For the record
Right. I do want to talk about other things now, but I’m not going to be quiet while people say untrue things about me on blog posts with closed comments. I wrote a reply to something Jean Kazez said about me in her latest post, and I emailed her requesting that she add it and saying it’s dirty pool to go after people while preventing them from replying. I said that because it’s what I think. I told her I would post it myself if she didn’t, and she has responded not via email but by an update to her post saying “Ophelia’s now complaining that she can’t leave comments. Boo hoo.” No, I’m not “complaining” and I’m not “Boo hoo”; I’m saying it’s dirty pool.
(Aside: sadly, that remark is very reminiscent of YNH. YNH was always announcing that people were “whining” when in fact they were saying, writing, disputing, etc. It said “Waaaaaa” and “Boo hoo” a lot too. JK isn’t YNH – I don’t think that for a second – but it’s sad that she has its mannerisms.)
So: for the record:
Jean
Dirty pool, naming me but preventing reply.
#5 Some think it’s incumbent on me to “out” the mystery person behind all of this if I want to be taken seriously. That’s really strange, since just last week at The Buddha is Not Serious people were making peace with this very person, and saying they respected his desire to remain anonymous. Ophelia Benson was even writing about going Desmond Tutu. Now she’s saying she’s “frosted” because I’m “protecting” this person, despite his bouts of sexism (which she knew about during the Tutu phase).
I made a kind of peace, a reserved kind of peace, with this person, at that stage of the revelations (or pseudo-revelations or whatever they were) because he seemed crushed and because he claimed to be 23. It just didn’t feel right to refuse to acknowledge his apology, so I thanked him for it. (I avoided saying I actually accepted it, because I wasn’t sure I did, really, but I also didn’t want to reject it, so I punted.) I didn’t say anything about “respecting” his desire to remain anonymous – I’ve never respected it, and in fact I think it’s cowardly and ridiculous given the use he had made of his anonymity up to that point. I simply refrained from demanding his self-exposure. The Desmond Tutu thing was (obviously) partly irony directed at myself – making a show of saintly forgiveness.
But even that limited amount of Tutuishness was mostly based on the tentative acceptance of his claim that he was 23 (which his writing skills made plausible). If the guy is an adult with publications and a career, that makes a difference. If it really was an adult doing all this, I do think it’s very odd that people like you (liberals, feminists, etc) should be so anxious to protect his anonymity. That’s all. I’m not contradicting myself – the story has changed, and I was by no means adamant that the sock’s anonymity should be protected in the first place.
I’d like you to post this as a comment or an addendum, and I think you should. If you don’t I will of course post it at B&W, since there’s nothing else I can do (except let it stand undisputed, which I don’t want to do). I’ll wait awhile, but not long. Of course you’re probably out and about, on a Saturday afternoon – but I can’t help that.
You shouldn’t have slagged me off and closed comments. As I said – dirty pool.
OB
I’m late the the party–have been en route to a conference for the past day, so far be it from me to belabor the point when you and others are ready to move on, but…wow. This makes my head spin. I’m sure I haven’t fully caught up with all the crazy dialogue, but I find myself just as mystified by Mooney’s explanation as many others posting here, and find Jean’s and others attempts at augmenting this explanation just as unhelpful. Again, I am struck with the glaring irony of the fact that someone who styles himself as a professional communicator is so lousy at clear, unambiguous expression of his ideas. How sad.
Here’s a comment from Jean that made me laugh (quietly, as I’m posting during a seminar):
I submit that if this makes ‘perfect sense’ to you, you should seek help promptly.
Heh! Yes, I just read that, and thought…yes, it is so hard to understand.
Enjoy the seminar!
Ophelia, I agree 100% with everything in your post. But at risk of repeating what may have already been said (it’s been hard to keep up with ALL the blogs about this issue!), we don’t know that “William” isn’t 23. I’m a 26-year-old grad student, and I have publications and what I consider to be a career. This whole thing is indeed quite confusing to all of us who aren’t privy to the confidential information (nor do I think we necessarily should be), but perhaps we are getting caught up in semantics?
I have a brief overview. I would appreciate details/links which those who have been involved consider to be essential. In particular, if there are additional `open’ issues which need to be listed, let me know.
