pseu-pseu-pseudonym

On the way to "Tell Me About It" this morning, I got distracted by this article in today's Post.

Los Angeles Times Yanks Columnist's Blog

"The Los Angeles Times suspended the blog of one of its top columnists last night, saying he violated the paper's policy by posting derogatory comments under an assumed name."

"The paper said in an online editor's note that Michael Hiltzik, a Pulitzer Prize winner who writes the Golden State column, had admitted posting remarks on both his Times blog and on other Web sites under names other than his own. The Times said it is investigating the matter."

According to this article, Hiltzik, writing as "Mikekoshi," described a fellow writer (LA Times writer?) "as a 'tool' and as someone 'hampered by her own ignorance.' "

And on the blog of conservative southern Californian (with whom Hiltzik often sparred), Mikekoshi posted "Congratulations, Patterico, for a new high-water mark in dopey criticism," and "What a buffoonish post this is."

First off, it's just plain RUDE to post comments like "What a buffoonish post this is". Not to say it doesn't happen, or that there aren't appropriate times when it should happen (though I can't think of any at present), OR even that anything can be done about it. I'M JUST SAYIN'. :) On the one hand, it's just a freaking blog. On the other hand, it's just a freaking blog!

Secondly to post a negative comment anonymously is bad blog-etiquette. I'm soft-hearted for sure, but can't we all just get along, or at least agree to civilly disagree?

***kum-ba-ya my Lord, kum-ba-ya...****

Thirdly, to post a comment under a fake name, bashing the blogger and praising your true identity is just lame.

Fourthly, if you're going to do post a comment under a fake name, patting your true identity on the back, at LEAST GET AWAY WITH IT! Have the technical knowledge to do it right and not get caught. What Hiltzik did is not considered criminal in the eyes of the law, but is considered pretty douchy in the eyes of this (admittedly technically challenged) pandologist.

Fifthly, it's friday and I haven't read Hax yet. I might feel better after that.

So I wonder how seriously the LA Times will treat this matter? The paper has already suspended his blog, but what further will they do? This is a rhetorical question, as I don't have any kind of answer--only opinions and questions at this point. I can't think of a good reason why anyone (much less a Pulitzer Prize winning author) would want to do something so childish (no wait, that's insulting to children), so DUMB. Should this guy lose his job at the LA Times over this? Hmmm, probably not. He has not been accused of anything illegal so far as I know. But certainly it'll have the effect of tarnishing his entire life's works and has me wondering whether they give these Pulitzer thingys out to just anybody.