. Not two.

      There were no examples given of some "great contributions from anonymous posters (recently)". Absence of evidence.

      In fact, the second thread linked to by the OP contains examples of crappy postings by Anonymous Monk. Perhaps it was too much trouble to visit more than one link? Sorry if I make marto feel judged: but I see (false) laziness. Challenge me on my characterization of the posts. Nobody was paying any attention to that thread; now perhaps they will. Try some objectivism and evaluate the quality of "advice" given by Anonymous Monk in that thread. It is not up to Perlmonks standard. It is badly worded, confusing, seems mistaken in important points of basic fact (but hard to tell, since is so badly worded), rife with mere opinion, covered with the smell of a puerile little joker of a skript-kiddie with too much time on his hands and an odd mentality of inverse arrogance (to fragile an ego to take contradiction as his own identity, so that he has to hide behind anonymity).

      marto posted one statements of fact (how many replies in thread indicated, by Anonymous Monk). The remainder were opinions, conclusions and characterizations. I have to wonder, looking at that bunch of statements, what Perlmonks marto is reading? It's not the same one I am reading. I see that the postings by Anonymous Monk (whether worthwhile or low-quality / misleading / ignorant) are overtaking postings by Registered users in frequency. I submit to the critique of others, that this is just an impression; go ahead and challenge it, anyone, with hard stats. Play the pissing contest game for all its worth. Refute my one point and my other points still remain. Nobody at Perlmonks will convincingly refute them all, I am confident, because no one can.

      Maybe marto figures that he is just "silencing" a redundant or repeated challenge issued and he resented being under the obligation to do so so much that he could not muster a sincere effort. I contend that sundialsvc4's original post was well-worded, courteous towards all, reasonable, and proper. It merited a far more respectful response than it got from most of the commentators who have chimed in so far. This lack of respect demonstrates that marto disregards (or cannot evaluate his own attitudes by the light of) the Principle: "Examine what is said, not who speaks". It should not be the primary thing that the OP has raised this issue before. It should be acceptable for a legitimate user to raise an issue as many times as they feel necessary and can muster the life-force (intellectual concentration, verbal articulation) to do in a manner which is not just thinly-veiled reposting of previously composed boilerplate.

      Pissy little dismissals like those implicit in (the tone of) marto's first sentence, and very much more overt in other later comments, merely cast their authors in a bad light. I think a great many monks who did answer / comment to this thread must convertly covertly agree that the Anonymity policy is backwards and problematical; else, from whence does their ill-tempered hostility arise?

      In communities where technical matters are the primary topic, those who use their critical faculties to distinguish mere unproven opinion (indistinguishable from prejudice) from well-reasoned and thorough explanations, will get more value from their role as consumer at the community trough. Those who don't have such critical faculties - and I did not have them at any well-developed stage when I joined Perlmonks a very long time ago - can develop them.

      In communities where technical matters are the primary topic, those who use their critical faculties when operating in the contributive mode (as producers for the community trough) will discover that their core sense of self-esteem will be strengthened, independent of any external validation like reputation points or the overt agreement extracted from other participants. It's the slow, sure way. Therefore unattractive to those looking for a quick rush. And inevitably, the valuation attributed to your contributions by others will rise. It may take time, particularly if you dug a hole for yourself to start out with.

      I think, based on what I've observed, that long-time particpants at Perlmonks are some of the last people whose opinions ought to be regarded more highly than others on a Perlmonks matter like the one set forth here. If I was an extraterrestrial alien observer but had only Permonks to study, and no other human institution, group, or community, I'd conclude that "humans at a community for a long time become lazy (intellectually) and complacent." marto's post is the first comment post, and suffices as a good example of this. That's why I am answering his. My answers to him are emphatically my answers to later followups further down the list of comments.

