That is indeed another perspective on matters Ted. It is a question of what call editors at any level make. Even people who use pseudonyms are real people who can make real arguments. What is not real in such circumstances is the pen name. I imagine the objection is to the critique not the name the author writes under, fictitious or otherwise. If the author wishes to add anything to what has been said it is a matter for them.

Another perspective on this: there is a difference between a pseudonym that plainly is a pseudonym and a pseudonym that looks like a real name. The commenters on your blog generally use the former. It seems to me perhaps that Mr. Doran’s objection to the “Paul Campbell” article (assuming that that is a pseudonym) is that you seem to have represented him as a real person.

Ted,

By all means feel free to draw the inferences you think appropriate. I have nothing to add to what I said. I neither seek to persuade nor dissuade you.

I use my own name for writing. I feel have to be able to stand over what I say.

Speaking in general terms without any specific reference to this case, I allow anonymous abuse to come in about me. I shield others from abuse I don’t protect myself from. So it is fair at that level.

At another level I have long held to a position that the accused should know who their accuser is. For that reason I don’t prefer the use of pen names. But they are frequent on blogs. We clearly allow them in the comments section of our blog. I think the discussion would be much poorer without it.

There are some circumstances I can think of when the matter being discussed is of such public interest that a balance is struck between on the one hand the need for a wider public discussion and on the other a request for anonymity. Whistleblowers should be protected where it can be shown that what they blow the whistle on is important enough to be in the public domain, and that by withdrawing their anonymity would be to diminish public understanding or put them under threat of harm.

So, I think there is no iron law but something which is to be managed on a case by case basis, performing the balancing act as we go. And there are some other variables to be considered such as whether the anonymous writer is the only one making the case or is part of a wider raft of opinion. We will not always get the optimum result.

Do you think that is really fair? Every blogger has his or her editorial policy, of course, but it seems to me that it would be better to require an author to use his or her real name, especially on an article that is so strongly critical of another person. What is the justification for allowing pseudonyms in such a case? (I am assuming that the author is not, in fact, named Paul Campbell, which seems to me to be a fair assumption in light of what you have said and not said).

I know the author of the article. I dd not elabaorate on whether they used a pseudonym.

Fair enough. So my understanding is that “Paul Campbell” is a pseudonym for someone other than you, but that you know who he or she is. Is that right?

in response to your questions; No I did not write the article. I write under my own name. Paul Campbell is not my name.

If the author of the article wishes to make any comment they are free to do so.