Jeri,

While I appreciated what you said about not revealing private information against user's wishes, I also note that you seem involved in the conversation about how to block guest users from posting without first using an identifier like an email account, or linking an email account with a unique Mudcat identifying number (ie a password).

It seems to me your two positions are contradictory (no flame intended here).

On the one hand, it seems to me one of your stated overriding concerns is to protect member identities by forcing non-members to identify themselves in some way (ie email or password, instead of by cookies).

I read that to mean you believe those who choose to remain anonymous shouldn't be allowed to post without identifying themselves in some way which discloses their identity to Mudcat.

But then you say no one should have to divulge private information if they don't want to.

Requiring an anonymous user to identify themselves before posting does force them to divulge private information they don't want to provide.

Because you have suggested anonymous users be forced to use some identifier to sign in, I considered your statment about not forcing people to divulge private information against their wishes, to be in contradiction of some of your previous statements.

I am aware that IP data is captured for each poster, BTW. The problem for me is making it easier to match IPs to log-in features, to content through keyword searches, as I've stated. It is the combination of those identifiers which make it easy to trace people on the Internet.