the Lies of Cypherpunks

Could an eminent psychopunk explain to the several dozen sane people left on the list: Suppose that a real person signed someone else's imaginary identity for a key in a key server, or for their own. Can someone explain to me why this is not dishonest? I guess the argument will be, the signor is only guaranteeing that some key is associated with some email address. But that seems to me to abuse the whole idea of trust in people. Has anyone asked PRZ what he thinks of the practice of real people signing imaginary identities? or key servers corrupted with phantom identities?