This is something that comes up quite a bit on certain blogs, especially with Alt.NET types (before he (un)fortunately (unfortunately because he was the source of a wealth of unintentional humor, fortunately because his blogs were usually stupid), Scott Bellware was a typical example, Chad Myers is a current example if only because he's open and honest about it, to his credit), but I finally remembered to make a public note about it.
Some people seem to think that the value of a comment on a blog posting is related to whether or not it is anonymous. There is an obvious reason for this.
If, to use an example, Ayende makes a comment about some topic concerning programming, the natural tendency of anyone who knows him and follows what he blogs/comments about is to assume that he is right, or at least to give extra credence to what he says because it is said by Ayende.
If, to use an example, jdn makes a comment about some topic concerning programming, the natural tendency of anyone (or at least, anyone within Alt.NET) who knows him and follows what he blogs/comments about is to assume that he is wrong, or at least to give lesser credence to what he says because it is said by jdn.
This is a natural psychological fact. It is also right up there on the list of Logic 101 Fallacies.
The truth/validity/coherence (all different things) of a statement is, logically, completely disconnected from the person who makes the statement. There is no debate about this, by the way. It is very hard sometimes to reconcile the nature of human psychology and the facts of logic. If I have a question about a topic concerning programming, I will, naturally, give more credence to something Ayende says than something some anonymous person says. It is still a logical fallacy to do so. Similarly, to take into account the anonymity of a blog comment (or lack thereof) is a logical fallacy.