I especially loved Whelan saying "who's the hitman now?", too stupid to realize that it's him, again.

As someone who blogs under a pseudonym and has been outed allow me my two cents. First, the reason I blog under another name is for amusement, second, because people in the past have tried to attack me by belittling my students and that is something that makes me want to show up at their door with an uzi, and I guess third because it preserves space between the blog and my day life.

The good news is that mostly people don't care, don't notice and don't look it up. The bad is that people try to attack you through your students, your dean and your chair.

Mark Twain does not countenance Ed's Whelan's self-serving arguments.

Damn you, Mrs. Silence Dogood!

George Eliot thinks Ed Whelan's full of it.

Damn you too, Poor Richard.

Bruce Wayne would like a word with Ed Whelan.

Lewis Carroll would like to know just where Ed Whelan gets off with all his nonsense --- off with his head!

%*$*@&! Ed Whelan, the tight git!

Valerie Plame.

In other words, they just don't give a flying F.
It's whatever they want to lash out and try to hurt an opponent, rather than debating the ideas.

Boz thinks Ed Whelan's a hack.

Whelan is a dick.

He outed plubius because 1) plubius hurt his feelings, and 2) he hoped that by outing plubius that plubius would be damaged. It was revenge, pure and simple.

Anything Whelan says beyond this, about responsibility and so forth, is so much CYA BS.

i really appreciate psychopaths who are also lawyers. the arguments they make to defend their pathology are quite the cultural nugget for gauging societal decay.

and a dude who's a director of an "ethics" non-prof -- holy shit! -- a gold mine.

George Orwell decries Whelan's descent into buffoonish thuggery . . . okay, I'll stop now.

No, wait! One more . . . Moliere thinks Ed Whelan's a twit. There, that should do it.

That was my "introduction" to Ed Whelan. His maliciousness and poverty of tolerance, generosity and reason, not to mention evidence-based argument, convinced me.

He's not credible, his journalistic ethics are absent, and he does not bear taking seriously.

Whelan's attack tells us a lot about him and his conservatism. He was little fazed by the more systematic and damaging critique from Eugene Vohlok, but then EV is a fellow conservative with a well known pedigree. On the other hand, "publius" was just some young punk law prof at a school he had probably never heard of.

Since he couldn't refute publius's arguments--which were, if anything, overly kind to Whelan--he exposed him as a "nobody." It was a "get off my lawn" dismissal to someone he felt had not earned the honor of conversing with him, much less criticizing him. His "conservatism" is really all about pampered authority and its contempt for impudent reason. It also reflects the kind of tribal relativism that holds we have no moral obligations to "enemies," and that critique from the left or those not of his rank constitutes automatic enmity.

I fall in a weird position here. I have always been myself online. In my opinion, standing behind your own name has a self-enforcing effect of civility and honesty. This goes back to the Compuserv 300 baud modem years. And it goes back to hosting a pre-blog discussion site where aceofspades worked out his persona--at my expense ("cockinthemouth Jay" was his moniker for me.)

I get that people want to post under pseudonyms. It is protection for your regular life, and it focuses he discussion on the issues, and not the person. Outing somebody is an attempt to hide from the issues, and focus on the person, which I find abhorrent.

But I do think we would all be better served if we posted as ourselves.

It was done for the Cause. So it was justified. Reagan lo vult!

Hilzoy -- I really have a lot of respect for you...because of the quality and honesty of your writing. However, in this case, I think you're wrong.

I don't think Mr. Whelan did anything wrong in "outing" his adversary. If Publius wants to publicly criticize another individual (and question his reputation) he should expect the possibility that person may want to return fire and publicly criticize him (and question his reputation) too. And that requires identifying who he is. Fair is fair.

Obviously, it applies to you too. You can't criticze someone and assume you have the right to shield your reputation from return fire. And as much as you might not like it, deep down I'm sure you know this is true.

I heard that Ed Whelan likes goats. In the Mickey Kaus kind of way.

The issue is, Whalen's a washed-up bald loser who kissed all the wrong asses, his clout is ruined and all he's got left is his obsessive streak. We can keep this going for months, he won't be able to let it go. It will gnaw at him forever just like his slapstick fiasco of a career.

Deep down, Lemony Snicket knows that eric is wrong.

I asked this in the other thread, but it's winding down:

There have been three fairly prominent pseudonymous bloggers outed in the last two months (Hilzoy, Alaska Muckraker, and now Publius), all by conservatives. Can anyone name a pseudonymous blogger -- conservative or liberal -- outed by a liberal for something other than vicious harassment or sock-puppetry?

I used to post under my own name back in the days of BBSes and later Usenet -- until I was the victim of cyber-stalking and an ID theft attempt, at which point I decided that discretion was the better part of valor.

Who is Ed Whelan?

And eric, you imply that publius brought this on himself by "criticiz[ing] another individual (and question[ing] his reputation)." I wonder, in light of Whelan's response -- his action of outing and the petulant emails and posts that went along with it --- what exactly do you think remains of Ed Whelan's reputation? Looking back at publis' post, and reading it in the absolutely worst light possible, hasn't Ed shown himself to be far worse than anything publius or Anonymous Liberal said or implied?

If someone criticizes you unfairly on the web (as Whelan alleges publius did), the intelligent response is to defend yourself on the merits. If you don't want to take the intelligent response, you could trip someone or give them a wet willie.

Obviously I blog (econospeak)under a pseudonym for reasons I would no want put in the public domain than my real name. For some of us, we must actually work for a living and this limits our freedom to speak out. Whelan is lucky - certain rich dudes actually pay him for his serial horse s$#t. Whelan is truly a scum for doing this. If he does not realize why - he is also truly an idiot.

Eric,

It's not as if this kind of argument is so strange.

If Publius wants to publicly criticize another individual (and question his reputation) he should expect the possibility that person may want to return fire and publicly criticize him (and question his reputation) too. And that requires identifying who he is. Fair is fair.

Obviously, it applies to you too. You can't criticze someone and assume you have the right to shield your reputation from return fire. And as much as you might not like it, deep down I'm sure you know this is true.

But what's odd is that you can't identify one advantage that anonymity gives Publius in his argument except his ability to make it. "Pseudononymous liberal blogger criticizes the intellectual honesty of a well-known conservative at the National Review." There's absolutely nothing about Publius's pseudonymity that in any way prevent Whelan from defending himself successfully. This would be an entirely different matter if Publius were using his personal knowledge or experience—anything connected to his non-pseudononymous self.

