When a “source” uses a journalist to perpetrate a fraud
Several people (some via email rather than comments) have pointed out this observation of Glenn Greenwald’s in a letter at Salon:
I think it’d be worth it to sue [Andrew Breitbart] just to uncover his “source” who did the editing. “Journalists” are supposed to expose their “sources” if they use the journalist to perpetrate a fraud.
Ignore the part about suing, that’s not the issue here. The issue is the implicit claim that a fraudulent “source” does not deserve or have a right to remain anonymous and the explicit claim that journalists are supposed to expose such sources when they (the sources) use the journalist to propagate the fraud. The above-mentioned people note that this means Chris Mooney, being a journalist, is supposed to expose his fraudulent “source” who used him to perpetrate a fraud.
That is an interesting point. It prompted me to take another look at those two (everlasting, wretched) “Tom Johnson” posts. Well yes – Mooney does help the fraud to perpetrate smears of Dawkins, PZ and Jerry Coyne.
In Counterproductive Attacks on Religion – Exhibit A “Tom Johnson” says
Many of my colleagues are fans of Dawkins, PZ, and their ilk and make a point AT CONSERVATION EVENTS to mock the religious to their face, shout forced laughter at them, and call them “stupid,” “ignorant” and the like…
In comment 10 on that post “Tom Johnson” corroborates his own story by saying it’s true:
Sorbet, I don’t doubt that you have NA friends who are not combative, but please don’t doubt that I have NA colleagues that are. For what it’s worth, I’m not exaggerating my case or making things up.
Well, it is, of course, worth nothing, and exaggerating and making things up are exactly what he was doing. He goes on, in his pleasant way:
…when I ask them about why they feel that they need to chastise the faithful when they’ve asked us to come help (trust me, we have heated discussions), they directly quote PZ Meyers, Jerry Coyne (especially), and Dawkins as why it should be a “good” scientist’s job these days to attack the faithful – no matter how moderate the faithful may be. I then get called a faithiest (thanks, Jerry Coyne) for NOT calling the religious ignorant and stupid.
So there you have it – a known fraud telling lies about people on the blog of a journalist, who is still protecting his identity. “Journalists” are supposed to expose their “sources” if they use the journalist to perpetrate a fraud.
On the second post, My Thanks to Tom Johnson, Mooney smeared a number of people:
Last week, the New Atheist comment machine targeted the following post, in which I republished a preexisting blog comment from a scientist named “Tom Johnson” (a psuedonym).
I’m part of that offensively-named “machine” because I did a post, not “targeting” the Tom Johnson post, but pointing out that it looked like bullshit and was the product of an anonymous source and that Mooney, as a journalist, should be more skeptical than that. I was right, and I did nothing wrong in expressing skepticism about “Tom Johnson,” but I was part of the smear based on the lies told by the fraudulent “source.” “Journalists” are supposed to expose their “sources” if they use the journalist to perpetrate a fraud.
Food for thought.
Did he really write “psuedonym”?
More and more it becomes clear that Mooney is what Richard Feynman would have called a cargo-cult journalist.
[…] View full post on journalist – Google Blog Search […]
Honestly, and I’m not trying to slag, I think new atheists would look better letting this Tom Johnson thing go. I mean, not completely; it’s completely valid to point out that Chris Mooney doesn’t seem sufficiently skeptical of dubious sources that reinforce his “biases” (scare quotes only because I don’t really believe it’s a bias so much as a self-consciously adopted strategy); it’s completely valid to point out that he didn’t handle the implosion of his source’s credibility very gracefully; and it’s completely valid to point out that he doesn’t acknowledge or respond to legitimate criticisms.
Obviously, you have good reasons to take some parts of this quite personally, Ophelia. Still, I can’t help but thinking the most damning case against Mooney would simply to point and laugh rather than demand outcomes that have the potential to seriously harm a person’s career.
