interesting. why do this? wouldn't it take something away? would this mean that anon posts would be connected to usernames? anon posts can be annoying but i understand that there are times and situations when a person wants to post anonymous.* i get the feeling that for some people, completely anonymous posting is the only way they would post, and if those people are posting memories or information on the Survivors' forum, they are extremely useful and i would not want them scared away. yes of course the logic is that they could log in.
also, would this turn out to be more exposure for someone who lived in, say, North Dakota, where there wasn't anyone else on the ISP? would this be less exposure for dial-up users whose IP address changes all the time?
who knows what powers that be watch the forums, another good reason not have all the anon posts from one IP address be connected.
*for example, when bringing up subject matter that is better not coming from a specific personality, or slanderous posts against the criminal scum. also, i have noticed more than once that someone talking about suicide wants to be anonymous. for this reason alone the anon feature should remain as is. i think a lot of survivors have a hard time getting help when suicidal because of the Baker act or whatever similar thing in their state might get them locked up and a lot of us probably are more terrified of being locked up than the average person.[ This Message was edited by: formerly known as on 2005-03-22 05:58 ][ This Message was edited by: formerly known as on 2005-03-22 06:01 ]