None of this makes perfect sense to me either. Though I admit, it’s all just a little too dopey for me to give it my full attention.
It struck me as pretty odd that Chris would go to Jean for backup. If you want credibility with people who don’t trust you, you go to people whom they do trust and you ask politely for help. Jean may be a nice enough person, at least most of the time, but she does not have that kind of credibility. From what I recall from her blog, she tends to lean to the Mooneyish side of that divide.
Is Chris implying that every high-profile New Atheist is an untrustworthy nogoodnik? Perhaps he imagines that’s part of the definition?
The choice strikes me as particularly odd given how many so-called New Atheists have staked their reputations on being stand-up, honorable types who say what they mean straight out with no weaseling. I’d be unsurprised to learn that PZ, say, cordially despises both Mooney and “Tom”, but I’d be very surprised if he publicly committed to keeping the identity of “Tom” private and then went back on his word.
It’s hard to get a read on Mooney. I’d imagined that he was just an honest, hamfisted member of the Nice Police, and odds are that’s the case. But it does occur to me that he’s done pretty well for himself, at least in terms of other people’s attention, by pitching those fits for the universal adoption of accommodationist rhetoric. Framing up a divide between Nice Atheists and Mean Atheists has been in his favor. It might be pretty canny of him to be using this sockpuppet scandal to draw the battle lines that much more firmly.
He’s doing something, but putting this thing to rest is not it.
Elizabeth, fair point. I suppose I’ve been combining the “23” with the hackish quality of most of his writing to form a picture of a callow youth who simply couldn’t have a slew of publications. But you’re right: I don’t know that at all.
Cam – it’s very dopey! I feel very dopey giving it so much attention myself. It’s having been YNH’s pet whipping-object that whets my interest, of course. Ego, ego; everything is all about Me. I’m the Ayn Rand prima donna of the New Atheists.
This is how I see the whole story thus far:
About a year ago a guy called Tom Johnson told a story about how a group of atheist professors went to a convention arranged by religious people, and heckled it like a bunch of four year olds. The story sounded non-credible, so Mooney elevated it to “Exhibit A” against the “Atheist professors.”
It was an ugly time in Mooney’s career, with his book on science popularisation being largely panned for its kiddy pool depth and iffy research, along with its singling out of the New Atheist movement as being the ones to blame for science being unpopular.
So the response to “Exhibit A” was what you would expect. People didn’t believe it, demanded evidence and pointed out that the internet is rife with various species of liars. Mooney was heavily criticised for taking an anonymous post at face value.
Well, he claimed to have checked the post out and found out who the original guy was. Mooney vouched for him, a very dangerous thing to do online, as you shall soon see.
Fast forward to a few days ago and the now defunct “You’re Not Helping” blog melted down. It turned out to be run by one guy, not two guys and a woman, and that the one guy “William” was also about half the people who posted on his site. He was also the now infamous Tom Johnson.
Not only that, but William admitted that the Tom Johnson story was a fiction based loosely on what amounted to campus urban legends. William had also used his various sock puppets to accuse Ophelia Benson of being a liar on Mooney’s blog, the Intersection.Mooney, being the classy gent that he is, banned Ophelia in what looks to be a bid to prevent her from defending her name.
So now Mooney has got an embarrassing situation. He vouched for a guy who turned out to be complete sleaze, on a story which turned out to be about as trustworthy as Mooney’s critics said it was. His response? He has come out and said he did check, and no he can’t reveal who William really is, because he wouldn’t want to ruin the troll’s real life career.
Now in order to substantiate his claim ot have checked, Mooney released the details of his check to two of his supporters. The first, TB is so far as I can see just a poster on Mooney’s site, the second, Jean Kazez has her own blog, on which she has decided to use the Belkar Bitterleaf defence. Essentially claiming that William’s claim that he lied about the convention cannot be trusted, because William is an admitted liar.
This, questionable, logic and a fair few issues with how cagey the three with the evidence have been, led to a somewhat skeptical comments section. A skepticism which the philosopher Jeremy Stangroom likened to a witch hunt, highlighting harsh comments like the following:
And…
That is about the best he could do.
