Actually, I claim to be the original poster; and that another monk made the grandparent post. And just as you have nothing substantial to verify this claim, I still have no solid proof to verify that you are who you claim to be. Part of the reason I post anonymously is to remind people that most the Internet comes without strong verification of identity; and without it, all postings might as well be anonymous.

If I find that I agree with someone most of the time, or disagree with that person most of the time, I can use that to predict (with reasonable certainty) whether I'll (dis)agree with them again in the future.

If I found that I agreed with someone of a given race most of the time, or disagreed with a person of that race most of that time, I could use that to predict (with reasonable certainty) whether I'd (dis)agree with them again in the future. But I don't, because I don't think that's a fair or unbiased way to seek out the truth...

Perfect? No. Prejudicial? Yes. Lazy? Hell, yes. Wrong? That's in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. I don't see a problem.

The problem with pre-judging someone's statements without reading them is that you don't gain any insights if they do say something of value. In past fifteen years I've spent on the Internet, I've found anonymous posts often have had the most to teach me about a given issue: dissenting opinions tend to be more insightful than re-affirmation of the same ideas.

While I doubt that I personally post much of great insight, I prefer to post anonymously, in order to encourage those wiser than myself to post where they otherwise might not do so.

And for the record, I disagree with the other Anonymonk's criticisms of you; while I prefer that other people respect anonymous posters, I try to ensure that by anonymously posting something worthy of respect, not just by demanding that others view me in a given way. Feel free to disagree with me, as you choose.