I always (I think) name names here because it's hard to cite someone's arguments without naming them by name. But sometimes, I've noticed, one does hear the expression, "I won't name names here." I ran across an instance of this at the Washington Monthly today. One fellow, Brendan Nyhan, is all upset over having been referred to (not named) with identifiable phrases he thinks taken out of context. Here is what he is complaining about (it's a post by Nathan Silver–everyone's favorite numbers nerd):
The jobs numbers are awful, but they’ve also provided fodder for some poor political punditry.
I won’t name names, since the people in question are normally thoughtful writers. But you can already find an article keyed off the news with the headline “How a one-term president is made.” And a political scientist in my Twitter feed wrote of how numbers like these will have Mitt Romney “measuring the drapes” in the White House.
I do not mean to suggest that the unemployment numbers are unimportant as a news story. To the contrary, recent polls find that four times as many people list jobs rather than the budget deficit as a top priority, even though the latter issue has gotten more press attention lately.
But if you’re going to write about the jobs numbers as a horse race story, you ought to do it right, and that means keeping an eye on the big picture.
Following up on this post from yesterday, this seems like a somewhat polite use of the "some say" trope. You don't identify your opponents not because they don't exist; you avoid doing so in order to be nice. Let's hope, perhaps is the thought, no one inquires but the guilty party gets the point. This seems reasonable, as the point of the criticism is friendly correction, rather than triumphalist douchebaggery.
This strategy does not work, however, when the accused publicly complains about being strawmanned. On this score, the criticism in question was directed at a tweet. Two things: One, don't tweet easily misunderstood condensed arguments (which require, as Nyhan maintains in his own defense, you to refer to your vast body of not-tweeted work) and expect to be tweeted fairly; and two, criticizing tweets is almost nutpicking, because tweets are usually dumb.