      In summary:

      • I disagree with: "I see no compelling argument for raising the bar for posting/contributing". I think it always a good idea to consider raising the bar. Life thrives on challenge. (See Who We For? (Was: Re: How-to install POSIX.pm) for an effort I've already made to explain some things that seem missed out on sometimes).
      • I think that the contention that requiring a login is a substantive "raising of the bar" (IOW, "burden") on users is actually a bit absurd. There's a distinction to be made between We know our system works differently than others, but we like it (condign self-assurance) and How dare you suggest we look at how anything external to Perlmonks works (weak-minded tribalistic reactionary defensiveness).
      • I do not agree that the present degree of efficacy of the "The existing janitoring/moderation processes" (or non-efficacy thereof) bears directly on this issue.
      • I do not agree with the implied conclusion that Anonymous Monk's contributions outweigh the problem posed by this policy. And I think a real point has been missed. There's a dynamic at work here. That is: it is easy enough to look back, in retrospect, at a thread discussion, and say look, Anonymous Monk answered here, and here, and here. That static analysis ignores the dynamics taking place while a thread is developing. In that dynamic, Monks with good intentions and a mortal limit of time and life-force (power of intellectual concentration, attention span, verbal expressiveness) are going to be evaluating whether their contribution is even needed at the present moment (and are not likely to revisit the thread later to do the evaluation over again). If even a half-arsed reply (that they might scan quickly before moving on) has been given by an Anonymous Monk (and perhaps vaguely hints at a correct source for answers - provides GIYF-fodder), might that Monk not save their efforts for a different thread? I think so. And I do not think that a misleading answer is better than no answer. Only bureaucrats think like that.
      • About "If trolling is a concern [...]" I would say that again, this misses the point. Trolling is not the only lens through which to view all matters. It's about signal to noise in postings at the Monastery. The Perlmonks that I've been reading lately is manifesting a deteriorating signal-to-noise ratio. Anonymous Monk is a big part of that.

Re: Once again ... is it time to get rid of the Anonymous Monk?
by marto (Chancellor) on Mar 18, 2013 at 13:58 UTC

    Furthermore, if for any reason your session “simply disappears,” your posting will appear as anonymous. You are no longer logged-in, but you might not even know it.

    I've been posting here for years, and never had this happen. I replied to you the last time I saw you mention this, but you didn't respond. Is Anonymous Monk correct in their suggestion to what you perceive to be a perlmonks problem?

        Thanks for the reply. This theory was raisd by someone else in the previous thread (which I link to). If this is the case, and there's no confirmation this is what they're complaining about, it's not an issue with this site, it's an issue with a link. The session hasn't "disappeared". I run into this, but it's obvious that I'm no longer logged in. The URL is different (another clue). For some time now I've used the perlmonks blue theme, making the site impossible to confuse with the normal theme. Failing that there's always the large text warning users who aren't logged in. If find it hard to believe that this is their actual complaint, given their claimed expertise/CV/Resume.

Re: Once again ... is it time to get rid of the Anonymous Monk?
by Your Mother (Canon) on Mar 18, 2013 at 14:18 UTC
    Perlmonks is unique...in that it is possible to post anonymously
    StackOverflow's huge family of sites is littered with contributions from user1234567. This is functionally no different from anonymous. As are a huge amount of "identified" accounts online.
    ...that the authentication is also weak...
    And here you make a point for anonymous posting. This site's security is weak and that's why some long term monks have shunned named accounts with leaky plaintext passwords but still participate anonymously.
    ...Anonymous Friend is getting a lot of flack...
    So, to help him, you'll force him out of existence. Quelle Progressive.
    ...it should be pointed-out that “Anonymity” is very often accidental...
    Very often? I've had this account for 10 years and another previous that I lost and didn't recover, I've never once had a session "simply disappear" while posting.
    Therefore, maybe it’s time to update the technology of the site.
    Well volunteered. Don't hesitate to post your patches.
    Let’s take a well-known site like The Huffington Post...
    Take my site. Please.
    simply disappears
    FUD, damned FUD, and statistics.
    We’ve talked about this before ... and I submit that it is high time to do it.
    This implies the conclusion previously was that it was a good idea. [citation required]
    E-mail addresses should be subject to some kind of cleanup and re-verification, without which the ability to post is suspended.
    Show me your papers!
    ...because personalities often are touchy here, and opinions are even stronger.
    It's only an opinion if it lacks evidence.
    We’re supposed to be communing about Perl...
    Complete agreement here. When will that part of the thread start?
Re: Once again ... is it time to get rid of the Anonymous Monk?
by CountZero (Bishop) on Mar 18, 2013 at 14:35 UTC
    I ++ your node, as I do with everyone who makes an honest attempt to think about improving the Monastery.

