Apparently Donald Luskin of the Poor and Stupid blog (no, his words, not mine), who has made yeoman attempts to breach from his small pond and make his way into larger public notice (like, say, his mom's weekend mailman) has mixed feelings about anonymity for others.
You may remember recently that Mr. Luskin wrote a piece in which after advising his readers of Krugman's publicity schedule for his book and suggesting that they assault him
, he himself went to a reading and confronted Krugman
, not identifying himself until the end of the encounter.
At the time, he described his behavior
toward Krugman as "stalking"
He has since written a piece specifically citing Atrios at Eschaton
as someone who has libelled him
by referring to him as a stalker. (Apparently Professor Reynolds, who gave the earlier behavior the label "stalking" with the usual approving heh
in a previous post, was by this point in complete agreement that only a desperately unstable person would call such a thing stalking, a point on which I suppose he would have more insight than I would).
Now Luskin is threatening to out Atrios
, who prefers to be anonymous for safety as well as personal reasons, by subpoena as part of a lawsuit claiming libel.
Since Atrios basically quoted Luskin in his posts, I think it's fairly clear who it was who caused Luskin to be viewed with contempt here, but I suspect that's not the point.
I suspect that the point is to strip Atrios' anonymity.
I really can't imagine a more contemptible way of handling this sort of disagreement, but then I'm not a stalker.
Well, currently, anyway.edit:
you might want to refresh your memory with this
.edit again (I had to clean up some grammar stuff, but my real question is):
What the hell is a microlytic?edit still some more:
to give credit where credit is slightly (to me, anyway) surprisingly due
, Professor Reynolds agrees that this is nonsense.