There are a few things that Eric and I disagree on, one of them being the merits of Rush–I mean, seriously Eric, how can you listen to that crap. Another thing we disagree on appears to be whether it’s OK to argue phonology anonymously on the internets. In the Opacity Kerfluffle chez Mr. Verb, Eric got miffed at Cassaday whatshisorhername for not coming out of the shadows:
I was apparently inappropriately offended at Cassaday’s combination of willingness to be just as nasty as I was and unwillingness to be identified.
Not that I want to participate in a ‘group hug’ with Cassaday; I still think s/he’s a sniveling pseudonymous stooge. I have a list of people who I’m guessing might be Cassaday, and I plan to perfunctorily reject all of their conference and journal submissions, paste their visages on my dartboard, and snub them at LSA parties. (Just kidding — I don’t own a dartboard.)
I can see where Eric is coming from. If someone is giving you personal guff, it’s nice to know who it is. (I wish it was me being a sock puppet–that would have been comic gold!) However, the whole opaque/transparent personality thing is a minor point compared to the rest of it. And really Eric, let go let CON.
There’s a lot of reasons someone might want to be anonymous on the internets. And especially here on Phonoloblog. Students, for one, might not want to say certain things in public, especially given the academic job market. The same goes for new PhDs and junior faculty without tenure. And on the other end of the spectrum, an established name might want to avoid giving their words undue weight just because they are their words (hey, it could happen).
So where am I going with this? I just wanted to suggest to the contributors here that Phonoloblog not be a mandatory non-opaque environment. That we allow some people to post as themselves and others to post under pseudonyms. If an asshat comes along and causes trouble, I’m sure that can be remedied easily.