You’ve completely misunderstood the point I’ve made a dozen times. Maybe after a gross. Context, reputation, credibility. The monk who shall not be named is a frequent anonymous contributor for example. That’s the baseline–the worst. The OP was, to me, terrible and offputting. Like I said, I can’t tell it from trolling because I couldn’t write something like that with a straight face. If there had been a name attached, I’d have some connection, some empathy to give because it would be a person instead of an amalgam of faceless, sloppy, slapdash idiocy. The account Anonymous Monk is a polite analog for its more accurate antecedent Anonymous Coward. I’m strongly in favor of allowing anonymous posts. Doesn’t convey respect for those who do it.
I post pseudonymously so that I can write about work without exposing my code vulnerabilities to hackers or myself to corporate censure if I criticize my workplace. Strangely enough—prudence being 20/20—neither has really come up. Believe it or not, I’m drastically more hostile, judgemental, and confrontational by my ActualEgo®. Anyone with basic library science skills could figure out who I really am without much research. :P The monks competent to do so, however, are the same monks who wouldn’t care to try. There are a few who already know and are polite enough to keep it to themselves.