Now, I don’t agree with the first, personally I think it has less to do with honesty and a whole lot more to do with a serious case of cognative dissonance. A matter of the new accomodationists (See, I can call people “new-somethings” too!) wanting that story to be true so much, that they can’t quite move over to it not being.
But neither is actually harsh at all, the accusations made by William have been rubbished, Mooney owes a lot of people a serious apology for vouching for what turned out to be a pack of lies, and that is about that.
As to the argument that he is 23 and thus just a kid, there I disagree with Ophelia. 23 is in every sense an adult with adult responsibilities. Forgive because he said sorry? Okay. But 23 is too old to say he is just a dumb kid.
Bruce – wull, brain development isn’t complete until age 25, so 23 in that sense isn’t really fully mature. Plus it’s, you know, young. I don’t expect huge insight or wisdom from people who are 23. Maybe that’s just because I’m so much more than 23 that everybody that far away looks like a pinhead, as if I were looking through the wrong end of a telesope. Or maybe it’s just because I was such a pinhead when I was 23…but then I was such a pinhead for a lot longer than that, so then again maybe not.
Anyway…I don’t exactly forgive him in any case (however old he is). When he did the first “I was the sock puppets” confession I was willing to act as if I “forgave” him…I asked him a question or two but I also said it wasn’t for the sake of making him grovel some more.
Now – well, it’s different. He added more stuff, but he also clammed up. He’s Not Helping. He’s protecting himself at the expense of a lot of other people. I’m not “baying for his blood”; I’m not on a “witch hunt”; but I’m not at all convinced that he deserves all this help in hiding his identity. I don’t necessarily want to out him, but I don’t think other people should be covering him up. He’s not an innocent. What he did wasn’t just “stupid”; it wasn’t just a prank or a joke or a funny little hobby. He hid his valuable identity in order to slander various people who have done nothing wrong – Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, and me, in particular. He called us liars – drunkards – people who pull their pants down and shit out words – whiners – and similar fragrant epithets – all while protecting his own precious identity. I think the tender sensitivity to his privacy is warped and bizarre.
People are pinheads at 23 (I’m not looking forward to it).
Hmm…There are a lot of angry anons who’d love to get their greasy screens on “William”‘s identity. However much of a ninnyhammer the fellow’s doubtless been, if it spills out his life and career are on a slope to shitsville.
Ah, my 20-year-old brain isn’t fully developed yet…
Really, age is no excuse or charge here…
Yes well that’s true – good point. If his identity does get out there will be all sorts of awful vigilantism, and I certainly don’t advocate that. Okay, in that sense protectiveness does make more sense. And maybe that’s what Jean is thinking.
Ophelia
I am all of 27, so for me I tend to think back to myself a few years ago and while I did stupid shit… William’s game needs to be recorded somewhere, its an epic.
Ag, anyway the other side of this is that the framer side of the argument is facing a serious credibility challenge. Mooney didn’t just need to say how he fell for a con, he needed to say sorry for lending it his credibility.
And that is something I am not holding my breath for.
As one of the people who has called for Mooney and Zazez to come clean I’d like to point out that my call is for transparency. Right now the situation is clear as mud, with Mooney and Zazez deliberately obfuscating and trying to mislead us, using such tactics as Mooney opining without evidence that there might also be an equivalent army of New Atheist Sockpuppets, Mooney and Kazez both trying to claim that while “Tom Johnson” is a proven and admitted serial liar that his “conservation event” fable **could** still be true, Kazez trying to claim that “Tom Johnson” isn’t a sock puppet of “William” (as if that is some how relevant or exculpating to Mooney) all while admitting that, yes, “Tom Johnson” is, in fact, one of the many ‘nyms used by “William”, and many more.
Because of all the lies by “Tom Johnson” and because of the disingenuous posts and deliberately misleading statements by Mooney the only way to clarify this whole mess is for all of the details to be released, including the actual identity of “Tom Johnson” and correspondence Mooney had with him. Might that have a negative impact on Tom Johnson? Sure. Too bad. Sorry “Tom.” Actions have consequences, though clarity is my main reason for this call. And I don’t necessarily think “Tom Johnson’s” actions should affect his degree track unless he specifically violated academic polices at his school, as I noted in detail at Kazez blog, before she closed down her comments and plugged her ears to contrary views and then proceeded to unreasonably harsh on Ophelia.
