Linux.com

I must say, I find this interesting. The author signed the article with his name which allows his name to be googled... like so

<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=Bill+Weinberg&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/search?q=Bill+Weinberg&ie=u<nobr>t<wbr></nobr> f-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&clien<nobr>t<wbr></nobr> =firefox-a</a google.com>

and of course you'll find items like... this:

<a href="http://www.linuxpundit.com/lp/about.html" title="linuxpundit.com">http://www.linuxpundit.com/lp/about.html</a linuxpundit.com>

or this :

<a href="https://www.cmpevents.com/SDw6/a.asp?option=G&V=3&id=425977" title="cmpevents.com">https://www.cmpevents.com/SDw6/a.asp?option=G&V=3<nobr>&<wbr></nobr> id=425977</a cmpevents.com>

so... Bill Weinberg lets us know who he is, and we can, relatively easily, do a quick background check on him.

Where-as... an anonymous poster like myself... has no signed name.

I wonder... whose more credible? The guy who can be researched? Or the anonymous guy who gives no proof of who they are or what their background is?

#