http://qs1969.pair.com?node_id=929749


in reply to Re^18: to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em
in thread to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em

For me it literaly means "without a name" and you stick a name on the AM.

Sorry, but "Anonymous Monk" is already a name. Just as "The artist formerly known as Prince" is a name. Even "He who must not be named" is a name. In legal cases, "Mr X", "Ms J", "Baby P", "Corporal N" and "Private Y" have all been considered perfectly acceptable concealers of identity in courts of law. You would have PM act to a higher standard to satisfy your "beliefs"?

The simple fact of life is that anonymity at PM is a sham. There are a bunch of Gods here that can and do use their privilege to see through that sham. Which makes your arguments, arguments in favour of a purer kind of sham.

And when reasoning becomes devoid of logic, we move into the realms of belief. You are expressing the opinion that your beliefs should be imposed upon everyone here at PM.

In this world there are those who reject modern medicine in favour of snorting ground up Rhino horn or Tiger penis. There are still others that reject even simple procedures like blood transfusions. Which is fine when it is their own lives, but when they risk those of their children we can and do intervene.

You are talking about your idealogical preferences. Do you know the difference between an idealist and an extremist?

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.
  • Comment on Re^19: to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^20: to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em
by CountZero (Bishop) on Oct 07, 2011 at 09:27 UTC
    You are expressing the opinion that your beliefs should be imposed upon everyone here at PM.
    Not at all. I just expressef my ideas and the arguments in favour if it. About the counter-arguments, I said "I understand all those arguments and they are not wrong, but it just "hurts" the way I see anonymity". My own, personal way of seeing anonymity. Perish the thought I would impose my views upon someone else. And in any case, the argument goes against you too: why would you impose your view of anonymity? Furthermore, given that there is no "branding" of AMs (yet), it seems my view is more in line with current practice. :)

    You are talking about your idealogical preferences. Do you know the difference between an idealist and an extremist?
    Yes, it is my idea of "anonymity". Please feel free to worship any other idea. I may be an idealist or even an extremist (nothing wrong with either of them), but I am not a fundamentalist. So have no fear that a mob of torch-wielding zealots will knock on your door if you do not bow to my ideas.

    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

[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion