Perhaps those if us who have been using real names should then be permitted to change to an anonymous name.

that at least levels the playing field, since the consensus on this board is nothing can be done about slagging anonymous trollers.

But, it is now , if someone calling himself "Donald Duck" slanders brian Ritchie, and Brian finally gets fed up and retaliates and says something that is "over the top" in frustration or anger, he looks either undiginified, or low class or simply ridiculosu in front of his peers for gettying in a mud wrestling match with a pig, who in thoroughly enjoying the whole thing in utter anonymity.


And on the other hand if Brian takes "the high road" and ignores repeated insults, then simply decides to turn the other cheek and wipe the verbal spittle from his face, like a pacifist quaker, he looks like a coward or a defenseless wimp.

Meanwhile, no one knows who "donald duck" is-so he he has no standing to lose in the community- and so hell yeah, why not go way over the top if you have no standing to lose???

Think about this too: Legally, Brian Ritchie can't be sued for slandering Donald Duck-because legally "Donald Duck is an anonymous entity who cannot be identified. thius he has no legal standing. But the reverse is not true.

Why is that? The Law quite rightly recognizes that an anonymous person has nothing whatsoever to lose, status wise when he is slandered- because no one knows who is being ridiculed, or defamed. but a known person certainly does have lots of standing to lose when he/she is slandered.

So hell yes, It makes LOT of difference what a persons name is.

I respectfully disagree with the idea that a persons name and identity is meaningless or unimportant.

.

dan