Re^4: Additions to the FAQ and a Community Statement

[marto]

"but the evidence"

What evidence? You haven't shown any. I personally don't care if someone posts anonymously or not, I'll treat the same way. For the purposes of on going communications and joining associating one post/problem report with another (by user name) that's certainly a benefit. However it's trivial for someone to create a throw away account for whatever purpose they have in mind.

To me this statement seems baseless and senseless, baseless in that you don't provide any evidence to back up your claim, and senseless in that it's rather a moot point as anyone could create a second throw away account in order to post while not tarnishing their reputation associated with their real account, should that be their agenda. While the latter is again the house rules, I don't believe this one is easily enforced.

Your statement I quoted is a theory, not a fact. You don't qualify this at all, you then talk of evidence then say:

"I have no rigorous proof to offer and in any case don't feel that one is required of me.

So on the one hand it's unacceptable for people to post (anonymously or not) anything you consider counter productive but it's ok for you to make claims of evidence, then say you have no proof and don't feel you need to provide any? I find this somewhat confusing and contradictory.

In the interests of clarity IMHO it'd be safer to differentiate fact from opinion, and not to make claims to have seen evidence then not be able to produce it.

[Ya'akov]

Let me clarify this, because I don't want to seem to be dismissive of something substantive. The anonymous posts to which I referred contained personal attacks against a particular Perl Monk. They were in the context of the thread, and demonstrated familiarity with the people involved, and the history of the debates on Feminism.

I think it highly unlikely that someone not a regular here would do this, due both to motive and knowledge.

That said, and marto, you certainly deserved the respect of a reply, I will add this. I believe that in the absence of a bias (I have none in this argument, being interested in the rights of both sides), a reading of the anonymous posts makes my characterization most likely. Could it be wrong? Certainly! Is it likely wrong? I really don't think so. Further, the certainty (rigorous factuality) of this is not germane. That is, unless you actually want to argue that people rarely use anonymity as a reputation shield. My experience is quite different.

marto, I apologize. I should not assume that you are pursuing an agenda, and I may well have fallen victim to my own understanding of what is "self-evident". Please accept my apology for the dismissive tone.

EDIT: I am told by a reliable source that some regulars here always post anonymously. That being the case, I would say that regardless of anonymity, a civil and humane approach is always called for. I think this is an outlier case, but as I have said, I am not a regular myself, and so bow to the knowledge of the community on these things.