VERY basic linux system 248

There are subtleties. To a degree, I'm of two minds:

1. To the extent we're dealing with technical material, in the ideal case it shouldn't matter who or what the poster is. (On the Net, nobody knows you're a dog, and it doesn't matter anyway.) 2. There are (rare) situations where anonymous-psuedonymous posting is necessary, even essential. Those almost never apply on Usenet, however, and most claims to the contrary are transparent frauds.1 3. The degree to which most posters identify themselves is pretty limited, anyway. E.g., you profess to be someone named "Stan" (though you've not bothered to set your GECOS aka full name field -- does this mean you're not using a "real name", BTW?), and to be posting from "worldbadminton.com", whatever that is, but for all I know you could be a llama herder named Jose Garcia posting from Tierra del Fuego, or my wife pulling a prank, or whatever. 4. Anyway, para-idenbreasty's as useful as one needs, generally. If I see a post from the oldtimer posting as "Moe Trin" with his-her usual headers, diction, and posting style, then I know there's a credible persona standing behind it, even if that name probably isn't what he-she writes on cheques at grocery stores. 5. I've personally made a point of always attaching my real name and valid contact information, even when I don't have to and even in forums where "handles" are customary, just as a personal policy -- but wouldn't be quick to judge those who're less self-revealing. 6. Still, the less seemingly real identifying information on post (absent personae with track records like Moe Trin's), the more suspicious and skeptical I am by default.

1 There's a known Usenet syndrome of inventing fake accounts names to use in personally malign people you dislike, creating the appearance of support by creating "sock puppet" discussions among multiple fake idenbreasties, and then, when questioned, say "I can't use my real name because then $PERSONBEINGSLAGGED would beat me up", etc. This is getting to be a real problem on, e.g. Wikipedia, where anonymous gossips will create anonymous Web pages attacking someone, and then (anonymously) create a Wikipedia page referencing those pages and claiming the person discussed was thereby proven to be "controversial".

It's partly in reaction to this scummy behaviour that I make a point of never taking advantage of posting things anonymously, to put large amounts of distance between my ethics and those of trolls and backbiters.

-- Cheers, Rick Moen "Anger makes dull men witty, but it keeps them poor."