"Since I am not looking for a partner, nor have one, it makes no sense to scream from the rooftops."

"Who said anything about screaming from the rooftops? The fact is, people are far more likely to take you seriously if you are willing to confront them in the open."

And many of us have confronted them with the facts person to person. There is no requirement that this be done anonymously, because anything true about the facts and logic are true whether we are Pedos or not. "And I'm a Pedo too" contributes nothing to debating someone who is as yet unconvinced.

Where "and I'm a Pedo too" is most convincing is when we decide in some situations NOT to discuss things as contentious as politics or religion with those who hold differing views. When we are already sympatico with someone, and they have established that they might be open, we can add to their, "Gee, you're a decent guy," our, "and I'm a Pedo too." For some this had backfired and I don't treat it lightly. But this is the only time when its useful.

It is irrelevant to factual citations and logical proofs. And because debates get some folks hot under the collar, it is just as dangerous and counterproductive to add, "and I'm a Pedo too," to a debate over a conflict in other politics and religion. Imagine that you're debating Obamacare and the Hobby Lobby case with an Xtian Republican. You've already told them that you're a Democrat, a supporter of the ACA, and an Athiest. Would you add, "and I'm a Pedo too?"

"You have zero real-life cred as an MAP activist. "

Of course. But that's true of all.

Everyone is a dog on the Internet.

If someone bolsters their Anonymous argument with their claims to have run guns with the Zetas, it should be assumed to be irrelevant to the merits of the argument.

And unless one is a RL MAP activist, why would one out onesself to prove it? We leave it to the out to take credit for what they do as out.

Anonymity ( even among those out in RL ) is never about the bragging rights. This is why some religions believe that charitable giving isn't a mitzvah unless its done anonymously.

"So, I have more standing as an MAP rep than you do"

Funny, I've seen neither of you cited for your contributions. But because we know what you have been jammed while attempting, I have an easier time believing that the anonymous have been more successful behind the scenes.

And that's without a nick or name being linked to real gains. I know about Norbert de Jonge and about all the anonymous nicks registered at B4UACT. Your "contribution" falls in neither category. The real contributions you've made have been cultural ( and Google top-ranked at that. ) But I'm not going to nick link him both because it violates our rules and because I hope to still see him ruling the discussion on those cultural areas.

"By all means, please do enlighten me as to what great progress has been accomplished by all of these anonymous cyberpeds. "

For starters you might want to take a look at that little organization Ethan broke with and review how its proposed changes to the DSM became a legitimate challenge backed by numerous non professionals and debated in the publications of the APA.

There are other things best done without even a stable nick. But I suppose that the French Resistance accomplished nothing because they couldn't attach their REAL names and addresses at the time.

When real gains have been made and accepted then the historians will be looking around to see who these nicks were. Perhaps this is the reason ( as JD420 has noted ) an active effort to erase the history of MAP activism and even of AoC reform in RL. ( Why, if they're presently victorious, would they want the history of their ascendance erased? Because they want to falsely claim that it WON'T be changed because it NEVER was changed. )

Until recently the history of MAP activism was easy to find. At this point you have to do a little work to uncover the nicks whose coattails Ethan wants to ride on.

Dante