I, for one, do not consider a call for openness and transparency to be a “witch hunt” nor “baying for blood,” and I’d say that anybody who makes such a patently silly accusation is being spurious at best.
“Must men stand by what they write
as by their camp-beds or their weaponry
or shell-shocked comrades while they sag and cry?”
Well, “William” seemed to be determined to damage the reputations of others by telling lies about them; it seems only reasonable that his own reputation should be damaged by people telling the truth about him.
@Bruce Gorton:
I have to add that I’d be more sympathetic to those who wish to protect Tom by keeping his identity if a) Tom had come forward on his own, or b) when he was caught and fessed up if he had **actually** fessed up. Instead, Tom kept lying, keeping his actions as “Tom Johnson” secret and possibly lying about what he told Mooney as a way of throwing people off the trail. “Tom Johnson,” it seems, is **still lying**–that is certainly the take that Jean Kazez, in possession of the Sekrit Evidence from Mooney, is suggesting. If that is the case then the idea of continuing to keeping his identity secret is really unsupportable, especially for Kazez who purports to have evidence that he is still lying, or at least that his last communications to the Buhdda’s Not Serious were lies.
So, again, I’d say the only way to clear up this mess is to be fully open and transparent and let some sunshine fall on this. The truth might hurt a few involved, but as far as I can tell, it can only hurt the guilty in this situation. I think the sunshine will do us all some good.
Jean seems to argue that because “this is not a trial” we should somehow put more trust in her testimony and cannot use words like “hearsay” to describe it. I’d say it works exactly the other way around. Testimonies in a court room can generally be considered more trustworthy because they are given under penalty of perjury.
Both Chris and Jean are acting like really poor skeptics here. They seem to have learned something from Christian apologetics: I have some secret knowledge that I cannot or will not reveal, so you are just gonna have to trust me and no you are not justified in your disbelief.
I have some secret knowledge that I cannot or will not reveal, so you are just gonna have to trust me and no you are not justified in your disbelief.
or- as Groucho Marx put it- “Who are you going to believe- me or your own eyes?”
Well, yes…Saying “I’m privy to secret evidence and you just have to trust me on this” doesn’t cut it when the subject is contentious. In fact it’s exactly like Mooney trying to vouch for “Tom Johnson” last October when it was Mooney and his claims that were at issue in the first place. “I’m right because ‘Tom Johnson’ has a story that matches and ‘Tom Johnson’ is a-ok because he has told me so; would I lie to you?” It’s just ridiculously circular.
And (again) journalists are supposed to know this kind of thing…So are philosophers, for that matter.
This is my take on where all this leaves the “conservation event”.
As originally published, the story was plausible to Mooney et al because the storyteller presented themselves as a credible source. Mind you, at the point the story was “elevated”, Mooney didn’t know who “Tom” was – at that point no checks had been made. To others, the story looked implausible because it lacked the kind of veracity of detail that you would be looking for, and/or the source didn’t come across as credible.
It’s not unreasonable to use eyewitness testimony, if the eyewitness is a plausible one and the events are not inherently improbable or implausible. What was described *could* have happened, particularly as the story crystallised under cross examination. Of course, if you don’t know who the eyewitness is, or their testimony doesn’t quite ring true in certain respects, then you are not going to be impressed. But you’re going to have to do quite a lot of work to demonstrate that it is impossible that there are scientists out there who might behave as unprofessionally as described.
But it’s worth noting that the argument has not been between accommodationists saying, “look at this, aren’t these people awful” and non-accommodationists saying “excellent, this is exactly what we think should happen”.
Instead, the non-accommodationists have been casting doubt on the story itself, the implication being that they don’t think it would be a creditable way to behave either, or else they don’t think that individual rudeness establishes any more general case.
It’s worth remembering that.
“William”s confession destroys the credibility of “Tom Johnson’s” testimony. What it doesn’t do, however, is prove that the “conservation event” was made up. That’s a simple matter of logic. Clearly it’s circumstantial evidence against the truth of the story, but it’s not something we can claim to know. It’s worth exploring this.
