I take that back - I guess pseudonyms are OK

The Foothill Cities blog is building upon the Peter Scheer article that I cited earlier.

For example, here's what "Centinel" says:

Responsible bloggers, then, says Scheer, should just take their lumps and awkward moments at The Buc (”OMG, it’s Centinel…I’m going to kick his [hindquarters] for making cracks about Joe Mosca”) and blog under their Christian names.

To be honest, I think he’s almost entirely right. Anonymity tends to bring out the worst in our commenters, while the digital distance allows many to be vicious. Some of the thoughts that end up beneath our posts aren’t pretty, but that’s nothing compared to the downright obscene things that we edit (not including those delightful unsolicited communiques about the merits of various natural remedies for the reproductively defective).

So why do we remain anonymous? Because we gotta. No, not because if we had our names attached to this blog, the Stormtroopers would flood out of Pomona City Hall and beat down our door (though a libertarian friend always tells me to never drive to work in the same route). Really, it’s just because it would be a hassle in the workspace. At least that’s the extent of my motivation.

Someone named Publius (who is very old) then cites two examples. The second is a long string of comments, spelling corrections, political scores, PayPal requests, and the like from the impassioned citizens of Glendora (no, not Glendale), California.

Of course, Glendora is itself a pseudonym, I guess, for Mountainglenleadora. I guess Leadora was worried about 19th century lawyers or something.

[mrontemp business] | [mrontemp politics] | [mrontemp technology] | [mrontemp del.icio.us tags]

Sphere: Related Content