I see irony here, all right, but maybe not quite the flavor you discern. Like other folks on this list besides (but including) Mr. Dedtweiler, I too have some concerns about anonymity versus responsibility in cyberspace. I'm convinced that there are legitimate uses of pseudonymous identities; but I don't think we can shut our eyes to the problems that such capabilities give rise to. It's an issue related to privacy and, in some applications, to encryption. Now for the irony: At least two people have said, or implied, "Well, if Detweiler had just used an anonymous identity in his posts, we wouldn't be researching his private life." I don't know what kind of QED others might put on such assertions. But here's one translation: "If Mister Detweiler had been a hypocrite, I wouldn't be in a position to dig into his personal life." I still dissent strongly to folks playing cop or armchair psychological helper for Mr. Detweiler, then sugarcoating the mean-spiritedness with "Well, it's an object lesson" or "I just want his associates to know what he's doing." To adapt Gertrude Stein: "Ironic, if you find such things amusing; if not, not."
If the publication of this information is intended as a prelude to the RL persecution or harassment of Mr. Detweiler, I want to lodge a strong dissenting opinion.
Perhaps it was meant as an object lesson in the necessity of the dreaded "pseudospoofing" for Mr. Detweiller. I find it rather amusing that many of the same people who were arguing against L. Detweiler's claims of a cryptoanarchic identity conspiracy are now objecting to the simple presentation of the same information about LD that LD wants to make available on all of you regardless of your wishes.
Quite ironic.
jim