07 May 01 6:09 PM....

Point taken. The family physician is the natural choice to believe. But "...all wrought because some people believe it is more important who says what rather than what's being said" was in response to the theme of this thread as stated in the initial post, and subsequent posts before the quote. The originator was expressing disdain for playing a 'game' of trying to guess who said what, which s/he seemed unable to control, and the quote refers to that and the posts that ensued. Outside the context of this thread, the quote doesn't hold up, as your example pointed out.

In many instances in this forum the reader's job is to pass judgement on an expressed thought, opinion, idea, belief, or what-have-you. Most of the posts in this thread (and many others) could fall under the general category of thoughts/beliefs/opinions/ideas. In that context, what difference does it make in the message if there's a moniker attached to it or not? Cover up the names or substitute Guest in any of those kinds of posts, and it doesn't change the meaning of the words.

Perhaps it makes a difference only in those areas where knowledge of the persona is necessary to the context, as in: "I would not want to join a club which would have me as a member." It's funnier and carries more meaning when Groucho Marx says it than when an anonymous person says it.

It also makes a difference when one is concerned with giving credit and assigning blame.

07 May 01 6:33 PM....

Your example is relevant if the reader empowers the words of a name-caller to do damage. If that were the case, given the general disdain aimed indiscriminantly at Guests who dare to express an opinion, no Guest would ever venture beyond the music threads. A liberating advantage to advancing maturity is becoming less and less concerned with what other people think.