Wow, Yann, I don't think I ever spent that long
reading a post here... usually if I see something
that long I go into "skim-mode"  (not a 
reflection on the poster, just something that
college has instilled in me due to time
constraints :P)   =)

Anyway, you've made a lot of very good points,
and I also agree with many of them ... however,
I still don't exactly see things as you do.  Hmm,
I guess I'll try to explain my differences in a
semi-understandable manner (I was never very good
at politics ^.^) if anyone is even still reading
now.  

I agree that anonymous flames in order to hurt
someone or make accusations that cannot be backed
up are an abuse of the forum.  I personally don't
put any stock in the messages that include a lot
of derogatory slang.  =)  (Ie. "this guy is a 
jerk, wah wah wah" and other comments a 4-year-old
would make simply don't impress me or make me
think less of the character of the person in
question.)  Also, I agree that dealers who post
anonymously in order to try to crush opposition
are acting in a less-than-professional manner.

However, criticism is not always a dirty word.
How can anything ever be changed or even be
studied as a possible threat if everyone tries
to be nice and never mentions it?  And perhaps
someone who has posted on here for a while, who
has built up an e-reputation (*sigh* it is so
hard to type that with a straight face, as the
computer world seems rather hollywood-like and
intangible to me at most times), has a 
particular not-so-nice criticism (again, NOT 
flame - the difference being some sort of a 
reason to back the criticism up, not just "I don't
like him") with which the poster would prefer to
keep anonymous.  I'm sure every anonymous poster
has his or her own reasons for not posting a
name.

Also, what about new users?  As they join the 
forum and read the new posts, suppose they see
a person posting a not-so-nice criticism and 
begin to form an opinion of that person as 
someone to walk on eggshells around?  And every
argument has 2 sides - perhaps other posters
may choose to criticize or even flame the first
poster who has (unhappily) not gone anonymous and
therefore creates an even worse first impression?

I like to think that we're all mature enough
around here to read the posts and decide which 
ones merit some acknowledgement and which ones
have no value... and the original subject of
any anonymous message can always write back with
a reply of his or her defense, yes?

(continuing a reply in next message - this is
getting LONG!)