But of course all that that tells us is that Jim is an enthusiastic supporter of the new blog. It does not make him its author. Attention has naturally turned, therefore, to the blog's style. Does it sound like Jim? Certainly it features a striking number of his favourite language, "idiocy", "crackpot", "lunacy", "pearls", alongside the use of sarcasm and neologisms constructed around names. "Hudsonianism" and "hobby horsistians" in the new blog are analogous to famous Westisms such as "Wrightianity", "Wrightianist", "bibliobloggists", "Bentley-ism" and "Bentley-ism-anity".
It is difficult to be convinced by such speculation. The Dilettante Hobby Horse Blog cannot be Jim's work because his position on anonymous blogs is clear and often repeated, e.g. On blogging anonymously, where he comments that "Blogging anonymously is akin to citing Wikipedia, so far as I’m concerned". Or here:
An alias is a means by which a person hides him or herself, in a delightfully cowardly way, behind the mantle of anonymity. Anonymity, such persons believe, allows them to make the most outrageous and unsubstantiated claims without fear of having to give an account of themselves.Moreover, Jim himself has denied being the author of the new blog (Finally, there's a place for all the dilettantes to assemble). So we have an interesting new biblioblogging mystery. Why does the author of the Dilettante Hobby Horse Blog model his language and style on Jim's? Jim: I think you have a fan!
Like unprovenanced artifacts, however, unattributable comments have neither value nor worth and cannot be taken seriously by anyone. They are the academic equivalent of ‘www.juicycampus.com’ - a site devoted to slander and stupidity.
(Learning about the intelligence of readers via comments)