The post you are reporting:
howard mcsweeney1: 'The difference is when people post honestly under their real name or cower behind a pseudonym.'
Keith Sansum1:
'As you say Howard
I dont like those that don't say who they are [sic]'
It is, of course, just as likely that a pseudonymous member will post honestly and that a member with a 'real name' will post dishonestly. In any case, a 'real name' may very well be a pseudonym, and many of us wouldn't be any the wiser, let alone care. What's more, intelligent members, pseudonymous or not, are likely to have a forum persona which may resemble their 'real' self but isn't identical with it; that's the nature of public intercourse, and one of the benefits of writing. Unless you want a forum to be a closed shop for members on first-name terms who meet socially for port, stilton and a couple of rounds of cribbage in order to pat their own prejudices on the back, then these are surely good things, as they make the introduction of different ideas and different perspectives more likely. An idea's an idea, an opinion's an opinion, a joke's a joke, a spilling mestake is a spelling mistake and, though it may help us to construct our own image of the character of the poster or to gain some applause for a ribbing or a ribald rejoinder, it matters not a whit whether it comes from a pseudonym or a 'real name'.
It is worth reminding those who are easily offended by pseudonymity that, while there is no forum rule against it, there is one (3.3.8) against repetition. So maybe we could keep all pseudonym-related insults and considerations to just one thread.