Rick Lowe
I'm often intrigued by people that use an assumed name.
Take Simon over at BahamaPundit.com for example. He's introduced as:
"Simon is a young Bahamian with things on his mind who wishes to remain anonymous. His column 'Front Porch' is published every Tuesday in the Nassau Guardian. He can be reached at frontporchguardian@gmail.com."
Usually very critical of people, writing stuff like this, he or she loves the FNM, yet refuses to identify him or herself.
How about Bahamas Uncensored, a blog said to be written by Fred Mitchell. Also very critical of people, but he or she loves the PLP, yet refuses to identify him or herself.
Many people write to the press under an assumed name as well.
Does a pseudonym diminish their message?
Does it make it more believable?
What's your take?
It works both ways. Sometimes knowing who’s writing adds credibility. On the other hand there can be a flippant “oh, that’s just joe”. All depends, hunh ? Frankly I worry most about the content, but in the two cases you cite, one must indeed consider the source.
I left a message with no name on “Simon’s” post for a lark.
Expressing views unpopular with the current or a future government could lead to reprisals.
There are other quite legitimate reasons as well for anonymity.