Of course, pseudonymous blogging could (in principle) be honorable and serve a high purpose. If it were (in principle) like the essays of The Federalist: an apologia for a great idea, principle, or enterprise. Not a personal attack. For that, real men fought duels, and there was never a mystery whom one was shooting at. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay did not invoke the pseudonym Publius in order to hide as individuals from being credited with authorship, in order to help their tenure chances, or in order to avoid embarrassment at the Thanksgiving dinner table. Rather, their reason was precisely to the contrary: to share authorship, and indeed credit, with all the Framers of the Constitution. If blogs had existed in 1787, yes, Publius would have been a pseudonymous blogger. To paraphrase another Texan: John Blevins, you’re no Publius.