>>9
I think that >>7 is trying to point out that the argument at hand is that the event happened is important, not the person who created it. The fact that it was created is significant, and perhaps it would matter who created it if it were something of social significane (president of x, prime minister of y, so forth). The "article" of >>1 does a significant amount to promote ChrisBradley and ShakesSpearFan00. No one cares that they specifically (two alias) created it, but rather that it is there.