Pete McCabe wrote:I'm very surprised to hear people say that to be credible, a candidate's name must be "connected" in some way to the pseudonym S.W. Erdnase.
To me, credibility depends on there being an explanation for why a candidate would used the contrived pseudonym.
If a candidate's name is E. S. Andrews, then a name reversal explains the pseudonym.
If a candidate's name is W. E. Sanders, and he is a mining engineer, then an anagram and a pun on the occupation explain the pseudonym.
If a candidate's name is M. F. Andrews, then you have part of an explanation.
If a candidate is a printer/typesetter whose name was Gallaway and who spoke German, there is no explanation. If it could be shown that someone called that person "Earth nose", then the translation of that nickname into German would be an explanation. Without that showing, it is mere speculation.
If you were using a pseudonym for a serious reason, the last thing you would do is connect it to your name. To discount a candidate because his name doesn't anagram or whatever with Erdnase seems very silly.
But if you weren't particularly concerned with maintaining anonymity, and were simply being clever with your pseudonym, then connecting the pseudonym to your name (or any other overt explanation) is something that does make sense.
Regardless, the author used the pseudonym Erdnase. It self-evidently reverses to E. S. Andrews. The author must have had a reason to use that pseudonym, and providing a credible reason for a candidate to do so, based on known facts without speculation or leaps of faith, strengthens that candidate's case.