The whole bit about "publicly" criticizing someone and "hiding behind a pseudonym" is just a red herring. Publius was making an accusation about Whelan's intellectual honesty, largely because Whelan's poor arguments did not match up to the reputation and skill Publius was willing to grant him. Whelan can be indignant, insulted, exasperated. He can refute, too, which he has failed to even really attempt.

Or he can try to shut up his critics. And this is why Hilzoy is exactly correct. Whelan had no idea the reasons Publius wanted to remain pseudononymous. All he wanted was confirmation, and he wanted revenge. There's nothing illegal about this, I don't believe, but it was a shocking act of intellectual cowardice on Whelan's part.

I don't think that people should be outed. However, if you hide behind the "anonymity" of the blogosphere, you are probably not very wise, if you attack people. You can always be outed.

I am very careful myself. Years ago, I blogged at the NY Times when they had some pretty free-wheeling blogs. Pretty much slash-n-burn left v right all the time. Someone took a dislike to me, and found my email which I was dumb enough to use. They emailed everyone at my office a bunch of my posts. Of course, I did not use my name, nor my occupation, nor any tipoffs. Yet it was a moment of concern.

I am more careful now. I never out myself. I occasionally say that I am at a major midwestern university, but never give my area. There are extreme wackadoodles who believe that all on my side of the fence are evil and must be destroyed.

As an atheist blogger, I can tell you that pseudonymous blogging is a wonderful thing for our community. We can post our real beliefs and struggles, without worrying that our believing family members, neighbors or bosses will find them and unleash what I can only term "hell" on us.

Without pseudonymity, many more atheists would be left without community, friendship and support. And if you don't think this is an issue among atheists, I suggest visiting any atheist blog. It's difficult and lonely to share an opinion with only 1.6% of the population, the internet, and the protections it provides, make it a little easier.

Seriously, I'm honestly waiting for one serious argument for what advantage Publius's pseudonym gave him in this argument.

The only rebuttal I've seen is the idea that "if he's too afraid to say this with his own name attached, he shouldn't be saying it at all." But this kind of rebuttal ignores every reason Publius has given for publishing under a pseudonym, and it defies common sense.

Most of these arguments assume malicious intent (which is ludicrous to anyone who has read Publius's work over the years). But stepping outside the abstract, there really is no defense for Whelan's conduct. He was free to act in this way. And we are all free to note that it was a small and cowardly act.

When you consider all the wailing and gnashing of teeth by conservatives when a homophobic conservative closet case gets outed for working actively to screw the lgbt community, you realize outing of any sort is just another case of IOKIYAR.

One reason that outing should be avoided: If Ed Whelan has any dirt in his life? An affair perhaps? A DUI? A membership at the local porn video outlet, or for that matter at the local Gay Bathhouse?

Open season, friends...Open season.

Those of us on the left who are so inclined are now under ZERO moral obligation to treat this guy with decency and discretion. Personally, i hope a few evil bastards are digging through this guy's trash already. Because EVERYONE has a skeleton in his closet.

I would do it myself, but haven't the first idea how to begin.

This is Whalen's swan song in public life. If he's ever going to make any real money he has to be forgotten first. He has to sink into obscurity so deep that people confuse him with his more eminent namesake from Calgary Stampede Wrestling. Even then, hiring managers at the worthwhile firms will be sneering and toying with him as he desperately tries to demonstrate his confidence and positive attitude.

"I don't think Mr. Whelan did anything wrong in "outing" his adversary."

So you have no problem that Whelan may very well have (perhaps unknowingly) exposed Publius to real danger? Seriously? That is an extremely irresponsible attitude on your part.

"If Publius wants to publicly criticize another individual (and question his reputation) he should expect the possibility that person may want to return fire and publicly criticize him (and question his reputation) too. And that requires identifying who he is. Fair is fair."

Unadulterated crap. You can easily reply to the substance of a pseudonymous person's argument (or even resort to base insults) without identifying that person.

"Obviously, it applies to you too. You can't criticze someone and assume you have the right to shield your reputation from return fire. And as much as you might not like it, deep down I'm sure you know this is true."

I'd love to see you explain how any of this is relevant. You can easily shield your reputation from a pseudonymous critic. You can also easily criticize that person right back. None of that requires you to know said critic's identity.

What Whelan did, and you are defending, was an immature act of petty vengeance, not a substantive reply to a pseudonymous critic. And as much as you might not like it, deep down I'm sure you know this is true.

Just wanted to point out that Mudflats was outed by a Democratic party representative, Mike Doogan, and not a Republican. Bad manners and petty revenge can be quite bi-partisan.

For what that's worth.

Eric: "I don't think Mr. Whelan did anything wrong in "outing" his adversary. If Publius wants to publicly criticize another individual (and question his reputation) he should expect the possibility that person may want to return fire and publicly criticize him (and question his reputation) too. And that requires identifying who he is. Fair is fair."

Interesting argument. So:

(a) I was wrong to distinguish the question "should I expect people not to do X" from "It's OK to do X." OK; this implies: If I walk through a war zone, I should not expect to be killed; therefore, it would be OK for you to kill me, even if you have no good reason to. Also: if I walk alone through a dangerous part of town, I cannot expect not to be mugged or raped; therefore it's OK for you to mug or rape me. Etc., etc.

(b) When publius criticizes Ed Whelan (and not that harshly either), that makes it OK for Ed Whelan not just to criticize publius back -- which would be tit for tat -- but to do things that might, for all Ed Whelan knows or cares, damage publius' life, and to do so in a way that adds nothing -- nothing -- to the argument.

Nice to know.

The subtext of this is that the Right wing is comprised of malevolent and dangerous people. The "Tiller the Baby Killer" thesis. You throw things out there and let brown shorts interpret right and wrong. The pervasive fascism of the new right--it is the old fascism of the old Reich. We do need to take away their megaphone.

And let me say Freud would love my inadvertent transposition of shorts for shirts! These folks are full of it.

My position has always been that bloggers should not blog with a pseudonym if they are on a "professional blog." I criticized David Kurtz when he was blogging as DK at TPM because TPM holds itself out as a new source. DKos does not do that, DKos is pure advocacy.

Same with Publius. Publius began to post more here, which is a blog associated with a professional source. If he blogs enough he SHOULD be outed though I don't know if he has done so enough.

