This discussion of anonymity does beg an important related question. It reminds me that on occasion at Mudcat, and in other written communications, there is a question of the intended voice of the writer vs the received tone of voice supplied the reader. These are not always in sync. I generally find it surprising when people read something that I have written in a frank and unadorned manner as brusk or rude. Considering again what I've written, I find that it is their reading, their state of mind providing an emphasis on certain words, that makes it so. Plain speaking seems to be less common in this world, where there is such a verbosity that all words are all devalued. Ideas must be embellished to be polite? I'm by no means a woman of few words, but it is surprising how many people bring their own anger to what they read and assume it was there at the time of writing. We seem to live in a time when people require sugar coated words. All fluffy and Politically Correct. Civility and conciseness are not mutually exclusive.

SRS