“William” admitted to being “Tom Johnson” and claimed that “Tom Johnson” was not who he claimed to be when contacted by Mooney. He said the “conservation event” was an invention, but that it was based on things he heard other students say (it’s not clear what they were saying, and what about, mind you).
Now, I can see that “William” might have reasons for wanting to deny that “Tom Johnson” was who he claimed to be. Because if there are people out there who want to “out” him, they might start digging into who “Tom Johnson” was, and find out. So it’s an attempt to throw people like that off the scent.
But there is a problem. Undermining the identity of “Tom Johnson”, and associating that character with the sock puppet escapade, further undermines the credibility of the “conservation event”. Mooney is going to get challenged, and is obviously going to have to respond in some way. You would think this would be predictable, but on the other hand “William” is in a bad place and not thinking clearly.
And so, Mooney makes a statement to the effect that he was so sure that “Tom” was indeed who he claimed to be, that if it turns out he in fact isn’t, something serious has occurred – identity theft, something along those lines. He’s quite clear about this: he has quality evidence that “Tom” was a real person and a credible source for the conservation event (leaving aside the credibility of the actual events; if they did happen, this guy could have witnessed them happening).
Did “William” forget about his dealings with Mooney? Apparently not, because he mentions telling Mooney some lies about who “Tom” was. So he remembers talking to Mooney. But it seems he hasn’t remembered how good the evidence was that he provided to Mooney. Or else he’s taking a big risk.
Either Mooney will be in a position to prove that he is lying about “Tom” not being whoever “Tom” is; or he will be in a position to inform whoever “Tom” is pretending to be, that someone has stolen their identity. And that might lead to further (legal?) complications.
Mooney has chosen not to reveal the identity of “Tom”. This is lucky for “Tom”, for sure, but would he have been able to rely on Mooney taking that line? Mooney might have been so upset by the revelation that the conservation event was made up, that he retaliated by naming his source.
Or else “Tom” is confident that Mooney doesn’t actually have proof of who he is.
But then Mooney posts again to confirm that he has checked and “Tom” is indeed “Tom”. There’s been a phone conversation. Presumably published professional/institutional emails/phone numbers are being used, not just copies of webpages. I trust this, because for Mooney to mislead would be hugely risky to Mooney. If it were discovered that Mooney is bluffing about knowing who “Tom” is, that would be the end of Mooney’s career, wouldn’t it?
So all in all, I trust Mooney over “William” on the identity of “Tom”.
Does this rescue the conservation event? In terms of proof, no. In one respect, we’re no better off than we were before any of this happened. We have an eyewitness who would have been in a position to see what they claimed to have seen, if what they claimed to have seen had in fact happened. But there is no corroborative evidence. There should be other eyewitnesses, participants. Any of them could come forward, now, and give their version of events. Now this is famous, perhaps that will happen.
We know that “William” doesn’t tell the truth. We know that even if he is “Tom” and “Tom” is whoever “Tom” is. So that would be a good reason to doubt the story, though not disprove it. “Tom” is “Tom”, and he might just be trying cover his tracks.
Just to emphasise: recent events give us another reason to doubt the story. But they don’t furnish us with any more evidence that it is false.
In one respect, now that Mooney has had to come out and say “”Tom” really is who he says he is”, in circumstances where he can’t risk being disingenuous, that could give the accommodationist side a reason to continue to say, “well, this guy was well placed to see it if it happened, he’s could still have been an eyewitness”. In other words, I do think we can accept that the guy isn’t just J. Random Blogger. For what that’s worth.
Anyway, overall, we’re no further forward.
Leaving proof and evidence aside, it is in any case now impossible to do anything with the conservation event on the accommodationist side. It’s dead. Not because it’s been disproved, but because it was posted by someone who we know practised deception, whose testimony simply cannot be trusted. It’s tainted by that knowledge. Assuming “Tom” remains the only known alleged witness, this story is dead and will be buried. We don’t know it to be false, though we have grounds for suspicion, but the story now has no credibility.