I definitely think you (Hilzoy) should be outed because of how much you post here. Though I have no interest and have done nothing to personally find out about you.

S.G.E.W.

You're right, Doogan is a Democrat, though Alaskan ones tend to vote like Republicans anywhere else.

OK, still, it's three liberal/progressive bloggers outed. Is it something we said?

Note: I was speaking about Hilzoy in the abstract (someone who blogs as much at WM as Hilzoy should not use a pseudonym) and am aware of and read the entire post.

You don't really explain your viewpoint MNPundit explicitly but I will take it from context that your concern is with the disclosure of possible conflicts of interests from pundits who are associated with journalistic intent. But absent such a conflict, which no one has suggested is relevant in publius' case, what exactly do you believe compels others to reveal a blogger's identity against his or her will?

First, I don't think that your distinction between "professional" and "amateur" blogging is especially useful in this context. Second, it seems to me that we can all decide for ourselves how far we wish to trust psuedonymous sources of information and opinion. If someone makes the case that they outed a blogger because of an arguable conflict of interest (an issue that hilzoy raises in her post), this might be a closer question. Absent that, I fail to see what interests are served by the sort of thing Whelan does here.

MNPundit: first, I accept that you're talking about me in the abstract. That said: I also don't see why it matters that my name be public. It does in some cases: the example I always think of is Peter Orszag's blog, which is not just a blog on which some random guy makes arguments, but, well, Peter Orszag's blog. But I, abstract or concrete, do not post things that turn on my having some credentials or other. (Fwiw, a subsidiary reason for my blogging pseudonymously is precisely that I hate relying on credentials when plain old argument will do.)

Likewise, if I had a conflict of interest, that would be noteworthy, though in that case I would have disclosed it to the Monthly, and would expect them to have decided for themselves what to make of it. Ditto if I were, say, a political operative.

I'm not paid for this, and in a lot of ways I am an amateur blogger, just one who got lucky. (I mean: this is a hobby.) Had the Monthly offered me this unpaid slot on condition that I out myself, that would have been one thing, and I don't know what I would have done about that. As it is, though, abstract me blogging pseudonymously does not seem to me to raise moral questions.

Concrete me, of course, is easy enough to out. Even before anyone outed me, I always used my actual email address, so anyone who wanted to could (a) write me, and (b) figure out who I am (my name being not that common, and my email address being one of those 'oh, that's probably her name' ones.)

MNPundit: "Professional" or "Amateur" again seems like a completely arbitrary distinction, unrelated to the question of what advantage anonymity gives Publius in the context of his argument about Whalen.

But even if that were a relevant point (and I don't concede that), Publius doesn't publish on a professional site. He publishes on Obsidian Wings, which is not professional. As he himself says, his blogging in a hobby.

I don't think it would make a difference regardless, but since you put so much stock in this, it must matter to you.

Publius began to post more here, which is a blog associated with a professional source.

Huh? Publius isn't associated with the Monthly, is he? He's at Obsidian Wings . . . which is not really "associated with a professional source" is it?

The only rebuttal I've seen is the idea that "if he's too afraid to say this with his own name attached, he shouldn't be saying it at all." But this kind of rebuttal ignores every reason Publius has given for publishing under a pseudonym, and it defies common sense.

This is a liberal versus conservative distinction. To us, it's what's said that's important, not who says it: to the conservative, it's who says it that's important, not what's said. So if an Important Person says something, it's automatically not bullshit, and if it's an Enemy who says it, it's automatically bullshit. Ad hominem is a way of life.

So outing somebody as a non-Important Person means something to your basic authoritarian knuckledragger, and absolutely nothing to us. Any consequences are dismissed, since only people with enough status to say whatever they want without repercussion should be saying anything at all. It's all very clear if you're a caveman.

Who is Ed Whelan? -- DAY, @19:56

Stalin's daughter. Real name: Svetlana Alleluyevna.

exlibra:

Well done!

I guess they don't teach the first rule of holes in law school.

>But I do think we would all be better served if we posted as ourselves.

Posted by: jayackroyd

That's easy to say, if you get paid to post as yourself.

It's a shame you can't understand that some people have to worry about job and professional repercussions.

hilzoy is concrete?
whelan is HIV positive?
...AND Stalin's daughter? (rum&coke spew on my screen)
The things you learn here!

It's a shame you can't understand that some people have to worry about job and professional repercussions.

As well, is it hard to understand there may be personal repercussions as well? Stalkers are not confined to celebrities.

Hilzoy --

It's a little sad, I think, that somehow my views on the "outing" of a blogger who publicly criticized another individual somehow implies that I advocate murder and rape, in your mind.

Nice to know.

(The truth is, there is no need to search for analogies to this particular matter. But here's another one. Let's say someone does go wandering around in a dangerous part of town and gets mugged -- by a man wearing a mask. When caught in the act should his identity be revealed even if he says that doing so will do undue harm to him?)

Just to be clear, my issues have to do with anonymity and fairness. Specifically, whether it's fair or not for someone to publicly criticize another individual and simultaneously maintain that he has a right to shield his identity from public view (the answer is no) -- and whether or not the individual being criticized has an inherent right to face his accuser (the ansewer is yes).

If a blogger, for some reason, really does need to maintain his anonymity -- well then, I'm sure there's something else that person could be doing in his or her spare time that's a little less public. Or perhaps he or she could blog about something else - maybe gardening or sudoku tips or urban planning.

Having blogged under a pseudonym and my real name I can see both sides of the issue. I have even written in defense of using a pseudonyn. As the years of past my views have mellowed. Frankly, I am now a little conflicted. I would say that anybody commenting should feel free to use a pseudonym and nobody should try to out them. I would extend the courtesy to small time bloggers as well. They care basically private citizens expressing views that could lead to real damage in their personal lives and careers, but the more I think about it the more I think a blogger writing for a successful blog like Political Animal or Obsidian Wings should blog under their real name. If they think they are fooling their friends, family and employers, they aren't. Blogging at the Hilzoy or Publius level is a full time job. Everybody who you don't want to find out knows you are blogging already. They already know what you think and why. They love you for it.

I am concerned about stalking, but folks like Steve Benen and Kevin Drum have developed ways to protect themselves. There is no reason Publius couldn't.

What I find utterly offensive about Hilzoy's post is the notion that pseudonyms should be protected if a blogger has a large enough circulation. That is offensive and elitist. Hilzoy should know better.

