Earlier this month, Nick Confessore of TAPPED wrote "In Defense of No-Name Bloggers", responding to what he called a "very weak attack" by Salon's Christopher Farah against those who post on weblogs under assumed names.  Confessore notes a critical distinction in correcting Farah's reference to them as "anonymous" authors, observing:

That's incorrect. They're pseudonymous, like, say, the authors of The Federalist Papers. And it's an important distinction. Anonymous writing can indeed be poisonous, because it frees the writer from any consequences whatsoever for his ideas. . .

Blogging continuously under a pseudonym, however, is a very different matter. Someone like Atrios or TMFTML has an intellectual identity and a reputation to defend.

A very good point.  (Credit NetLawBlog for the pointer.)  

9:15:30 PM