Assuming “Tom”s identity stays a closely guarded secret, that’s the end of the road for the conservation event. “Tom” can’t rebut Mooney’s claim about robust identification, because he’d have to tell us what he gave Mooney – and who would believe him unless he released the actual documentary evidence? – and that would put either him or an innocent party under the spotlight, and either of those would have bad consequences.
Mooney is protecting “Tom”, and perhaps that is the right thing to do (maybe not everyone feels the same about that). Certainly he won’t gain anything from revealing his identity (his source is busted anyway). Mooney could use the knowledge he now has to investigate the conservation event further, talk to “Tom”s scientific colleagues, find other possible eyewitnesses. But if he does, he can’t use anything he finds out without revealing “Tom”.
Stalemate.
Dan
I don’t see any sound reason to trust **either** of them. It is time for us all to be able to move from such nonsense but rather to evaluating un-redacted evidence. Everybody who has it should release it.
Dan: “Or else “Tom” is confident that Mooney doesn’t actually have proof of who he is.”
This is very plausible.
Dan: “But then Mooney posts again to confirm that he has checked and “Tom” is indeed “Tom”. There’s been a phone conversation. Presumably published professional/institutional emails/phone numbers are being used, not just copies of webpages. I trust this, because for Mooney to mislead would be hugely risky to Mooney. If it were discovered that Mooney is bluffing about knowing who “Tom” is, that would be the end of Mooney’s career, wouldn’t it?”
Mooney was easily duped once already by Tricksy Tom. And recall that Mooney already misled by assuring his readers that Tom checked out in the “Thanks Tom” post and thus implying Tom’s story had merit.
Wouldn’t have to be a stalemate. Seeing how Oedipus has handled things thus far, I’d trust him to at least discern the truth if William provided him with confidential information. And I trust that he would be honest with us.
Gillt:
In contradicting “William”‘s own testimony, Mooney ran the risk of “William” retaliating, if what Mooney claimed were not true. Or he runs the risk of the truth coming out in the future. That would be very serious for Mooney. “William” might have responded: “Mooney claims he has checked me out. This is incorrect, he has never so much as emailed me”. It might go back to last Autumn, and “William” might reveal the content of the contact he and Mooney had then.
If Mooney were bluffing, he’d have to be pretty sure that “William” would never talk. And if he were bluffing, and didn’t know who “William” was, what pressure would Mooney be able to apply to keep his mouth shut? Has “William” said anything, anywhere, since Mooney re-confirmed his identification? (Would we know?!) If “William” were really worried about being fingered, I would have thought it in his interests to rebut Mooney. He hasn’t. That’s not proof, but it is interesting.
My scenario is that “William” was trying to protect his real identity. That seems plausible, given his behaviour. So the sock-puppet whose cover was closest to his real identity would need to have its cover disowned to cut off that line of enquiry. Should anyone come up with a name, or laboriously go through ever likely candidate one by one, it would remain deniable.
But the attempt failed because Mooney had good evidence of who he was. Were Mooney bluffing about this, or had been duped wouldn’t “William” have a strong motivation to continue to protect his identity by proving that Mooney was bluffing? That nothing more has been said does strongly suggest that Mooney isn’t bluffing.
You say that Mooney was duped by “Tom” already. I don’t see it. Sock puppets, yes, but at this point there is no proof, or even powerful evidence, that Mooney was duped. Either Mooney checked him out in reasonable fashion, or he didn’t. But either way, I don’t see that he was duped. What did I miss?
Nor do I see where Mooney “already misled” us by “assuring his readers that Tom checked out.”
Either he had checked or he hadn’t. You may believe that he hadn’t. The evidence that he hadn’t is “William”‘s testimony, but of course I’m of the view that “William” had more motivation to mislead about his identity being known than Mooney does about knowing his identity. I understand that your mileage may vary.
As for the merit of the story. First of all there’s a difference between the original story and what it became under questioning from yourself and others. I think it became something much more plausible. Of course, the fact it seemed to change would be a count against the veracity of the story. But assuming he is who Mooney thinks he is, I don’t think the account of some/a few atheist scientists being individually rude towards (or about) religious people is obviously outlandish. It’s not wholly unbelievable. As far as I know nobody on the non-accommodationist side is saying that atheists scientists ought to behave like that. In which case, the story has few if any wider implications of the kind that Mooney wanted to draw from it.
