Revealing Anonymity

I don't get the whole point of finding out who some random anonymous blogger is. OK, what if we find out one blogger is called Desmond? Does this validate whatever he says more that if his name would be Charles? And after someone has searched the whole net and driven to the person's house to take pictures and finally gets his reward by revealing Charles' or Desmond's identity, then what? What did you gain? What are you going to do with that information?

Dalai Lama was in USA recently. Does it matter if one point is made by either George or Dalai, if you agree with the point? Or do you need to have a person behind your opinions? Is this to say, that people rather agree with people they like, rather than make their own opinions and valuate other opinions based on their own values and morals?

For example, I do not agree with Hitler's idea of the world. (Oh no! Godwin! Godwin! I lost!) But I do agree with his idea of social security. I do agree with the maternity leave. I do agree with highways instead of horse carriage paths when there's lots of traffic. (Although the amount of cars we have now is not so good. Especially if China starts to promote "2 cars in every household" theme...) But see, even Hitler did things I agree with. And I don't like that person. Not one bit. I agree with those points, not with the person. I'm that strong of a person, I can do that. Easily. Can you? So for me it doesn't matter who invented social security or maternity leave, I think those are good ideas.

I am able to process information and draw my own conclusions. I do not need an authoritative figure to tell me how to think. Therefore I can take any idea, any opinion, and decide whether I like it or not regardless of the inventor of that particular idea. It doesn't matter whether the inventor lives in Ohio, USA or Goa, India. It's the message that matters. Even if I know the location and identity of someone who's blogging, it doesn't matter for me unless I know the person in real life or plan to meet with this person. Being anonymous is a sign of "no, I don't want to know you in real life" so I leave those people alone. Yes, they are my dancing monkeys while writing the blog, but their private life is private.

But if you still get some satisfaction of finding out people's identities, don't worry. Just start to promote subcutaneous RFIDs and TCPA. If we manage to get both mandatory, you don't need to go through all this hustle just to find out Alfred Russel's real name.

Of course, exclusion. If someone tells me that something is a fact, I want to check it. If someone writes an opinion, I don't need to know the authority behind, but if someone writes "the speed of light can be exceeded" I want to see some proof and I want to know who is this guy and what makes him think this is possible. If someone writes "I think the speed of light is stupid", I don't need to know who that person is. It's an opinion. I can process this information regardless who this person is. It's not a hard fact we need to accept so I can take it as an opinion, instead of a study of facts.

Yet, the biggest questions remain: Why and so what?

Why would you find out who is this man of mystery?
What does this give you?
What difference does it make if you know the identity of someone?
Why do you need to know someones identity to agree/disagree with any given idea?
Can you agree with an idea if you don't like the person who came up with the idea?