I'm okay with censoring this bit of history (the vandal's name, not the event itself) personally, but that's beside the point. This whole article is arguing ag

I'm okay with censoring this bit of history (the vandal's name, not the event itself) personally, but that's beside the point. This whole article is arguing against publicizing the acts of fame-seeking criminals yet repeats <OMITTED> many times proving that his strategy worked. It's an oxymoron or something. Also, I think your logic is faulty. If no one knows <OMITTED>'s name then they can't know to be embarrassed to share it with him. If the ancients had decreed that anyone who had the same name must change their name that would have let the cat out of the bag, eh? I think it must be that the ban was on telling the name of the vandal, not on the name itself.