    Of course that doesn't mean I agree with your point of view. Although I have never seen any need to post fully anonymously (whether to "protect" my XP or for any other reason), I will respect any and all good or bad reasons why people want to post fully (as Anonymous Monk) or partially anonymous (under their PM login name).

    And for the many years I have had the honour to be part of this little corner of cyberspace, I never saw any good reason that made me think it became even remotely necessary to lift the anonymity of the Monks here. Once more your post does not give any convincing argument to lift the Anonymous Monk's hood. The very very few times a session was "lost" can surely not be a good reason and if it is an argument at all, it seems more to support the opposite position.

    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

    My blog: Imperial Deltronics
Re: Once again ... is it time to get rid of the Anonymous Monk?
by Ratazong (Prior) on Mar 18, 2013 at 14:37 UTC

    On November 30th, 2011 you posted this node, proposing removing the anonymous monk. That proposal has been rejected by the majority of the monks. You can see this by the replies and by the reputation of that node. What makes you think that the general opinion on the topic has changed since then? (At least mine hasn't ... .)

    Proposing the same again and again without a new situation or new facts doesn't look helpful to me.

    Rata

Re: Once again ... is it time to get rid of the Anonymous Monk?
by davies (Vicar) on Mar 18, 2013 at 16:04 UTC

    I'm going to get my say in before Leveson makes it illegal. I'm deeply opposed to abandoning anonymous posts. I can't for the life of me think why postings should in every case be attributable to someone. I can't see the value of verifying email accounts. I think mine is still valid, but what if it isn't? Are you going to ban me as a user? You don't have an email address at which to contact me, so how are you going to tell me there's a problem? Either you let me log in, in which case I won't care about your problems, or you're not, in which case I can't find out what's gone wrong without breaking site rules & opening a second account. The third option is that you create some sort of restricted account which can tell me I need to jump through hoops. I'm most unlikely to, so this is much the same as banning me. My snail mail address is, I think, on something I once posted here, so you could try writing me a letter, but are you going to do that for everyone who has changed email address since they first logged in?

    Some people have differing attitudes to privacy. I have posted a genuine photo on my home page and use my real name. CountZero has given me in /msgs information that I believe would enable me to find him if I wanted. BrowserUK, OTOH, gives out no information. If you remove the options, you will also remove from the user base those for whom the options are important.

    Recently, I cleared my browser history - something I do occasionally - and found I had logged myself out of PerlMonks. Every page presented me with a login dialogue box and I immediately realised what had happened and logged in again. However, I accept that some people may not notice what to me seems an obvious difference from my expectations, making this the only point where I find myself agreeing with you about a disadvantage of allowing anonymity. However, if it is a general problem (as I've indicated, it isn't for me), I think there are better ways of dealing with it. One might be to have the "Create" button changed to "Post anonymously" when not logged in, which I would expect to be enough. Another is to require anonymonks to "log in" with the password "guest" before posting. A third might be to use a captcha for anonymous postings. All of these would in some way mitigate the problem that you perceive but I do not.

    I mentioned Leveson in my first paragraph. Some explanation of this may be needed for people outside the UK. This is a report into some of the more egregious excesses of the gutter press that has proposed statutory regulation of journalism. The Scots Nats have gone even further, proposing that even Twitter should bow the knee to their censor benign supervisory authority. Boris Johnson, a man I despise, wrote a sensible (for once) article in today's Daily Telegraph about the need to avoid restricting the press. I don't liken your proposals to Leveson et al, but there's too much restricting going on for my liking. Cites available if wanted.

    Please, please, dear sweet Gods, don't abolish anonymity.

    Regards,

    John Davies

      ++, but..

      "I think there are better ways of dealing with it. One might be to have the "Create" button changed to "Post anonymously" when not logged in, which I would expect to be enough"

      I just tested this by attempting to reply to your post via the .com domain, rather than the .org to which I'm currently logged in. It shows:

      You aren't logged in.

