From: Anonymous <mix-AT-mix2.hyperreal.pl>
Subject: cowards arguments less persuasive?
Date: Thu,  8 Nov 2001 12:03:33 +0100 (CET)



Dave Coull wrote:

> That's not true, Heather, Carp isn't the only one who objects,
> I don't like anon mailers either. In fact, I wanted to send a 
message
> to the list last night saying so, but Keri said I should wait 
until
> after Carp's response to you. As far as I'm concerned, any 
person
> who wants to express an opinion while remaining totally 
anonymous
> about doing so is a person whose opinion I have absolutely
> no interest in.

	That is you opinion and a fine one.  If you wish to ignore 
someone bacuse they have posted anonymously you are welcome to, 
of course.

dave>
> By coincidence, my own very first message to the anarchy-list
> also said some very rude things to Carp. In fact, Heather,
> yours is actually reasonably polite by comparison.

There is something about posts from carp that invites rude 
responses.  Can't put my finger on quite what it is though.

Heather>>>
>>>You're merely tempting me to get one myself in support
>>>of their use

Dave>
> No point, Heather, I would recognise your style anyway,
> and tell everybody " it's her "

Seems rather harsh to publicly "out".  An anon poster.  What if
a/ you are wrong?
or
b/ your actions have unintended repurcusions?
Basically it would be possible to cause a lot of difficulty for 
someone by "outing" them.

Dave again>
> If he's not a cop, then he is somebody who is far less 
important
> than he imagines himself to be. He is also somebody whose
> opinion is of no interest to anybody but himself.

What is it that makes a cowards arguments less persuasive than a 
person who posts under their real (or an assumed) name?