In reading your posts it is evident to me that the main difference between the two of us is you believe your are an authority figure.
Knowing this I have a pretty solid understanding of how our dialog will ultimately end every time. I don't have the bandwidth nor patience to deal with insatiable appeals to your tangential questions and presumed authority. I don't need your approval to make my points in this environment. In fact, I would argue that the more irritated you become with my presence, the more successful this site will be.

To appease your thirst for the debate, I will respond one last time to your "multi-quotes" but I refuse to appease everyone that does this to my posts. Life is too short.

Quote Originally Posted by Dave Bernstein View Post
I see why you'd rather post anonymously.
You are making a false, presumptous cop-out reply and never addressed my point that you like to engage in the art of logical fallacy.

Quote Originally Posted by Dave Bernstein View Post
Does your right to privacy mean that every discussion forum must permit anonymous posts?
No. That was never stated. This is an irrelevant straw man tactic to discredit my underlying message.

The last four weeks' postings here alone provide many counter-examples to your above claims of uniformity, insularity, and meekness -- as does this very thread.
All the posts here in DF are dominated by about a dozen people as far as I can tell that, as has been already commented on, spend a lot of time pandering to one another. Does this not qualify as insular?

Perhaps. Nasty posters exploiting their anonymity often drive out other participants. Do you seek to maximize the total number of participants, or the total number of constructive participants? If the latter, my experience is that non-anonymous fora are more effective.
Anonymity does not imply nastiness. This is a false presumption you make. I would rather see a maximum level of participation rather than leaving it up to someone like you to decide the fate of whether they are "constructive" or not.

Again, this forum's archives provide plenty of counter-examples. There are anonymous fora in which Wayland issues are frequently discussed; for example, see the comments following the letters in http://www.wickedlocal.com/wayland/h...-to-the-editor . So there is a vehicle available to timid whistleblowers.
This doesn't really seem to respond to my point that in instances when the stakes are high, especially when something highly unethical is happening, anonymity is a very useful tool. While the Crier site is a means, it is by no means as targeted as this DF.

Can you cite an example of an un-moderated anonymous discussion forum with 50 or more participants that was able to maintain a civil and constructive equilibrium for, say, 3 consecutive months?
I don't know what is going to meet your exacting standards with this open ended yet highly refined request. (yes, I get the trap you are setting) How about a discussion board where an anonymous engineers working for a large computer manufacturer offers candid and materially better help outside the "system" put into place by their controlling employer.
Also, I really don't know what civility has to do with it. People in Burma are pretty civil when you talk to them, even after they get roughhoused by a soldier holding an AK-47. And our government and Chrysler bondholders had a civil exchange as Uncle Sam threw contract law out the window to pander to the UAW. I will leave it up to your own personal beliefs as to whether or not those examples have benefited from the appearance of civil and constructive equilibrium.