Where did I make such a claim?

Where did I indicate you had?

Now that we've proven that both of us can play this passive-agressive dance of words, might we endeavor instead for an honest dialogue here?

You wrote:

You're well aware that nobody is prohibited from responding, anonymous or otherwise.

In the context of the conversation where you wrote words referencing an absence of prohibition in response to a request for a type of behavior, any reasonable person would conclude that you were suggesting that the request was out of hand solely on that basis.

If your intent was otherwise, then this is simply a misfortunate misunderstanding. But I don't imagine that's the case here. I think you were poking at your favorite bear, and now take umbrage that anyone would dare intercede on the bear's behalf.

I would ask we not mince words here. This is not a court of law. Ths is the Monastary. Can we agree to respect the tenets of honesty here?

I cannot demand that behavior from you, nor would I be particularly inclined to support a system where polite behavior was mandated rather than voluntarily given.

I cannot demand it; I am, however, requesting it.
How you respond is up to you.

In Loving Service,
Steven K. Mariner

For clarity the person I was responding to has a documented history of this 'do as I say, not as I do' behaviour. They frequently exhibit the very behaviour they requested here that others avoid. Their request makes no logical sense, see throw away accounts etc. Why should anyone need an account to post a reply? What possible advantage to conversation would that give? We should concentrate on the contents of a post, not who (throwaway identity or lack of) posts. IMHO there is nothing to gain from this request, and the fact that they frequently post anyonymously requesting others do not is asking for a double standards, rather than a level/honest playing field which you speak of. People post anonymously to this site, often providing wonderful solutions, raising valid points or other such positive contributions. Would you prefer someone create a throwaway account purely meet this request being made? What problem do you believe sundialsvc4 is trying to solve and how would a throwaway account prevent this? If you care to look they've been on the crusade to remove anonymous posting for years.

Update: An additional thought, would it be just as reasonable a request to say 'please, no responses to this post unless you're wearing a Deerstalker.'? Would it have any impact on what people would say? Perceived quality of the response?

What problem do you believe sundialsvc4 is trying to solve

My best guess: Dishonest dialogue and childish behavior.

However, as you point out, the request is likely to go ignored, and there are other ways to accomplish the same counterproductive tasks anyway.

and how would a throwaway account prevent this?

The question is disingenious; it is you who presented the concept of using a throwaway account in this conversation.

But to (somewhat) answer the only part of the question I could answer -- I don't think acting like a coward and a liar is any better than simply acting like a coward.

If you care to look they've been on the crusade to remove anonymous posting for years.

Yes, we have been. But I long ago came to the realization that I would never win -- nor even make reasonable headway -- with that argument here. I have accepted it is the my "thorn on the rose" in the garden of the Monastery.

would it be just as reasonable a request to say 'please, no responses to this post unless you're wearing a Deerstalker.'?

No. Honesty affects written conversation. Attire does not. Based on your posting history, I should have thought you intelligent enough to know that.

Let's face it -- there isn't much sundialsvc4 and I agree on. I even had one post where I broke my usual rule regarding politeness and told him exactly what I thought of his attitude regarding process vs. flexibility.

But I would never engage in the mob behavior I see infesting my fellow Monks here, gang-piling downvotes onto even the most innocuous of his posts with such a frequency and ferocity that I cannot help but think that people are engaging in the reprehensible activity of downvoting the person, rather than the post.

In this uncharacteristically hostile environment, when I saw you chastise sundialsvc4 for something he did not do, I felt moved to point out your error -- and that should be a warning sign to me.

Perhaps I should return to spending more time in the back gardens of the Monastery for awhile. It's clear I am suffering a small case of disquietude over things that shouldn't matter to me.

At least jeffa would be happy to see me quit posting diatribes.  :-)

And so it goes. He's sucked in a suckered another sucker.

Another white knight who mistakes the response to the crime, as the crime.

Another johnny-cum-lately do-gooder who, despite that he recognises why people are incensed by sundial's rhetoric, thinks he can ride in an educate him out of his bad ways.

He'll still be deliberately pissing people off long after you've realised you're a sucker and given up.