1. “Machiavellian”.
Remember when FSJ posted this indignant response about a month ago? Don’t read it if you don’t want. I barely did the first time. The gist of it was that he was quietly enraged because Valleywag went too far in trying to find out his identity. I followed that up with my own opinion about how ludicrous it was to want to be an anonymous blogger.

Well, it looks like he played us *all* for idiots. Pansies. Suckers. Dupes. Turkeys.

Chumps.

Clearly there was nothing actually done on Valleywag’s part, and the post was merely done at FSJ’s amusement. And to that, I give a tip of the hat to your sheer mendaciously and Machiavellian attempts to deliberately waylay the blogtards (he has a ‘clever’ penchant for adding the post-fix ‘tard’ to things/entities/people that he doesn’t have an inclination towards) that have been following your ‘identity’ so closely for the past few months.

2. “Schadenfreude”.
Ah, good ol’ Schadenfreude. Thank God for German, which is the only language that has effectively captured, in a single word, the joy of seeing others suffer. I feel only partly guilty in relishing in some delicious schadenfreude when I think that it was the Gray Old Lady that broke this very specific, very indulgent piece of blogospheric news.

Who else is going to care about this tomorrow, besides tech geeks and ‘blogtards’? No one. And yet, who has beat Valleywag on Valleywag’s on beat? No, its not another blogger, nor even, perhaps, one of the most connected bloggers in the Valley, Mike Arrington. In fact, it seems like “connections” (which super a-list bloggers happily revel in) had nothing to do with sorting out FSJ’s identity.

Good ol’ investigative reporting did. The En-Why-Tee. And they deserve a pat on the back. Albeit that its for covering and breaking a piece of news so narrow that I am *sure* the majority of NYT’s tech readers will be wondering “Who the frack is FSJ and why should I care?” (which will, I’m sure be followed by “Wow, this isn’t funny — what’s the fuss?”)

3. “Meh”.
That’s right. Good ol’ Meh. I am of course referring to the word, perhaps best popularized by the Simpsons, which according to the compendium of the world’s knowledge, is a “word has come to be used as an interjection indicating apathy or lack of enthusiasm, or as an adjective meaning mediocre or uninspiring.”

And if you followed my original post (and even this one — hey, thanks for getting this far) about FSJ, you’ll know that I don’t really think much of FSJ, nor how “funny” and “witty” he is. I recognize that humour, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, but really.

This unbelievably indulgent techno-blogospheric navel gazing is a bit much. YES, I realize we do it far too much to begin with on any number of stories, and NO, I don’t really have an axe to grind.

What’s “funny” about the situation is that when I read about FSJ’s ‘real’ identity, a post by Dwight Silverman (who writes at the Houston Chronicle, who, incidentally was kind enough to refer to my blog as “excellent” ) twigged my memory. Dwight, who is also a fan of FSJ, thought that *knowing* who FSJ’s identity was was going to ruin the fun he was having.

I wasn’t sure, but I think he’s right.

As much “Meh” as I think FSJ is *now*, I can only imagine the depths of my apathy will sink to once I know that FSJ is actually written not — say, by some witty consultant in the wilds of Boston, or someone *in* Apple, or say, even Steve Jobs himself (that would be ‘real’ news) — but a *senior* editor for Forbes?

Meh, indeed.

Well, good luck, Daniel Lyons, or Fake Steve, or whatever moniker you’re going by these days. I think your blog will probably need it, although I’m sure that book you’ve written about the experience probably won’t.