posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 09:00 AM
I disagree with the premise of the OP.
One of the strengths of this site, and sites like it, is its openness to the free exchange of ideas. I believe that the availability of relative
anonymity is likely to be conducive to that exchange.
I want to stress the word "relative." Certainly, if the State considers it important enough to know exactly who I am, they will do so, and it will
not take very long, my natural right to privacy notwithstanding. Yet, I feel that this is probably not the case; I am not that important and pose
little, if any, threat. Even so, others here may have their reasons for concealing their identity from others. I, for one, am willing to respect
Regarding the issue of instituting a fee for membership here, I disagree with this. There may be those here for whom one dollar (or any other amount
one might name) is a lot of money. They should not be shut out. Furthermore, some may avoid the use of electronic transactions and, I believe, may
have good reasons for doing so. They should not be shut out either.
The intent of the OP is well-taken. I, too, have at times been dismayed by the dismally low signal-to-noise ratio of some of the discussions here.
Personally, I find many threads here that I consider speculative, dubious, or even downright outlandish. Be that as it may, in the spirit of polite
discourse, I will not engage in condescension, invective, or name-calling. This speaks to the idea of reputation mentioned by the OP. When people
see my nickname, I want them to think, wow, this guy is intelligent, clear, concise, and documents his arguments well. But that goal, whether or not
I am actually achieving it, does not require my name. I suppose that the best that one can do is to provide a good example. Hopefully, others will
be induced to emulate it. Yet, I am pragmatic enough to realize that many will not. So be it.