Obviously the stalemate persists only so long as the principals decline to reveal “William”‘s identity. If that ever happens, then more investigation will be possible. We might even find out if “William” really does have rude atheist colleagues. But my response would still be, “so what”?
To sum up: I don’t think Mooney is bluffing. Given that, matters are as they were. “Tom”‘s story (or what it became when “Tom” was pushed for clarification) is not impossible, but it is trivial. If Mooney isn’t bluffing, then “Tom”‘s confession was false in that respect. It’s a toss-up whether that makes his claim that the story he told was also made up (or, based on what other people said) more or less believable. But either way, the credibility of the only witness has gone up in flames. Even if he didn’t make up the story, nobody can take it seriously. It’s trivia anyway, since the over-dramatised first version was “clarified”.
Dan
I could be wrong on this, but I had always understood that in journalism it was OK to use anonymous sources for a story but NOT if they are the only source and there is no other evidence to support what they say.
I’m sure this story would never have been headlined in a newspaper without corroboration, I agree.
Dan
d.j.bye, can you think of an individual in the history of the human species that was more sycophantic to one person than “William” was to Mooney? Your arguments seem to ignore that issue. You already seem to be offering us red herrings, but suggesting among other things that Mooney would have to pressure “William” to stay quiet is even more of a red herring.
Perhaps everything I’ve speculated about will turn out to be completely wrong. Perhaps not. I’m just thinking it through.
You’re right though, some kind of personal or ideological loyalty might prevent “William” from undermining Mooney, if Mooney was bluffing and “William” knew it. There could be other reasons: just being plain tired and fed up of the whole thing could explain it too. Or just not being in a position to show that Mooney was bluffing.
So let’s consider a scenario.
“William” conned Mooney about the true identity of “Tom Johnson” – and/or Mooney didn’t take adequate steps to check. Mooney has to maintain his “he checked out” fiction or damage his own credibility still further. Having found his confession contradicted by Mooney, “William”, out of loyalty to (or after a conversation with) Mooney, decides to keep his counsel to be helpful to Mooney.
I have a few problems with that scenario. First of all, both “William” and Mooney are taking big risks, betting that the truth will never come out. Because if it does, there will be trouble – for both of them. Secondly, if “William” did indeed fool Mooney, that would suggest a less than sycophantic attitude on “William”‘s part.
If “William” were so loyal to Mooney that he was prepared to allow him to contradict his confession in public, which could after all lead to serious repercussions if anyone joins the dots in future, then how come he wasn’t so loyal as to simply deny being “Tom Johnson” in the first place? Doing so, after all, has predictably caused a bit of a scandal for Mooney.
And Mooney has to dump the conservation event story whether “William”‘s confession is true or not, after all, so it’s not like contradicting “William” helps him at all.
Do you see it playing out differently?
Dan
Elizabeth:
I agree, but it is a bit strange for such a person to represent himself as “an evolutionary biologist at a major research university” who constantly gets invited to attend “conservation events” with his “colleagues”. It gives a completely different impression of his professional experience if he never mentions being a student. (master’s? PhD?)
I think it may well be true that “William”/”Tom” is a young student, and Mooney doesn’t want to reveal any more details since he would be (rightfully) ridiculed some more for condoning “Tom”‘s puffed-up representation of himself.
Doesn’t all this kind of thing just prove that the whole interwebs business has been a bad idea, and we should switch them off now?
No, please. I need money for rent and food. I will gladly put up with people anonymously slagging each other over stupid stuff so that I can continue to have a job.
I posted this as a comment over at Mooney’s blog in response to another <a href=”http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/07/12/setting-the-record-straight-on-ophelia-benson/”>’comment closed'</a> post:
<blockquote>“One “bilbo” repeatedly called me a liar after I posted a list of questions for M and K.”
She mis-attributed the comment, but it’s right here at comment 104, by TB. And more, calling Ophelia a troll in comment 111. Was TB banned in July 2009?</blockquote>
(Apparently they closed the comments shortly after mine disappeared into moderation.)
I just wanted to post it somewhere else so it wouldn’t get completely lost.