1)  I'm with Murph Sewall on not seeing the usefulness of anonymous posts, and
would be glad to see a justification for it--with a view toward building a
body of opinion that says it is not conventionally acceptable and that it is
OK to construct lists that prevent it.
 
I can think of one special case, and Murph's example of an HIV discussion is
an example; so for example is the Uncle Ezra counseling service at Cornell.
The special case I have in mind is where *all* postings are anonymous because
that is integral to the purpose of the group, as in these examples.  Can
people give good cases for why unsigned or anonymous postings should otherwise
be allowed, and can parallel cases in the non-electronic environment be
cited to bolster their case?
 
2)  As an example of the kind of list where anonymous postings could be
damaging and inflammable:  tune in to the various soc.cultural....yugoslavia
/serbia/bosnia/ etc.  lists.  People there are saying quite unpleasant and
damaging things to each other even with names attached.  The kind of dialogue,
if one can call it that, that goes on there, if introduced into other groups
without accountability, would be destructive to the group I believe.
 
--Peter Graham, Rutgers University Libraries
  moderator, ExLibris