Although it's just a rumor, I've been given (or maybe just assumed) the understanding that there may be one or more persons who have been "disruptive" enough to be barred from being a member. This is of course despite their occasional positive contributions.

Allowing GUEST postings permits them still to contribute, and perhaps serves as a reminder to be more participative and (a little) less abusive(?). (Sometimes it appears perhaps not.)

It should be noted that anyone posting as GUEST may be assumed to be one of them (or that one) so without other identification the self-standing "GUEST" has an inherited reputation most "accidental Guests" probably would not care for.

Please don't tell me the rumor isn't true, or even debate about it. I think it serves a purpose even if it is just an urban legend. It forces me, at least, to consider whether a GUEST is "that one" or just "someone who doesn't know" so it's a "trigger" for my closer attention to whether it's one to be considered or just one to be ignored.

Occasionally (but too rarely?) I find a posting that I assume "probably is him/her" that is quite positive, and I find it encouraging to assume (even if wrongly) that even "THE GUEST" sometimes tries. And I can ignore most of the others.

I'll also admit that some registered persons are so predictable that sometimes I don't read as carefullly as I should. I'm trying to pay more attention, but that ^%#$@! (deleted) always says ...

John