      Login, Create a new user, or hit "Create" to proceed in posting your node.

      And I had to scroll down to see the post and it's associated buttons. Perhaps you're right in so much that there's some more HTML/CSS fu which could be used to make this seem more obvious, though people may still miss it, for example browsing using a text based browser. On a related subject. I use the (poll winning;) Perlmonks blue theme. The site looks a lot different before I log in, so it's much less likely (if not impossible) for me to think I'm logged in when I'm not. I don't think the site has ever logged me out in all the years I posted.

Re: Once again ... is it time to get rid of the Anonymous Monk?
by sundialsvc4 (Monsignor) on Mar 18, 2013 at 20:36 UTC

    Ooh, cool ... eight downvotes and counting!   (Is that a record?)   OOOOH!! And two more downvotes in less than one minute for this reply!   I oughta start collecting these things, and I would if I weren’t laughing so hard.

    C’m on, people, lighten up.   You’re taking things much too seriously.   On the threads that I cited in the OP, poor Mr. Anonymous absolutely got blasted and on the assumption that someone known to somebody was trying to hide.   Maybe my comment just now was taken the same way?   Or did someone “know” what I was “really” saying, and reply in kind?   If so, I repeat:   lighten up!

    Myself, I’d love to see the system set up so that it didn’t log me off by accident and dump my posts to Mr. Anonymous.   If other forums handle these issues a little differently, why can’t we simply discuss how the forum software could work differently or better?

    “I have a few suggestions, which yes I have commented-on before, about how maybe the forum software could work better (IMHO) than it does now.”   That’s it; that’s all.

    u

      "Myself, I’d love to see the system set up so that it didn’t log me off by accident and dump my posts to Mr. Anonymous."

      You seem alone in this accidental log off phenomenon. I've asked yout twice, in different threads to clarify your findings but as yet, no reply, no more details. If you actually care about this so alleged behaviour the logical thing would be to respond with more information. Repeat claims are fairly futile if you're not prepared to follow up on them.

      "assumption that someone known to somebody was trying to hide."

      Your assumption, you have no evidence anyone else has jumped to this conclusion.

      "Maybe my comment just now was taken the same way?"

      Perhaps by some, perhaps not. However you've been given some fairly concrete feedback in this thread, and others, which you've chosen to ignore, and instead posted a reply to yourself with theories founded upon assuming you know what others are thinking.

      Ooh, cool ... eight downvotes and counting!

      You cannot be surprised by that. You are a member of this site long enough, and you know the rules. A downvote is a valid way for a monk to express the discontent with a proposed idea. See here: How should I spend my votes? -- General Voting Guidelines. In fact, downvoting you post is a way to treat your post seriously, however to come to a different conclusion than you do. So you should lighten up.

      And it is of course no record. The worst node today is this - and with a good reason.

      Have a nice day!

      Rata
Re: Once again ... is it time to get rid of the Anonymous Monk?
by LanX (Canon) on Mar 18, 2013 at 22:04 UTC
    If you want I can provide you with a nodelet hack I just wrote to automatically hide any posts from AnoMonk.

    I'm already using it for your posts...

    Cheers Rolf

      Bahahahahahaha can I have a copy ?

      LanX, when I read your post, I just had to log out and respond: If you filter our earnest sundialsvc4 you are missing some good entertainment and, dare I say, a contrapositive form of wisdom? for opposite the gnomon shadow cast must be the light.

Re: Once again ... is it time to get rid of the Anonymous Monk? (ad hominem)
by Anonymous Monk on Mar 19, 2013 at 07:37 UTC

    sundialsvc4, you've proven yourself to be inconsiderate, unreasonable, and repetitive -- and your claimed inspiration for this new turd is a rant by someone whose unreasonable is only exceeded by his rudeness -- you have no credibility

Re: Once again ... is it time to get rid of the Anonymous Monk?
by Anonymous Monk on Mar 19, 2013 at 08:25 UTC

    The feature Anonymous monk is just a way of hiding yourself while posting something.