Even if the person deserves it, the parties asking for it ends up looking like jerks (even if they’re just being principled about it). And it really should be Mooney looking like a jerk here, which he would if everybody had just pointed at “You’re Not Helping/Tom Johnson” and said “Look, Mooney is not a credible voice in this debate.” Instead, Mooney comes out looking sympathetic to disinterested third parties because the criticisms are so vehement (not saying the vehemence isn’t justified).
I guess that’s pretty much Mooney’s strategy too; instead of engaging and criticizing an opponent directly, engage the audience and try to convince them your opponent isn’t worth listening to in the first place. But Mooney really isn’t worth listening to. Let’s just say that, say why, and leave him out of the conversation altogether. His unwillingness to respond to criticism or admit error should reflect badly on him, not on us.
Ophelia, do you plan to respond to Mooney’s silly attempt to smear you? Anyone who reads the links he gives will see it as a bogus argument, but few people will probably do that. Maybe updating your “exposed” post with the TB/bilbo correction and a brief note would be sufficient, or whatever you decide. Or if there is already a refutation of it somewhere, I can link to that from my “curious case” post.
Point and laugh at whom? We don’t have any idea who the person we should be pointing and laughing at is, the person behind the fraud. And that is kind of the point. Anyway, the gist of your position is that people should be able to perpetrate frauds without **any** consequences, because it would be wrong for them to have any accountability for their actions and deliberate chain of of lies and defamations. That is the extension of what you are saying. It is a position that is pretty hard to defend except from a fear-based perspective of “Oh, people will criticize us for for exposing a self-admited liar.” Really? Exposing an admitted serial liar is bad? I don’t thinks so, but you seem to.
We mustn’t let fear prevent us from doing the right thing. That is what happened when the Obama administration, in fear of criticism from Fox News and the right wing, hastily forced the resignation of Shirley Sherrod. Instead, we should act on sound principles regardless of whether shrill critics may rant and rave. They will do that in any case, even if they have to make stuff up, as we well know from this very kerfuffle. And keep in mind that principles are the things you stick to even when it is hard, not things you do only when it is easy and convenient. I think sticking to our principles is a win for us. And the principles of openness, transparency, honesty and accountability all say that the identity of “Tom Johnson,” self-admitted serial liar and confirmed fabulist, should be made public.
He’s not telling lies about some “new athiests”, he said that he personally witnessed other scientists saying that Dawkins, PZ, and Coyne are the reason otherwise normal people come unhinged when they see a religious person.
Mooney calls this exhibit A.
All this “it could get worse if we demand the truth” nonsense is giving away the Sudetenland, er rather the “Student Land”.
Mooney said, “this still must MIGHT be TRUE”. This guy, Tom Johnson was very invested in this, his career?
What about Ted Haggard’s career? He was only hurting “gay people” not the reputation of any particular person?
I think the “lets care about poor Tom Johnson” is absurd. Lets simply find out the truth. For all we know, Tom Johnson attends a seminary in Alabama. We all seem to think he’s going to grow up to cure cancer or something.
He’s a grownup, and his lies are so convoluted and bold, and persistent that it is a good bet that he’s a danger to others … his “career”. Sheesh.
Mooney has never apologized or said that he was tricked into defaming Dawkins, Coyne or PZ – and he never said that his biases on this issue, led him to believe something that was far fetched on his face.
When confronted, Mooney said, mumble mumble, it might still be true. I wouldn’t have used it if I knew what I seem to know now … all of this is far short of the simple, I was wrong, and we still don’t know where these militant people are, and the liar who tricked me who said he was a scientists, was actually a seminarian.
and of course the simple: I’m sorry, I was wrong.
Finally now I remember what it is that this Mooney-“Johnson” nonsense has been reminding me of. Thank you — it’s been itching at me.
