Names are not a product of ego as much as making up your own name.
If you say so. I have many that I haven't 'named myself'; initiatory names, for instance... They have no more inherent meaning than 'nameless' does to me. Depends on the context.
Emergent names are always egoistic, but that's never the intent is it nameless?
Sorry, meaningless to me. Whats an 'emegent name'? And I find that when someone recklessly declares 'always' in an assertion, it is usually rather simple matter to refute. So I'm going to let this pass.
In giving one's own name it is not the intent to form a bias,
Goodness, are you speaking for all humans or just yourself?
Often, actually, that is exactly the case. There is 'authority' worship going on all over these sites!
the bias is intended when reflecting on other's names,
That is often the case also. Again, not necessarily.
like I will only read posts from a certain list of users or something like that. So by making your name nameless, nameless, you have absolutely nothing to prove by doing so.
And what, exactly, makes you think that I have anything to 'prove'? You use the term 'prove' as if it were life's blood. It means nothing to me. There are no 'proofs' but what an individual is willing to accept as such. No, I do not have anything to prove. Odd that you would go there...
And Nameless I dunno why you say this to Charles in the arrogant fashion
Ahhhh, not we get to the crux of the post; you have an ax to grind. A 'personal' problem. Now I know 'why' you go there. I offered the advice as I would to any internet brother or sister that I think might be inadvertantly putting themselves at unnecessary risk. It matters to me not a whit what their cyber name is. It was some friendly advice. You, on the other hand, had to interpret what I said through your own (wounded?) ego. I don't imagine that the OP would have gone there (without you to pave the 'road').
That was never my intent (for him, not you).
Are you saying that you'd continue your arrogant manner of speech if you knew you were talking to Albert Einstein?
Can you even recognize the obvious fallacy that you present in this 'question'?
The fallacious nature of your 'question' renders it unanswerable. And if you asked it properly, the 'answer' would be obvious. If your agenda was not obvious...
Dude, I won't bother you
with further arrogant conversations, and I think that if the OP took offense, he can certainly speak for himself, or don't you think him capable? But you make it obvious that it has nothing to do with the OP. Its just about youPerspective, youEgo. You.
I recommend that you put me on 'ignore' so that I don't 'bother' you in the future.
Best of luck with that 'problem'.