Who the f%^& are you?

I don't think that encouraging folk to go open on their personal ident online is a good thing. There's lots of folk who read, some regularly, some casualty. Where ever there's lots of folk, you get some weirdos. Some of those weirdos are gonna be grudge holders of the violent kind. The kind that decide to come looking for whomever caught their attention.

You're advice on writing only what you wouldn't mind being publicly associated with is sound, and lord don't I wish I'd have figured that out for myself way long ago, or even that I was capable of following it now.

On the teeth feeding thing... yeah. Lucky me. I tend to be as belligerent with mere inches separating faces as I am with unknown miles separating monitors. I've had lots of lessons given me in the "watch your ****ing mouth, jackass" syllabus. Still gots all my teeths and no broken face bones, yet. Minor miracle, that.

Yep - the violent stalker thing is a matter of concern. I think there are plenty of good reasons to be a pseudonymous blogger (or "internet traveler" in general. I'm not saying anyone should abandon pseudonymity, I'm saying the safety of a pseudonym is a marginal shield at best.

I suppose it's like a cheap lock on a footlocker; it keeps honest people honest.

I comment under a psudomymn for personal and professional reasons. I do not want my professional life impacted due to my political beliefs. Peronally most people know who and what I belive in. I have tried to be civil and reasonableon the web since flame wars are just indulging in temper tantrums.

The prevalent social attitude is liberal. Most corporations adopted the multicultural line and if an employee is known to be against that and blogs about that, that could effect his/her employment. That is just an example.

The are enough examples of PC impacting employment and students at universities to justify caution.

This particular example, Mr Whelan indulged in petty vindictive behavior. If he could not defend his position in arguement, then he went and attacked the person. This is a real life "ad hominen"

I find it hard to understand a liberal facing reprecussions but it does happen to condervatives so I believe this outing is wrong and it certainly indicates that the personal temperament of Ed Whelan is improper as an AG since he does indulge in vindictive attacks.

This is a case where the outer nmay face greater consequences to his public reputation than Publius.

I beliiev in the outing in the case of Beuchamp who was pushing a slanderous narrative against our troops.

Excitable Andy S has slandered and libeled freely against Sarah Palin and been immmune to consequence. So blogging under their own name does not mean a civil tongue.

Wimp.

And next I see ya, I'll do it to your face, too. Assuming I can remember for that long.

I blogged openly from the beginning. Which isn't to say I told everybody who I was, I just didn't tell them anything.

I find "the blog as if Osama and your mama" were reading to be good advice.

It keeps things calmer. Keeps the traffic down, too, which is a mixed blessing and curse. Fewer trolls.

My company knows I blog, and I know I'm read by my bosses. That's a useful tocsin, in my case. Keeps me scrupulous about not blogging work, and maintaining that bright, shining line.

But - things I've said on the blog would probably cause some heartburn during the "due diligence" phase of promoting me to "officer rank" in my firm.

Which is okay. Been an officer, prefer being a sergeant these days.

Myself, I use a pseudonym to help cut down the outright spam in my personal inbox.

I'm a 'Golden-Ruler' in real life, and as Zero.

Now if I could be stalked only by nubile females who own breweries I'd send Zero on his way. Or maybe get my name changed to Zero??

I blog under a pseudonym to protect my privacy, and my children. I will never be a Michelle Malkin or a John Dovovan... but I'm perfectly happy being an AFSister. And those I've gotten to know outside of just writing comments know my real name- and I like it that way. My real name is very unique. I would not be hard to find if the name was public knowlege.

I wrote, briefly, for an anti-pedophile site. I used to post pictures of my kids on my personal blog- until I found out that some of the pedophiles targeted by the anti-site I wrote on were downloading their pictures. Scared the daylights out of me, and still freaks me out that some freak could have pictures of my kids. Trust me- there are many reasons people write under assumed names.

"This particular example, Mr Whelan indulged in petty vindictive behavior. If he could not defend his position in arguement, then he went and attacked the person. This is a real life "ad hominen""

Sorry, RAH. You are mistaken.

Sayeth Publius/Blevins (amongst other ad hominem attacks):

"And don't feel sorry for Ed. He knows all this -- he's a smart guy with outstanding legal credentials. He just enjoys playing the role of know-nothing demagogue.", and:

"Whelan knows this is what he's doing. It's willful. He's essentially a legal hitman..."

There are plenty more insults where that came from, all from the venomous (and anonymous) keyboard of Pussius/Blevins. Once the anonymous Pubicus/Blevins stopped debating and started name-calling, he lost his right to whine about being outed.

So stop being obtuse and stop mis-stating the facts.