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.