Are you challenging me? I am a lawyer and love such games.

Am I now? Asking for clarification is a challenge?

For me it means "not distinguishable from any other AM".

Thanks for confirming your invented definition , "not distinguishable from any other indistinguishable we call Anonymous Monk"

A thread is a room, someone from the left says something, someone from the right says something, they're all wearing Anonymous Monk, when the thread ends, when they leave the room, you don't even know which side of the room they were standing in, much less whom they are, or what computer they posted from, they're still Anonymous Monk, faceless, namless, anyone, any dog

Asking for clarification is a challenge?

Don't understand me wrong. I like such challenges. I just wanted to give you some background why I am continuing this discussion, perhaps beyond what some would find reasonable. :)

A thread is a room, someone from the left says something, someone from the right says something, they're all wearing Anonymous Monk, when the thread ends, when they leave the room, you don't even know which side of the room they were standing in, much less whom they are, or what computer they posted from, they're still Anonymous Monk, faceless, nameless, anyone, any dog

You just confirmed my argument: branding the AM when inside a thread, takes away their "indistinguishableness" inside the thread. of course you still cannot link them to a physical person, but that is already a property all monks enjoy by virtue of having a "username" here (unless you use your *real* name as a username, which few, if any, do).

I hope I explained now clearly enough why "branding" takes away some of the anonimity (in my definition) of posting as an AM.

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

You just confirmed my argument...

Except that I didn't.

This is my suggestion, it can't possibly be your argument :)

My suggestion does not compromise anonymity one iota

A "username" is a name by definition, there can only be one here, it is a defacto perlmonks identity, whether or not its linked to any other identities (online or real world)

Anonymous Monk is the equivalent of having no name

Temporary in-thread-branding doesn't give you a name, doesn't link you to any identity, it merely hints at your location within a room --- anonymity intact

Seems to me that their '"indistinguishableness"' -- at the level you're invoking it as something to protect -- is not and never has been the point of permitting individuals to post as AM nor is it an essential element of anonymity in the context of the Monastery.

Rather, the point, IMO, is to allow any persons to post what they wish, without providing any link between their statement (opinion, rant, slurs, facts, code, whatever) and their actual personal identities or, as you suggested earlier, any link between the statement and the writer's individual semi-anonymous handle (CountZero, ww, etc.) But AM is not an individual handle; it's used by many different (but equally anonymous) individuals^*1.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - ^*1 ....or so we may presume, given the varying competence with Perl, English, spelling, grammar, and so on that we can readily observe.