In Article <113319Z19041995@anon.penet.fi> an151129@anon.penet.fi writes:
I for one find it even *more* audacious that anyone who is on the side that society has chosen to favor so greatly that it threatens with bodily harm anyone who disagrees would object to my protecting myself by not revealing my identity.
Item: Some time ago, I was in an Internet Relay Chat channel devoted to NAMBLA. Because someone who should have known better had failed to make the room secret, a woman who up to that time had been a friend discovered that I was in that room. On an online service to which we both subscribed, she then proceeded to spread word of my NAMBLA affiliation. Some months later, I got a threatening telephone call from someone who was located more than 1000 miles away. He got me to the phone by pretending, when my wife answered the phone, to be another person with whom I was friendly. I hung up on him, and he called back. Three times. Since he knew of no specific law violations of which I was guilty, his threats to bring law enforcement officials to bear against me were empty. But Others who have posted on here have made it clear they might personally do physical violence upon people expressing my opinions.
At least two of the more virulent posters are much nearer to me than the 1000 miles that the abusive caller was. In fact, they are extremely nearby. I think it is prudence, not audacity, to keep my identity secret.