    Show me one difference between 'Anonymous monk' and a user name 'CoolGuy1234'. You see right there. Forcing a login doesn't stop trolls

    If anything, number of signups are going to go up like crazy without any visible decrease in trolling

Re: Once again ... is it time to get rid of the Anonymous Monk?
by dsheroh (Parson) on Mar 19, 2013 at 10:30 UTC
    Wow, has it been six months already?

    The monks soundly rejected your proposal to dump Anonymous Monk the last time you brought it up.

    The monks soundly rejected your proposal to dump Anonymous Monk the time before that.

    I think it's a pretty safe bet that we're going to reject it this time, too. And the next time. And the time after that. And however many more times it takes to finally get it through your thick skull that No, the community of PerlMonks at large does not agree with you that Anonymous Monk should be removed.

      Reminds me of Quebec, except with near-unanimous vote every time.

Re: Once again . ..{blah} (Counter proposal: )
by BrowserUk (Pope) on Mar 19, 2013 at 10:58 UTC

    Since you're the only one who has a problem with this, the solution is entirely in your hands.

    If you go away; problem solved.


    With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

      Since you're the only one who has a problem with this, the solution is entirely in your hands. If you go away; problem solved.

      A couple of minor fallacies to be pointed out:

      • That the OP is "the only Perlmonk who has a problem with 'Anonymous Monk' policy". There is only an absence of evidence up until now, limited to this thread. Thus, this is a fallacy. Negative evidence is vastly inferior to positive evidence. That no other active monks who have a problem with Anonymous Monk posting exist, is plausibly, overwhelmingly unlikely.

        Absence of evidence until now, in this thread, is plausibly attributable to the absence of awareness for other monks that this "discussion" is even happening. Also plausibly attributable to passivity. With regard to that, Someone here keeps adding some text to their postings, that reads:


        Silence betokens consent

        In fact, this is a very harsh truth. The harshness comes in because it is statement that hides a larger truth behind it. That truth is "larger" in the sense that it "takes more words to express." That truth is that people betoken their consent unwillingly when ruled by the kind of passivity that is bred of past disappointments and disillusionments. That's the whole point of the saying. Only if one understands that there is a disillusioned body of persons remaining silent because they do not believe that their voices matter, that their voices will be heard, that speaking up can make any difference; only if one understands this does this short little tagline achieve its intended meaning.

      • The second fallacy has now been made clear. I have a problem with "Anonymous Monk" posting policy. I have had a problem with it for years and have never changed my statements of belief about it. Maybe it was convenient to forget that I've spoken up strongly about it in the past? Or maybe it is a matter of the fact that it is me speaking, and not "what is said"? Is that it? Does who is speaking suddenly matter, rather than what is said?

      The OP is hereby urged and encouraged to stay around. All persuasions henceforth expressioned by any others are negated and revoked. All evil spirits currently lurking around the Monastery, urging monks to act like pissy, small-minded little tribesmen with tiny male attributes and serious inadequacy issues motivating them to flock and herd and gang up -- all such spirits are hereby vanquished with my magic spell. POOF.

        I have a problem with "Anonymous Monk" posting policy. I have had a problem with it for years and have never changed my statements of belief about it. Maybe it was convenient to forget that I've spoken up strongly about it in the past?

        And as I recall, your posts on the matter were also roundly rejected.

        As for your magic spell: I hope you feel better.


        With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

        Sweetbejeesus, what are you? "hereby urged and encouraged"? "minor fallacies"? Paragraphs after paragraphs after paragraphs after paragraphs of pompous drivel.

        If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it is most probably a duck ... you sir do not sound like a programmer. You do sound like someone who loves to listen to himself though.

        Jenda
        Enoch was right!
        Enjoy the last years of Rome.

Re: Once again ... is it time to get rid of the Anonymous Monk?
by Voronich (Hermit) on Mar 25, 2013 at 16:14 UTC

    I just don't understand what is actually broken. We either have Anonymous Monk or a bunch of throwaway accounts. *shrug*

    I'd rather not have either. But not enough to lobby for it. There isn't a good solution to that so I don't see why it causes so much consternation.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://1024035]
Approved by tye
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others chilling in the Monastery: (5)
As of 2014-08-31 01:56 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    The best computer themed movie is:











    Results (294 votes), past polls