"It means that random, unidentified comments from multiple people are the equivalent of comments yelled from the peanut gallery."

I wouldn't be able to agree with that. There are multiple unidentified people who both contribute here, and who write anonymously in many forums and contexts, who can easily be understood, if those who read their words wish to understand them.

However, if one believes that no communication of value can take place when the writer chooses to remain anonymous, then it is true that such readers will not understand the writer. But that is the reader's choice, not the writer's.

There are always readers who will make a different choice, and engage with the ideas being presented. There is a core group of Mudcat members and guests who do so all the time, and who don't have the discomfort level some here have of reading messages from anonymous posters.

I do find it pretty amusing that those who so often choose to complain about or make an issue of a poster's choice to remain anonymous, already know which anonymous poster they are responding to when they complain about the anonymous poster coming into their presence. I do understand that there are some people who become very agitated in the presence of anonymity--and are, hence, reacting in their comfort zone when they complain. But it doesn't make their whining about guests choosing to post anonymously any less tiresome.

As I've said many times here, it isn't that difficult to tell anonymous posters apart if that is what some need to do to interact with us from a feeling of comfort.