It's a little sad, I think, that somehow my views on the "outing" of a blogger who publicly criticized another individual somehow implies that I advocate murder and rape, in your mind.

I would spend a little more time reading what Hilzoy wrote since her post in no way implied what you seem to have taken away from this.

But in case repeated readings doesn't help: She was pointing out the contradiction in your logic. This whole point is, she's assuming you DON'T believe those things, thus will recognize the flaws in your logic. To accuse her of an accusation is to assume an attack that didn't actually happen. That cheapens the discussion.

"It's a little sad, I think, that somehow my views on the "outing" of a blogger who publicly criticized another individual somehow implies that I advocate murder and rape, in your mind."

Uh, no. What's sad is that this is how you interpreted Hilzoy's post, when even the most cursory reading shows that she meant nothing of the kind.

If you are going to have a dialogue with people, answer their actual points, not your strawman version of those points.

"What I find utterly offensive about Hilzoy's post is the notion that pseudonyms should be protected if a blogger has a large enough circulation. That is offensive and elitist. Hilzoy should know better."

Gosh, did I say that? Where? Because I don't believe it.

from Steve Benen: Whelan, publius said, is "a smart guy with outstanding legal credentials," adding, "He just enjoys playing the role of know-nothing demagogue."

For that, Whelan was justified in outing "publius".

It seems to me that the minimum requirement for expecting anyone to respect you anonymity/pseudonymity is that you refrain from ad hominem insults. Focus on the ideas (or their expression), without impugning others' sincerity or "playing".

Oh, is this what Ron Byers meant?

"Personally, I think that the answers to these questions are: (1) if they want to; (2) not if s/he has decent circulation, and (3) not absent a compelling reason."

Question 2 was: "(2) If someone blogs under a pseudonym, should s/he expect not to be outed?" I meant: No, someone should not expect not to be outed if s/he has decent circulation. That is: if you have decent circulation, you should expect to be outed. If only your three best friends read your blog, in all likelihood no one will notice, and no one will bother outing you. If you're Atrios, on the other hand, eventually someone will out you. And you should probably bear this possibility in mind if your circulation creeps into the, oh, hundreds of page views per day.

That's all.

Just to be clear, my issues have to do with anonymity and fairness. Specifically, whether it's fair or not for someone to publicly criticize another individual and simultaneously maintain that he has a right to shield his identity from public view (the answer is no) -- and whether or not the individual being criticized has an inherent right to face his accuser (the ansewer is yes).

Your answer to the first question is "no." I'm still waiting for someone to tell us why. Again, harping on the question of "attacks" (as your analogy does) is not germane. Publius (and others) criticized Whelan's intellectual honesty. That is a serious charge, but exposing the identity of the person who makes that argument doesn't address the argument itself in any way.

The question of whether people should, in general, put their name behind their words is different. Since Whelan himself admits that there are conditions under which someone could reasonably ask to maintain their anonymity AND THEN DIDN'T BOTHER TO FIND OUT IF THOSE APPLIED before outing Publius is the strongest evidence that this act was intended to shut down debate. But you perhaps disagree. You think people who don't assign their names to things, for whatever reason, should not speak?

Pseudonymity is significant here. Publius has invested a great deal in his online presence and perhaps he is more frank than he would be if he were concerned that his tenure might be affected (or his relationship with his family). But your assumption that these concerns necessarily make for a better debate is dubious.

You have taken the position that his post was some kind of dishonest or cowardly attack on Whelan. I couldn't disagree with you more. Harsh, yes. Impolitic, yes. But if Publius's argument is strong, it stands on its own. If it fails, he will pay the price for the poor intellectual showing. Whelan's attempt to shut up his critic (and, tellingly, to dismiss him in an ad hominem fashion) makes him a poor standard bearer for the virtue of non-anonymous blogging.

I'm amazed by the focus on this issue and the defensiveness of Hilzoy.

If you call someone a "legal hitman", don't be surprised if they retaliate in vindictive fashion.

I haven't learned anything new about Ed Whelan through this episode. He was a jerk before he posted, and he remains a jerk. It may not have been right to "out" publius, but we wouldn't expect him to do the right thing, would we? (btw, how did he know publius's identify? Perhaps it wasn't such a big secret, after all.)

But I have learned something about hilzoy and publius. They're whiners. Listen folks, if you don't want to get outed, don't say anything controversial on your blog. If you do get outed, for god's sake quit whining. It's boring and unbecoming.

from Steve Benen: Whelan, publius said, is "a smart guy with outstanding legal credentials," adding, "He just enjoys playing the role of know-nothing demagogue."

For that, Whelan was justified in outing "publius".

It seems to me that the minimum requirement for expecting anyone to respect you anonymity/pseudonymity is that you refrain from ad hominem insults. Focus on the ideas (or their expression), without impugning others' sincerity or "playing".

Really? Good grief, this is getting silly.

Saying that Whelan is a smart guy who knows better is now an ad hominem attack? Really?

Um, no, Mark. This is an attack on Whelan's intellectual honesty, and far worse is said between academics on a daily basis. The ad hominem attack was Whelan's decision to identify his opponent (not the argument—that his arguments are so poor he can't possibly believe them because he's much smarter than that) in an attempt to belittle his position.

Ad hominem attacks are where you attack the person rather than the argument. Publius (along with many others) has repeatedly attacked Whelan's arguments, before here offering an explanation for how a guy this smart can make arguments this bad. It was a harsh critique, but it wasn't an ad hominem attack in any accurate sense of the term. He didn't attack Whelan instead of his argument.

But Whelan went after Publius, not the point he was making. And in making a point to say that Publius isn't in any way as distinguished as he himself, it is Whelan who sought to divert attention away from the point, which he isn't addressing.

I can only marvel that it took this long. "Outing" just seems like such an attractive thing to the authoritarian mindset, with which I know Publius frequently opposed. "Accountability" to them means saying "I know where you live" while (figuratively) stroking the butt of their gun.

Back in BBS days I was a weirdo because I didn't use a nick. Even after that time, the only time I didn't use my name was when someone else had taken it first. That started happening, a lot. It turns out I have a pretty common name... and people were often confusing me with another guy -- or either of us with another guy. I guess we all wanted to use our RealNameâ„¢. So in part out of respect for the other guy(s), I started using a pseudonym (after two decades online).

Of course, now I discover that someone else out there is also using this pseudonym. Can't win for losing.

