There's an obvious distinction to be made between anonymous posts and flames, alluded to only in passing in this thread, that unfortunately, some posters are unable or unwilling to acknowledge. To have one's head virtually torn off for stating an inocuous thought/opinion/observation is an interesting yet somewhat disheartening phenomenon to observe. It is very difficult to imagine the same people sitting themselves down in an empty seat next to an anonymous person on the tram, and responding with a string of invectives to an offer of "Nice day, what?" - but here in this forum this comparison seems to on occasion lack credibility.

Inappropriate responses to neutral stimuli are somewhat understandable if one considers the degree of traumatization some people have suffered as the victims of a flame, especially if their initial reactions were aimed at trying to ascertain the rationale behind an attack for which no rationale exists.

toadfrog alluded to a certain degree of freedom afforded by anonymity. Spot on, but the freedom afforded an anonymous poster is a two way street. As it is freedom from ostracism for stating views unpopular to the herd mentality, so it is also freedom from inclusion for echoing opinions widely regarded and held in high esteem. Either set of circumstances by itself is likely to exert undue influence on one's subsequent deliberations, a fate the anonymous poster avoids handily by dispensing with the dilemma altogether.

Insofar as the general consensus favoring a concerted effort to ignore all posts and opinions by someone who refuses to attach a "handle" by which his or her fellow readers may grab hold...well, that just makes this place seem all the more like home....