"So what Shambles is telling us is that there was something nasty about this site written on the bathroom wall and we're supposed to take it seriously?"

But it wasn't particularly "nasty". Anyone who gets excited and angry about that kind of "insult" must have led a remarkably sheltered life.

Shambles explained "One of the reasons I copied the comment here is that can never be a bad thing to find out how you may appear to others." That seems common sense to me.

One of the many reasons why it is helpful or people top use names when posting is that it makes it easier to put things in context. The idea that somehow graffiti written on a wall makes a clearer statement than the same words in the mouth of a friend strikes me as absurd.

The same words from a friend and from a stranger do not convey the same message. If I got a note from a friend saying "I know where you live" that would mean something entirely different from a note in a strange hand pushed though my letter box with exactly the same words, and with no name at the bottom.

Most people here are anonymous anyway, since there is no knowing what lies behnd the pseudonyms, unless people choose to open up. However from previous messages people learn to put comments in context. But overtly-anonymous posts without even a pseudonym of any kind from a GUEST do not permit ofvthis - and it is probably true that as a result they are more likely to stir up angry responses. (Leaving aside the case where a member might have built up a backlog of flaming and trolling in their own name or pseudonym.)

One consequence of this, and one reason for it, is that people tend to assume that the motive of the overtly-anonymous poster is to produce that result. I find it hard to imagine any motive for posting in this way that isn't in some way malicious, as well as unfriendly.