I've nothing against pseudonyms, but if I know you personally I'm likely to call you by your pseudonym and not your real name, in an old online tradition...

The pseudonyms are just amusing. 'oh look what so-and-so with the funny handle has to say.' No matter how good the writing seems to be, it's hard to take it seriously.

Context always matters when reading. They teach this in high school English criticism, don't they? Who was the writer? What were his personal problems? It's a legitimate inquiry if a reader wants to know. Absent knowledge of the writer's true identity, comprehensive criticism isn't possible. I think it's odd that otherwise good writers sometimes fail to understand how hard it is to take them seriously when they hide behind a pseudonym.

It's their choice, but so what if their "real" name is revealed? If the writer's fear of having their name known is so great, and they're compelled to continue to publish, they can just invent a new pseudonym, find a new channel, and continue playing the game.

two bits of info for the group here:

ed whelan has his public life pretty well guaranteed, kids. he was in bush's office of legal counsel when they were decided that torture wasn't torture. he's well ensconsed in the conservative welfare state. he ain't goin' no where, and in fact, has threatened legal action against folks who accused him of developing the torture policy. so be careful. i'm just sayin'...

secondly, and i was reminded about this on another blog (i believe john cole's), in response to the question has a conservative ever been outed for pseudonymity or sock-puppetry:

tim lambert has done a marvelous job proving that john "guns don't kill people, guns only kill bad people" lott was his own innertubez fan mary rosh.

Wow, everyone who's leaping to the defense of Whalen or bitching about hilzoy and publius bitching (Irony for all!) are funny.

Of course, I shall now insist on knowing the full name of every orfice on the internet that spews opinions. I shall also like to know where they live, and where they work as well, and the names of their children. Otherwise, how can I "comprehensively" critique their thoughts? God forbid I address the actual debate or issue at hand!

Remember, when I laugh uproarously at your father's funeral or urinate in your grandbaby's bassinet, you should "expect" it because you published your thoughts online and I disagreed with you. As such, I can only express my disagreement by giving your personal information up for every M4M hotline in Thailand, because you didn't have the cojones to tell me where you worked, lived, and your mother's maiden name.

Context always matters when reading. They teach this in high school English criticism, don't they? Who was the writer?... Absent knowledge of the writer's true identity, comprehensive criticism isn't possible.

I don't know if that is an accurate description of high school english programs today but I can tell you that its essentially the opposite of how they taught English at my college and, I would guess, quite a few well regarded liberal arts colleges in the late 80s and 90s. Indeed, a great deal of discussion centered around the post-modern "death" of the author. Reading was about understanding that meaning was contextualized by the reader and the social and cultural circumstances that surround him/her. It might be interesting to discuss how this more modern philosophy of reading is relevant to this particular discussion but that would take us rather far off topic. In any case, there are some pretty significant issues with discussing the "context" of fiction and non-fiction interchangeably as you are doing here.

Additionally, it has also been pointed out here repeatedly that out literary traditions have a very long tradition of pseudonimity. Many, many writers, past and present have chosen to either use pseudonyms or otherwise hide their identity. I don't think its reasonable to think that this tradition has lessened the appreciation or understanding of their work in any significant way.

Finally, I don't know what you mean by comprehensive analysis in this context but I don't think I understand anything more about publius' expression today that I didn't before. His content has stood or fallen on the strength of his arguments and I doubt that will change. I have no idea why anyone should wish it to be otherwise.

I would like to touch on something that may or may not have been hit on already. I am late to the thread and 67 comments in is a lot to try to skim through so here it goes. Ed Whelen "blogs" at the National Review which does not allow comments. In my opinion that is the height of cowardice. I do not consider "blogs" that don't allow comments even in moderations to be blogs at all. Blogs themselves are supposed to be forums for debate whether civilized or not. To me it shows a fundamental lack of confidence in your own positions when you do not allow comments on your blog. So Ed Whelan is really ranting about a process of his own making. Had they allowed comments over there I am pretty sure most people would just leave a comment refuting the BS that gets spouted at NRO on a regular basis and leave it at that. For him to consider someone writing a blog post in opposition to his when in point of fact its pretty much a situation of their own making to me is ludicrous.

And I don't limit my criticism to just NRO or rightwing sites. Andrew Sullivan who I agree with on some issues also doesn't allow comments which I think is wrong on his part also. If you can't back up the bullshit you write then perhaps you shouldn't be publishing it. If you can then you should welcome debate so perhaps you can bring people over to your way of thinking. Just about every blog known to man has a way to moderate the comments and so a cannard about trolls or inhospitible comments just doesn't hold water.

Now the truth is Ed Whelan if he was confident he was right (which he knows he wasn't) in his arguments about Judge Sotomayor's comments wouldn't have felt the need to out Publius. But even other right wing bloggers took issue with his talking points including Eugene Volkh whose argument Publius used to highlight Whelan's absurdity. And for that he chose to "out" a blogger without ever really attempting to answer his criticisms. Really and truly I think we should use caution not to make this all about the reprehensible outing that Whelan did and instead turn the heat up on his ass as to WHY he chose to do it. Keep pointing out how wrong his arguments were and he has shown that that's the biggest way to get his goat. Obviously he doesn't give a shit about something like the integrity of not putting another person's lively hood at risk. But it seems highly likely that he cares about his own reputation as a legal scholar being put under the microscope and so that's where I think he should be attacked.

As for those who think its great to out a blogger whilst commenting under their own pseudonym all I can say is you are the picture in the dictionary beside the definition of hypocrisy. The point for bloggers or commenters of using pseudonyms in many cases is to free them up to speak their mind freely. That in my opinion is a good thing. If they say something that is totally ridiculous then them having a pseudonym doesn't enhance their credibility. So if you think they are wrong, don't read their blog or comments. But until someone can come up with a way that a pseudonym helps any blogger or commenter prove their case on whatever subject they are opining on then the opposition to the use of pseudonyms is unfounded if you ask me. The funny thing is the people most upset about pseudonyms are likely the same people who push the lie that EFCA does away with secret ballots and that's why according to them it should be opposed.

Irony thy name is conservatism.

Actually, skippy, my question was whether a conservative had been outed for something other than sock-puppetry, because the vast majority of the blogosphere considers it an out-worthy offense. There's no question there: liberal, conservative, my own flesh and blood, deserve to be outed if they're playing sock-puppets.

