Jimmy Kaplowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Just a small point that has only a small relevance to your point > (which, again, I am taking no position on): John Galt is not > anonymous, but pseudonymous.
[snipping here] The problem here is that he can, at a moment's notice, decide that he has so spoiled the name "John Galt" that he picks up another. And we have no way, indeed, of knowing how many times he's done that before. > Instead, he has an identity that is John Galt, and he has a > a reputation that is John Galt's, even if they are separate from the > identity and reputation which are associated with John's "real" > name. He would likely care enough not to damage this reputation, > since it is what he uses exclusively online, and even to some degree > with friends. We have absolutely no way to know this, and good reason to think it's not true, for the simple reason that if this were truly the only name he uses, ever, then it wouldn't *be* a pseudonym. > I do not feel it is right to exclude Debian users and other > community members from public discussions simply because they are > not Debian developers. (In the concept of exclusion I am including > discouragement from participating.) I agree certainly. But it does happen that once in a while a given thread has ended its useful life, and it's reasonable to say "your posts here are obstructing us from work". Non-developers have very frequently been contributors of great importance. But it does not therefore follow that *all* non-developers, in every case, should be patiently tolerated forever. And I believe this is especially true when they do everything they can to prevent us even knowing who they are, for the simple reason that they are probably either: 1) Ashamed of their association with us, or 2) Ashamed of their true identity. Thomas
