On 22/10/2013 10:57, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 10/21/13 1:37 PM, l(_dot_)wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk wrote:
A persistent identifier is helpful in sustained shared multiparty
conversation; whether it represents a "real" person or not does not
matter.
Right, this is clearly a problem as stated, but there's a long
history of people posting from and participating from those
addresses, while the other is some individual whose only posts
were ad hominem. So what's of interest here probably isn't
anon-/pseudonymity, but some sort of reputation or track record.
I agree, but in this case the email address was obscure, the
content was irrelevant, and the tone was, at least to my eyes,
highly provocative. It was the sum of those three aspects that
set me off.
If someone sends well argued technical comments, or comments
on IETF procedural questions, using a pseudonym, that would
be a different matter. I can certainly imagine circumstances
in which somebody might prefer to do that.
Brian