Back in 1990, Idaho was targeted by national anti-abortion groups as a political/legal laboratory. The strategy was to get a state to pass a very hardline anti-abortion bill and, they hoped, get a more conservative Supreme Court to nullify Roe v. Wade. It looked like a breeze for the anti-abortion groups right up until Cecil Andrus, well known to be opposed to abortion, actually sat down to think about the thing’s particular provisions. You can imagine the hullabaloo. It was a circus, if you can imagine a circus with the dual theme of abortion and potatoes. The anti-abortion people tried to bribe Idaho with a promise of tripling their spud consumption. They marched around with signs: “Pro Life, Pro Spud”. Pro-choicers were going to boycott Idaho potatoes if it passed. NOW dumped potatoes on the capitol steps.
Andrus writes in his autobiography, Politics Western Style, “My office was even the recipient of a hoax phone message, allegedly from Mother Teresa, sternly admonishing me to sign the bill. It turned out she was in the mountains of India, and incommunicado. That didn’t stop Washington, D.C., columnist Bob Novak from writing that I had refused to accept a phone call from Mother Teresa.”
Oh, Mooney. That’s the guy you’ve been reminding me of. You’re our own little Bob Novak.
I guess that makes Mooney the Andrew Breitbart of accommodationism.
Dan L:
I think you owe us an explanation for this Dan L. This is slagging. Ophelia has raised an important point, and showed a parallel with another, similar case. Frauds shouldn’t get special protection here. What’s this about careers? If the guy is so desperate for attention that he needs to make up stories to denigrate others, why should his identity be protected? And in what way is asking for some transparency to look like a jerk?
Give me strength? Enough of this nonsense. The whole thing was misinformation from start to finish, and Mooney has had a big part in spreading the rumour around, and dissing people who disagreed with him, and he’s used fraudulent speech to help him do it. Time for the Mooney to be right up front, acknowledge his faults, and reveal the name of the idiot who played such a big part in smearing some very distinguished people or their allies. It’s a lie. Let’s find out who the liar is. If this is the kind of person he is, why should his precious career be protected? Mooney depended on him to make some very damning points. He favoured him because TJ voiced opinions which Mooney himself approves on pretty scant basis. Time for the great framer to back down, do some honest framing for a change, and give everyone the skinny on the whole sad tale.
Scote@6:
Despite the fact that I tried to make this very clear in my post to head off utterly predictable posts like yours.
So you don’t see a difference between “exposing a serial liar is bad” and “trying to expose this particular serial liar is pointless because a) it’s not going to happen b) even if it does, the consequences aren’t going to make anyone’s life better c) demanding DIVINE ATHEIST JUSTICE just makes you look like an asshole d) Tom Johnson is fantastically fucking unimportant”? I could add: “e) since no positive consequences will follow from outing Tom Johnson, isn’t doing so really just revenge? And isn’t the desire for revenge a primitive, irrational instinct that makes us all less human when we succumb to it?” But I didn’t want to moralize in this case, because Ophelia has some justification for desiring revenge at this point.
As far as I know, you don’t. You just want to see someone go down in flames, then? Good on you.
Again, it’s not fear that’s making me say “let the fucking Tom Johnson thing go.” Fear is like when you’re afraid something’s going to hurt you or otherwise make your life miserable. This is more like the feeling you get in a Ben Stiller comedy. Cringing embarrassment on behalf of someone who you feel like you should empathize with, but whose bizarre behavior nevertheless prevents you from doing so. This sentence is a case in point. Some Random Internet Asshole makes anonymous comments slagging a bunch of people and perpetrating falsehoods, and this is fucking news? You don’t think “We musn’t let fear prevent us from doing the right thing” is a little bombastic, considering some Random Internet Asshole or other anonymously slags other people and promotes falsehoods every 0.00003 seconds or so? Why THIS Random Internet Asshole and not the other billion or so?
I’m not the least bit afraid of Tom Johnson. That’s why I think people should let it go. The real problem is not Tom Johnson, it’s Mooney’s media megaphone that was used to spread the dubious TJ narratives in the first place. I’m saying screw TJ; he’s completely unimportant and already marginalized. But let’s take away Mooney’s megaphone so we don’t get any more TJs.
Bob Novak – now that’s got to sting!