But in all the cases I'm aware of where a liberal has been attacked by a pseudonymous conservative, the liberal has gone well out of their way to avoid having to pull the curtain, in the interests of fairness.

So I'm still asking: are there any parallel cases going the other way?

I don't know if that is an accurate description of high school english programs today but I can tell you that its essentially the opposite of how they taught English at my college and, I would guess, quite a few well regarded liberal arts colleges in the late 80s and 90s. ,

I won't try to speak for anyone but myself, but I begin by telling my introductory lit students that I don't care what the author "meant" so please stop approaching texts in this way. That's not to say that excellent historical criticism isn't or can't be done. But this simplistic attitude toward reading texts, including arguments, is fairly common among those who haven't much studied literature or rhetoric.

One thing that doesn't get mentioned enough here is how the Net has changed the world and how, on the Net, 'What you write is who you are.' For some of you who have grown up with the net, there's nothing surprising in this, but let me talk to everyone who is over 40 and not a lawyer.

Robert Bork was nominated for the Supreme Cout just under 22 years ago. Imagine if you will that, when you heard that, and began to read about him, someone told you that, 22 years from now, a Supreme Court Justice would be nominated, that there would be a dispute over her credentials, that among the prominent people in the dispute would be two ex-Clerks for SCOTUS Justices, a high-priced litigator, and a Law Professor at an important Law School, that you would be able to comment on their arguments and be heard by them and tens of thousands of other people, that you would be able to make your points and they would be judged on their content and not on whether you ever went to law school, and that you could even criticize the childish actions of one of them, and that you'd be joined in the discussion not by people who happened to be in a hall, but people literally living throughout the world.

This is not irrelevant to the discussion. "Publius" was a penname, of course, but even those who use our own names are, for the most part, invisible except for our writing. "Jim Benton" -- whether it is my real name or not, is, in efect, a pseudonym, I am as anonymous behind it as I am if I just used "Prup."
(In fact, I added the "Prup" to distinguish me from at least two other "Jim Benton"s who have a more prominent web presence, both in the artistic community.)

I am in fact "Jim Benton" but if I suddenly revealed I was Stan Kazak or Shelley Hartman, or ... it wouldn't matter one bit, except that if I were female, some of my stories would have been lies.

I read and pay attention to what Publius, Hilzoy, Anonymous Liberal write because of what they write, not who they are -- and the same reason is why I read Steve Benen.

It seems to me that the minimum requirement for expecting anyone to respect you anonymity/pseudonymity is that you refrain from ad hominem insults. Focus on the ideas (or their expression), without impugning others' sincerity or "playing". - Matthew R. Marler

Gosh, Matthew? Are you the same Matthew R. Marler who co-authored a paper about sleep apnea in 2007? And who works in the Department of Psychology at a major university in a second tier city in a large state? And who would really like to get a set of Koss headphones as a gift?

Do you see now why someone would want to maintain their anonymity while posting controversial opinions online? Pseudonymity is a choice that others should respect. Readers can decide for themselves whether to take a blogger seriously. In the end, people choose to respect or not respect the ideas of Ed Whelan based on the quality of those ideas. The same holds true of Publius. Obviously, Ed Whelan did not have the confidence to argue his ideas, so he decided to put Publius's personal and professional safety at risk instead in an effort to discredit him by an appeal to authority.

It took me 30 seconds on Google to find out what I did. Considering the recent history of psychotic acting out by deranged conservatives, do you really think it is anything less than a threat of violence to out a pseudonymous blogger?

What really sealed it for me [re Whelan's intentions] was the little "dance on the grave" he did at the end of his outing, hoping that "the tenure department at [the law school where publius teaches] would now take note of everything publicus might have said on-line."

This is not an attempt by Whelan to debate anything on the merits. It's an effort to see how much harm he [Whelan] can cause for an "enemy" who's in "foreign territory." Kinda like saying "there he is" and pointing to someone who's trying to walk unobtrusively down a street lined with gang members.

One point of shielding whistle-blowers is to encourage exposure of misconduct behind a screen of anonymity. I have accepted though, that anonymous critics should proceed very cautiously and perhaps more "straight up" (less sarcasm, inflammatory language, etc.)

Hilzoy, thanks for the explanation. Much appreciated. Obviously, I misread your post.

One final thought. It is still necessary for most bloggers to make an outside living. There was a time when being labeled a liberal was a real threat to a writer's ability to make an outside living. Those days are gone. It is hard to find anyone outside the rapidly declining rabid right who will hold progressive views against a blogger. Whelan's dream of harming Publius is most probably an impossible fantasy. The tenure committee's only concern will be whether Publius spends too much time blogging, not what he blogs.

That said, Publius and Hilzoy have worked hard to establish recognized brands. They fought the fight back in the days when there was real reason to be afraid of an outing. When you read the byline "Publius" or "Hilzoy" you know what to expect. Those brands, and the history of those who own them, should be respected by all of us.

What Whelan is really doing is attempting to damage "Publius" brand. Publius is a law professor, maybe he ought to talk to somebody on the faculty who specializes in intellectual property

If Hilzoy wants to be known as "Hilzoy" great. You go girl. I do think I would read your every word even if you used your "real" name.

I am concerned about stalking, but folks like Steve Benen and Kevin Drum have developed ways to protect themselves. There is no reason Publius couldn't.

Ron, could you or others, explain about those ways for our edification? tx

To follow up, I support the "right" in general (more of a tradition, actually) of anonymity. But a person who accuses of malevolent thought processes, like "He just enjoys playing the role of know-nothing demagogue" is making it very risky for himself, and harder to defend. (It is still technically true - contra "John Hancock" downblog - that for the accused to say it isn't so doesn't prove a material point - nobody else knows either way.)

If he wanted to avoid the risk of being associated publicly with his views, he shouldn't have blogged.

Non sequitur.

Whelan didn't out Blevins out of civic duty. He only outed Blevins when Blevins showed that Whelan was lying through his teeth and that everyone knew it.

Petulant retaliation from a dishonest hack. No wonder Whelan is a conservative. This is what they do.

But a person who accuses of malevolent thought processes, like "He just enjoys playing the role of know-nothing demagogue" is making it very risky for himself, and harder to defend.

These are two different things. When Publius made his accusation, he did make it risky for himself (obviously) because you don't know when someone you are debating is going to lash out like a petulant schoolboy. But that's what people here are arguing: Whelan's outing was wrong and childish. The continued argument that "well, you should expect that some jerk will do that" seems to gloss over, while confirming, the actual point we're all making: Whelan acted like a jerk. Those who try to justify his actions suggest that this is some kind of defense.

