Again, voicing the unpopular (but only by a certain percentage) opinion,
I answer this:
Anonymous Monk posted (on Nov 27, 2005 at 08:10 GMT+5):
Sometimes anonymity is necessary to be able to say things that
need to be said, but no one dares to say under their own name.
There are no such things.
There is no such thing as "a thing that needs to be said" but that
you don't "dare" say under an identifiable personal handle in this
Perlmonks community. Maybe in a forum discussing as its primary topic
"childhood sexual abuse" or "substance addiction", yes. Not in Perlmonks.
This is a completely bogus argument, and I am sorry to see that I
was apparently the first one to call it what it is.
It's disastrous to a society when moral cowardice is in charge.
People who seek to avoid all risk of personal loss (defined broadly)
while still having an influence on the world around them, and even
seek to have this "protection" from the reality of human life
("the world is a harsh place", "life is often unfair", "adults take
responsibility for their own actions/choices", yada, yada) instititutionalized
are cowardly. Hey, sorry, but this isn't name-calling. This is what
"cowardice" is. Check a dictionary.
I agree with all 3 of tirwhan's proposals, and not merely because I
was a target of an anonymous troll's campaign earlier this year. I continue
to perceive a degradation of the quality of content on Perlmonks resulting
from this misconceived fake "tolerance" (it's passivity masquerading as
something benign) of Anonymous Abuse.