Does jenda's suggestion, at Re^2: to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em, remove the basis for this objection?

Please, consider carefully, this is NOT -- IMO -- a restriction of any individual's right to annonymity*1; rather, it is an internal, encrypted (non-transparent) means to allow the individual to retain his/her annonymity, while allowing the rest of us to distinguish among AMs -- without in any wise knowing their actual identities

.

*1 OK, conceeded: it might be viewed as a limit on a writer's ability to perform a (harmless and highly illustrative) jape such as appears well down, at Re^4: to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em ...Re^3: to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em, but I would (and do) argue that such a limit is insignificant, in as much as an alternate method (immediately below) to create the same illusion/illustation is readily available

Re^2: to distinguish between Anonymous Monks in a thread, brand 'em [id://123456]
by Anonymous Monk on Sep 31, 2011 at 09:11 GMT+5
This is Comment 1. It's actually devoid of substantive content but is being extended (well beyond reason) in order to enhance this illusion -- namely, that this an an actual node.reply
msg
Re^3: to distinguish between Anonymous Monks in a thread, brand 'em [id://924823]
by Anonymous Monk on Sep 31, 2011 at 09:12 GMT+5
Contradictory Comment 2 or "I don't agree that the above lacks substance. It appears to /me to contain in excess of 180 characters, some of them, perhaps, unique within that node and certainly not insubstatial."reply
msg
Re^3: to distinguish between Anonymous Monks in a thread, brand 'em [id://924823]
by Anonymous Monk on Sep 31, 2011 at 09:12 GMT+5
Comment 3. The above completely lacks substance and is completely without any reference to Perl. Thus, I think it should be reaped immediately without recourse to consideration or voting.reply
msg
Re^3: to distinguish between Anonymous Monks in a thread, brand 'em [Re: 78/80 chars perl line still a meaningful rule
by Anonymous Monk on Sep 31, 2011 at 09:11 GMT+5
And besides, ww is all wet! H/She knows that any preference for an absolutist construction of freedom of speech in los Estados Unidos is subject to counter-construction by SCOTUS. For example, consider:
  1. one.
  2. TWO.
  3. Tres.
  4. der vierte!
reply
msg

In reply to Re^4: to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em by ww
in thread to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em by Anonymous Monk

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.