The second point, that Publius's action make him harder to defend, is different and seems to be implying that his own actions were somehow beyond the pail even for non-jerk people. But as has been argued over and over here, Publius's comment was neither content free nor ad hominem. His post was an attempt to explain how someone with Whelan's knowledge and experience could make such terrible arguments. He criticized his intellectual honesty. It was a harsh critique, perhaps made all the more biting because Whelan has no defense for his actions. It's a serious charge, made in a dismissive tone, granted (though infinitely more level than many of Whelan's own dismissals of his critics).

Throughout this debate, I've continually been befuddled by the defense of Whelan that presumes for him the ethical right to violate the requests of others for no reason other than vengeance. If there is another reason, I've not seen it. As far as the argument is concerned, Whelan is now not only intellectually dishonest (a hack) but vindictive as well. "Exposing" Publius's real-world identity didn't put them on equal ground and certainly wasn't intended to do that (as Whelan's own comments, especially those about the tenure committee, make clear). It didn't address the argument or defend Whelan's position in any way. It didn't make any accusation of Publius's less salient.

The question I've raised on numerous occasions is again relevant: what possible advantage did Publius's pseudonymity give him in this debate except the ability to make the charge at all. He's invested a number of years and his entire online reputation in this pseudonym, so to suggest that he's not "accountable" is simply wrong. He is, in fact, risking his good name, the one that has significantly more public profile than his real-world one.

If the defense of Whalen is that you shouldn't criticize those who are unethical for being dishonest, I'm not sure that's really much of a defense.

As someone who grew up with the Internet and then World Wide Web: there is no such a thing as privacy, especially for a rich legacy of content.

Once someone starts to have a real, virtual, anonymous presence, he or she can not expect to maintain the anonymous aspect.

Paulk, I still think it's a violation of an accepted "netiquette" (and maybe would apply to "Poor Richard" etc. if he were still publishing, etc.) to out someone such as Publius unless that someone is so dangerously exposing or slandering you, their identity needs airing. So I don't defend the doing of it here. But pushing the envelope makes it "harder" to be sympathetic, and I argue is imprudent. It was especially revolting for Whelan to suggest the Publius' academic colleagues and superiors should review his writings, etc. That's pure spite.

"...there is no such a thing as privacy, especially for a rich legacy of content.

Agreed.

A funny story.

My mom was a switchboard operator for Carolina Tel & Tel from the late 50s until the late 80s, as were many of my aunts and cousins. She told me hilarious stories of how they would listen into calls, and how they knew just about everything that was going down in our small town. There were also times when the FBI would come in listen on suspects. I was also privileged to be able to dial '0' and either get Mom or an aunt who would pass me over to her. 411 would usually get me info on what's for supper.

Privacy is an internet myth. I fully expect these words I'm typing right now to be permanent and to always have a path back to me. Maybe it's just where I come from, but the only privacy I believe you really have is that which you keep in your head.

Sorry Hilzoy, can't buy this argument. I think you should be proud to attach your name to your columns. I also think you should get paid. Why no paypal donation button on OW?

Paul Glastris! Cowboy up!

Well there are perfectly self serving reasons to post under your real name, too. Maybe your name recognition attracts readers. Maybe your credentials lend weight to your arguments. Maybe you write for a living and are looking to advance your career.

If Rush Limbaugh posted something anonymously, would anyone read it? If Paul Krugman blogged anonymously, would anyone care? If Ezra Klein blogged anonymously, would he be writing for the Washington Post now? I don't know.

Calling them by some other name would be no less childish than what this Whelan is doing.

This is an interesting new ethical dilemma. But one of the things I like about pseudonyms is that I don't know the gender of the writer. In our culture women's opinions tend to be dismissed and writing under a pseudonym allows the ideas to be judged. Think of symphonies: women had little chance to be selected until the audition process was held behind screens so that judges could not identify the musician. It became purely about the skill and suddenly women were hired.

seems to me people are confounding Whelan's motivations for outing Publius with the act of outing itself. His motivations were fairly base and childish. The act itself, I'm not sure I can condemn. I've frankly never understood why it's such an imperative for some bloggers to remain anonymous. It seems to me if you want to publish opinion and analysis, if you believe in what you publish, and if you want to be taken seriously, you should have the courage of your convictions and own your writing by publishing under your own name. If you can't take the heat that would come with being public, then you probably don't belong in journalism.

"I've frankly never understood why it's such an imperative for some bloggers to remain anonymous."

It's an Established Internet Tradition. That's pretty much it.

Mike

"seems to me people are confounding Whelan's motivations for outing Publius with the act of outing itself. His motivations were fairly base and childish. The act itself, I'm not sure I can condemn."

And how, exactly, can you separate the two? The act itself was specifically an attempt to harm someone merely because that person criticized him, which is mean-spirited and immature.

"I've frankly never understood why it's such an imperative for some bloggers to remain anonymous."

I'm trying very hard not to just say "duh" here, because the answer is quite obvious. As Whelan shows us, current-day conservatives tend to be excessively thin-skinned and prone to the desire for revenge. See also: Scott Roeder. Liberals have a very good reason not to want conservatives to know who they are.

"It seems to me if you want to publish opinion and analysis, if you believe in what you publish, and if you want to be taken seriously, you should have the courage of your convictions and own your writing by publishing under your own name."

"It seems to me" is an excessively weak and unpersuasive argument. Just because you lack the ability to understand the other side doesn't make your perspective the correct one.

"If you can't take the heat that would come with being public, then you probably don't belong in journalism."

Tell that to Whelan. He's the bratty little asshole who threw a public hissy-fit just because some of his extremist hackery was debunked.

Donbux, I think you're thinking too much in "one size fits all" fashion. It serves the better interest, professional independence and protection from interference, etc., to publish anonymously (certainly you wouldn't insist that all *commenters" have to state real identity, would you? You didn't, unless you're a real and unambiguous "Don Bux"!) And even if there's something cheesy, cowardly, whatever about blogging anon', the accepted netiquette is to accept that person's decision. I just wish some of those wouldn't make it hard-er to support by pushing the envelope.

