In fact, it happened the first day I posted on DailyKos. And I think there are some lessons to be learned from that. Important lessons.
You see, on my first day on DailyKos I posted on a legal topic with which I had experience because of my profession as an attorney. Armando disagreed with my opinion, and we ended up in a debate. During the course of this debate, Armando slung an ad hominen at me questioning my legal competence in the area under discussion. I understandably thought to myself: "Who the hell does he think he is!?!" And so I found out.
What I discovered made me realize that Armando's ad hominem was hypocritical in the extreme. So I called him on it. And, boom, I was banned. I didn't understand why at first. But after an email exchange with Kos and Armando, it became apparent to me that I was banned for allegedly "outing" Armando. I didn't even realize he was intending to be anonymous because he posted under his real first name! However, because I hadn't posted his full name or the identity of his law firm, or any cases he'd worked on (instead I'd posted the fact pattern), Kos and Armando agreed to reinstate me provided I promised to never out Armando. I made that promise and I've never broken it. And for good reasons.
The reason I agreed to not out Armando is the first lesson of this situation. Attorneys are working stiffs with no real job security. We only have as much work as we can obtain through attracting clients. Without clients we have no income. We are selling our time. Thus, anything that might alienate a client from employing an attorney is potentially devastating to the attorney's livelihood. As such, as an attorney, I fully understand why Armando might want to keep his blogging and his profession entirely separate and apart. After all, his political views have nothing to do with his clients, and he's ethically precluded from allowing those views effect any client relationship. Attorneys are hired guns. We are paid to zealously advocate our client's position. Consequently, his clients don't need to know, for example, that he is pro-Choice, and there's every reason to keep that information from his clients if it might sour the relationship.
I don't know if Armando's married or has kids. But, he's got an obligation to himself and his family to protect his livelihood. And if he wants to keep his political views "anonymous" from his clients, we should all respect that. Because not respecting that has real-world effects that could really hurt a real person.
That's lesson number 1.
Lesson number 2 is that if you want to be anonymous, stay anonymous. I took me no effort to figure out Armando's full name, his law firm's profile and clients, his biography, his published opinions, his media appearances and his speaking engagements. Why? Because Armando used his full name for media appearances and touted his connection to DailyKos in biographies for speaking engagements in his profession as an attorney.
In short, Armando outed himself. Repeatedly.
[Update: Armando contends that I have lied and that he never used his full name in media appearances. First, this is not a "vile lie." I have seen Armando quoted by real name on radio outlets, and seen program schedules that listed him by full name. If he was quoted or identified by full name without his knowledge or his consent, then I apologise to Armando for implying he provided this information. But, by granting interviews, by putting himself out into the public eye, I still think he created this situation. The lesson is still valid. I also think Armando does himself no favors by throwing around accusations of "vile lies."]
The flame of media fame burns bright. But if you want to be anonymous, you can't act like a moth. You can't be an "anonymous" blogger while trading on your reputation as a blogger to get media appearances and speaking engagements. It just doesn't work. People like MSOC have got it right. If you seek media attention, you put yourself out there and must embrace it.
There are many attorneys posting on Daily Kos. One other has outed himself by media appearances and writing articles that discuss his Daily Kos relationship, and Daily Kos is one of his clients. Every other, attorney posting on the site protects their anonymity jealously. Armando should have done the same if he wanted to remain anonymous. Or he should have embraced the flame and tried to stake out a reputation in the media -- perhaps that's what he should do now.
The only real surprise here is that it took this long for someone to attack Armando's credibility based on his client relationships.
Which gets me to lesson number 3. Armando's credibility shouldn't be effected in any real way by his client relationships. Attorneys are notoriously unimpressed by reputation. Why? Because your reputation is only as good as your last case. What matters is the argument you put forth. Thus, as an attorney, I'm going to be more impressed by a good Constitutional law argument made by a corporate attorney than I am by a bad Constitutional law argument made by a Constitutional law expert. Of course, I'm not going to accept any "trust me, I'm right statements" made by a corporate attorney about Constitutional law, but, then again, I wouldn't accept those from a Constitutional law expert either. And neither should you. You need to assess every argument on its merits, not on the "credibility" of the speaker. Which, to me, seems to be a common failing on Dkos as this site seems to be prone to a bit of celebrity worship, with Armando as one of the celebrities. We all need to be critical of what we read in the media, and Dkos is part of the media.
Some here might see Armando as suspect because he represented Wal-Mart in its expansion into Puerto Rico. To that, I say: So what? He had a job to do and he did it. Perhaps I might view a pro-Wal Mart posts by Armando suspiciously, but I haven't seen any of those. To suggest he's not a progressive because of his clients is just a poorly reasoned attempt at "guilt by association."
So, if Armando continues to post here, and I hope he does, I hope the ad hominems based on his client relationships are troll rated. A lot of us progressive attorneys represent corporations in our careers, hell icons like Tribe do, so those kind of accusations are worthless.
Good luck Armando.