Eric@11:
Come on. You’re usually so good with this stuff. Why do you have to give me the least charitable reading possible?
I said people hounding Mooney and Kazez for TJ’s secret identity would look like assholes to disinterested third parties. Actually, I think it’s worse than that; Kazez gave her word not to out TJ and people were lambasting her for refusing to break a promise — and I think that’s pretty fucked up. But mostly, I just think it looks bad. And I tried to be very clear about this. I even put in parentheses — and you even quoted — even if you’re just being principled about it you still look like an asshole.
And I agree with you, and tried to be VERY clear about this in my first post, that Mooney is and has always been in the wrong on this issue as well. In fact, that’s the whole point of my post, that instead of using this as an opportunity to demand vengeance against Random Internet Asshole #987,003, we should have used it as an opportunity to say, “Look, Mooney has no credibility.” Not give him the chance to retract or apologize — that’s already been done. Just point out, “Look, Mooney pushes dubious stories from admitted liars, and refuses to acknowledge when the source’s credibility has gone out the window. Let’s stop pretending he has anything worthwhile to say.”
Dan L,
We know who Mooney is. We don’t know who “Tom Johnson” is. And you are wrong, it could come out. And it would be a good thing. I’ve read your reasoning and I find it un-convincing.
Dan L – would you mind not accusing me of wanting revenge at all? I get enough of that from other quarters.
Tom Johnson is fantastically fucking unimportant in the great scheme of things, of course, but so are most things. He’s fantastically fucking unimportant to you; he’s not quite so fantastically fucking unimportant to me, because he’s done me some damage, possibly a lot of damage.
But it’s not necessarily wanting revenge to think that some kinds of actions should have consequences. It’s not wanting revenge at all to think that Tom Johnson shouldn’t be pseudonymous in case he feels tempted to smear people in the future. (He’s supposed to be not-William according to the Mooney faction, but I see no reason to believe what they say.)
I’m not demanding divine atheist justice.
The Random Internet Asshole repeated his smears enough so that they are now stuck to some of us; to me, for one. It hasn’t just disappeared. I’m a starving freelance; it’s not helpful to me that googling my name turns up a lot of shits calling me a liar.
This was my version of exactly what you said in your last post. I didn’t say “Ophelia wants REVENGE,” I said “Ophelia has some justification for wanting revenge” (“whether she actually does want it or not” was supposed to be implied). That is to say, I was acknowledging that you have legitimate reasons to be upset about this. Which is what you posted this last thing to say.
Good for who? How?
Does it help Ophelia with anything but piece of mind? No. Those google hits that make her look bad aren’t going anywhere unless Mooney takes them down. Tom Johnson has nothing to do with that; even if he makes it known who he is, those google results stay there.
Does it help Tom Johnson? Maybe in a “this is going to hurt you more than it hurts me” kind of way, yeah. Mostly it’s going to make his life more difficult, and maybe he even deserves it. But I think demanding for his life to made difficult just because maybe I think he deserves it is fucked up. Maybe that’s just my own ethos on revenge. At any rate, this guy isn’t going to be very well-disposed towards new atheists after this ordeal.
Does it help society at large? I don’t see how.
Does it help Mooney? Yes, actually. He gets this big story about how those mean new atheists badgered him and his buddies just so they could ruin this guys life, and how even though Mooney stalwartly defended his charge, some big meany found out who Tom Johnson is anyway, and now his life is ruined. Look at all those mean old new atheists. And it would all be out-of-context bullshit, and that would not matter at all to his intended audience.
Even if I agreed with you in principle, and I don’t, it would still be terrible strategy. And yes, we’re not supposed to worry about strategy, we’re supposed to be singularly concerned with “da TwO0F!!1!!!11!!!!1!!”. But I’m still getting that Ben Stiller movie feeling.
Oh shut up. Go sneer on The Intersection or somewhere.
Ophelia:
I’m not in any way trying to criticize you. I’ve tried to be very clear that I think that any anger you feel in this situation is justified. I’m not sure where your last comment is coming from, or how you could possibly think I’m pro Mooney after my history of commenting here.