PS: jen f has a good point about hiding gender as an aid (sad that it's needed) to being taken more seriously. And here's another: Some rightly note, who would care about Limbaugh or Krugman's opinion if put forth anonymously. Well, the very breaking down of "who said it" in general to minimize ad hominem considerations is another advantage of anonymous posting. It forces the reader to judge points on their own intrinsic merit, a good thing. (And on the flip side, you have to wonder if "dismalscientist" may indeed by Paul Krugman. It inhibits dismissal on the basis of "that must be a nobody!")

This would be helpful in scientific publishing. Journals don't AFAIK ever allow anonymous articles but they do allow anonymous refereeing, so the writer isn't exposed to "who the hell is that" or "Oh, that crank!" type prejudice. (There was a "sting" study. They took previously accepted papers and resubmitted them as if by unknowns. Many/most were rejected by the same or equivalent journals!) But imagine if you are a lowly but brilliant grad student who really has uncovered a challenge to conventional particle physics etc. You could get better attention with less prejudice if readers have to wonder who you are.

tyrannogenius

I meant to say, "It serves the better interest ... of some to to publish anonymously ..."

"Minor point first: 'unaccountable' does not mean 'irresponsible'"

Merriam-Webster disagrees: Unaccountable = not responsible = irresponsible

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unaccountable

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irresponsible

It worth pointing out, Ross, that you are conflating two different usages. To be irresponsible can mean, as the definition makes clear, someone who cannot be called into account ("an irresponsible dictator"). But that isn't the same thing as acting "irresponsibly" as other definitions make clear.

Hilzoy's point is pretty clear: she's using irresponsible in the context of action, definitions B & C "said or done with no sense of responsibility c: lacking a sense of responsibility"

The criticism here about pseudonymity is that because the author is unaccountable (cannot be called into account in all aspects of their lives), they also must be irresponsible—not in the sense of not being called to account (because that would be a tautology) but rather "lacking a sense of responsibility."

Hilzoy is, therefore, exactly correct. These two things are distinct.

(This is why I tell students not to rely upon dictionaries for definitions. It's far less useful than paying attention to the actual context in which words are being used in an argument.)

Two points: first, 'irresponsible' does not mean 'not responsible'. Ask yourself whether a rock is 'irresponsible'. It is (I assume) not responsible for its actions. It is not therefore irresponsible.

Second: " I also think you should get paid." -- I'm happy not to. I like the Monthly, and I think everyone should subscribe to it. I have a perfectly nice full-time job, and while extra money is always nice, I'm fine as it is. I wouldn't want either the hit to the Monthly's balance sheets, or the sense that when, as last weekend, I take off to go to my grade school's reunion (??!), I am welshing on paid duties.

Forgot to add: the only reason I even mentioned the money thing is that every so often someone says: hey, you are a professional, so you don't get to skate by on amateur standards. (Whatever that means.) When this is just a way of saying 'you should be careful what you write', fine: I would try to be careful regardless of money. But when it's a way of saying something like 'so you have no right to use a pseud', it seems worth pointing out not just the lack of any obvious connection between pseudonymity and money, but also the fact that the assumption that I am paid for this is, in fact, false.

Hilzoy: I hadn't realized you'd been outed, and so hadn't read your bio. I always admired your writing and thinking, and now realize that having 50% of your DNA come from Nobel Prizewinners must be a factor. (Although must also have put the pressure on you).

I'd love for here or on ObWi you to write about your memories of your grandparents, both paternal and maternal.

On the issue of outing: I condemn Whelan's petulance, but have to confess as a straight liberal I've felt either indifference or mildly supportive of gay GOP politicians/staffers being outed by gay activists when said politicians or staffers have been supportive of anti-gay legislation.

Obviously, being outed as gay in the GOP is even more damaging to a career than being outed as an outspoken blogger. So I guess I have to revise my assessment on the politics of "outing". Or is the hypocritical nature of the activities of certain gay GOP members sufficient to make their outing justifiable?

To me, the heart of thhe matter is this: when his ideas were challenged, all Ed the Wuss could offer in response was the outing of publious. Eddie could not defend his ideas.

Just as Valerie Plame was outed because the bush Asministration could not defend their ideas.

In fact attacks, harassment, lies, outings, and other forms of nefarious behavior are standard on the right because so few on the right are willing to defend their ideas.

Or able to defend their ideas.

John Blevins cannot escape irresponsibility--if he has any--by claiming to be a rock.

The Oxford English Dictionary gives this as one definition of "unaccountable": "Not liable to be called to account; irresponsible."

And it gives this definition, among others, of "irresponsible": "Not responsible; not answerable for conduct or actions; not liable to be called to account; exempt from or incapable of legal responsibility. Also (by extension), Acting or done without a sense of responsibility."

Ed Whelan seems to have intended both the narrow and the broad senses of "irresponsible." The English language lets people do that. If he was wrong to do that it was because of the moral facts, not the abstract meanings of the words.

Hard to believe people are parsing the words and logic of this impotent failure Whelan. This is the best he can do when he tries to be a tough guy now, How sad is that? Ooooh, maybe he'll out me - oh, right, he can't in case he needs to come and beg me for a real job. Whew!

Shade Tail:
"I'm trying very hard not to just say "duh" here, because the answer is quite obvious... Liberals have a very good reason not to want conservatives to know who they are."

I stand by my previous statement: if you don't have the courage of your convictions and you can't take the heat, then get out of blogging/journalism.

""It seems to me" is an excessively weak and unpersuasive argument. Just because you lack the ability to understand the other side doesn't make your perspective the correct one."

Last time I checked, "It seems to me" means exactly that. It isn't an argument, persuasive or otherwise. It's an opinion.

"Tell that to Whelan. He's the bratty little asshole who threw a public hissy-fit just because some of his extremist hackery was debunked."

At least he has the cojones to publish under his own name. And for what it's worth, I agree he's an asshole. My point is he's willing to put his name out there and publicly be called an asshole.

Neil B:

"It serves the better interest, professional independence and protection from interference, etc., to publish anonymously"

How so? You could just as readily argue that publishing anonymously encourages recklessness and irresponsibility among those not held accountable for their work.

"certainly you wouldn't insist that all *commenters" have to state real identity, would you? You didn't, unless you're a real and unambiguous "Don Bux""

As a matter of fact I did, and I am. Next point?

It's late but Don, you may have a point. I stand by saying that anonymity serves the interests of *some* to do so. In any case that choice should be respected. I do admire the guts, mild as may be, of those like you who use real names in comments (I come close, it isn't hard to extrapolate.)