What's in a Name

So, I'm going to interrupt the discussion regarding commenting to bring up another matter, that being posting under a pseudonym. Now, as viewers of the Honourable Members gallery can see, S. Murray "Steve" Smith and the Secretary of Snark have already been beaten into submission. Likewise, it has been suggested to me by the powers that be at the site that I should drop the pseudonymity as well. I'm not sure I agree with this. The main reason for this is the biggest justification I've been given was that it would make the site "Look more credible". It is for similar reasons that there have been steps to move away from the "parliamentary theme" somewhat. Leaving aside the question of whether that goal is actually accomplished by the elimination of any names that don't "sound like a real person's name", this strikes me as being needlessly meddlesome. I for one am not going to chase after an elusive readership like some shameless 'hit whore'. I feel what readership we have should judge the credibility of the site by its content, not be the names which the members choose to post under. If members wish to post under mocking derivatives of their actual names, mocking derivatives of parliamentary positions, or the title of the senior judge of the English Court of Appeal, that should be their perogative. So while this may be the last post by the Master of the Rolls, rest assured that he will not go gentle into that good night.