After seeing your points about visitor feedback, I happen to agree that restricting Anonymous Monk, or otherwise censoring critique - be it of programming practice or personalality - is not a good idea(ok, its a BAD idea ;0).

Its not so much that I can't take reading these types of nodes. Rather I just think that putting a name with the node is a more productive way to do it. The Anonymous Monk below is correct in pointing out that a disability to seperate the message from the messenger is prohibitive to really processing whatever criticism is aimed at you. On the other hand, if someone thinks I'm abusive or harsh, I'd like to contact them to find out exactly what comes across as harsh or abusive. I don't ever post with the goal of being an a..hole, so if I come across like that I want to know how so I can change it. It's not so I can get into a pissing contest with them about who's right and who's wrong.

Basically, while I submit to the facts that restricting or otherwise censoring nodes can make the problem worse and that visitor feedback is essential to maintaining/improving the atmosphere at Perlmonks, I maintain that putting your name after your opinions is also important, if only to promote interaction between those that see where improvements can be made, and those who need improvement(myself included). At least for those who ARE members here.

---

Amel