This is all I will say about the "GUEST" obsession here...

There are at least two of us GUESTS contributing to this thread who choose not to identify ourselves.

And a long list of "self-identified" Mudcatters (though I'm guessing "Geoff the Duck" may not be the legal name of the person using it here) have been terrorizing the GUEST users for exercising the option provided by Mudcat to post anonymously.

Previously, the first GUEST stated he/she was not comfortable with threats being made. I seconded that, and of course, the threats and abuse only got worse.

For the record, my decision to sign on as GUEST is due to the small size of the UK folk community (of which I am an active participant), and because of some members' long, unforgiving memories, excellent health, and substantial enough income levels to allow hiring of solicitors to seek revenge on their behalf.

Some responses to my GUEST messages only serve to prove my point.

Many people who contribute to Internet forums do not wish to be readily identifiable for a host of honorable and innocent reasons. Rights of privacy, as well as the right to speak freely without fear of retaliation and retribution (still a serious issue in many parts of the world, including, apparently, this forum), are both reasonable justifications for using pseudonyms for posting anonymously on-line.

This forum allows for the use of pseudoyms and anonymity under the GUEST log-in, rather than requiring an e-mail address. If Mudcat respects those rights to privacy of it's GUESTS, I suggest the Mudcatters respect the forum enough to honor those GUESTS who choose to exercise that option when contributing to Mudcat discussions.