But if you like, I’ll stop visiting B&W even though I’ve been a pretty big fan. Sorry to have offended you.
Noooooooooooo I don’t want you to stop visiting, but the joke about da Twoof was irritating. I do care about the truth, dammit.
Look; this post is my doing; I don’t stand for “new atheists” and what I do doesn’t make “new atheists” look bad. I thought it was an interesting point, and I thought some of the old stuff was newly interesting in the light of that point – in the light of the parallel with Breitbart. I’m not demanding revenge, I’m not demanding that X Y or Z happen to Tom Johnson or William or John Williamson or William Thompson, I’m not crucifying Jesus all over again. I’m basically making a point about Mooney as a journalist. Sure it’s tedious to people who are bored by it, but I assume they won’t read it.
Sili (comment 1) – well he must have! I pasted it in, after all.
Oedipus, no, I don’t. For the kinds of reasons Dan is pointing to, and because other people have done so, and the like. Plus it’s so boring – as Dan tactfully hints. :- )
I’ve read this thread with interest. In the end, I just can’t understand why defamation should have no consequences is a principle that I should adopt.
Ophelia, the reason I asked is because I feel partially responsible. Mooney may have been compelled to launch that ignominious assault on you because I forced the issue in my “curious case” post. It’s a high-profile post with a lot of hits, as Mooney realizes.
Right now, disinterested passersby will probably buy Mooney’s attack. They won’t click the links or go googling for the real answer. But if you add a short note to the “exposed” post about the TB/bilbo confusion and why it’s irrelevant, then that should deflate much of the attack’s puffiness.
I won’t press any further; it’s just that I kinda feel bad about it.
Rights? Mooney just wants this to go away. He doesn’t have to admit he’s created a house of cards and his exhibit a is slander. Remember, this all might be true. Mooney says so.
Oedipus yes it was all your fault! :- )
Except that I did plenty of Mooney-provoking myself, so I daresay that had something to do with it.
Don’t feel bad. Next to William’s 3 months’ worth of obscene libelous ravings, Mooney’s post is a mere blip.
Rather than “feel[ing] kind of bad about it” why don’t you do something instead? Like publish the identity of “Tom Johnson” if you know it. One of the reasons that Ophelia was smeared was because “Tom Johnson”/”William”/Sockpuppets et al expected no real world accountability for his defamation. And you are still helping that to remain the case. The way to resolve the issue of the defamation, in part, is for the facts to come out and put a real person to the false accusations. Not out of revenge, but out of a quest for the truth, to set things right, and for people to be **accountable** for their actions. On what basis do you oppose that?
Ophelia:
It is an interesting point, it wasn’t obvious to me, and I’m glad you made it. I think you’re one of a very few people who have a legitimate grievance with this guy, and I was mostly trying to hint that maybe some other people should let it go. It’s not you that looks like you’re speaking for new atheism, it’s the chorus.
And let’s face it: this guy’s life is fucking ruined if his name gets out. Whatever your personal idea of justice in this case is, and I’m sure it’s a reasonable one for everyone commenting here, there’s someone out there with a much more perverse sense of justice (or none at all) that won’t mind doing something heinous and cowardly. I’m not necessarily saying life- or health-threatening, but you only need a dozen determined lowlifes on the internet to make someone’s life a living hell.
I like to think of myself as a person of principle, but it’s a long-standing theme in history and literature that standing on principle puts you at a disadvantage. Often, I find the disadvantage is that one seems unreasonably yielding when they’re arguing something on principle. Usually, I just deal with this; I’m not usually the one to make “da twoof” joke. I agree there’s a tension between the idea of framing and the idea of speaking the plain truth, and I come down squarely on the truth side.
But I think in this case the disadvantage of doing the principled thing is that the probable consequences really are much worse than are warranted by the wrongdoing. Not only that, but I don’t see how the principled thing has any significant good consequences. Yes, this guy deserves some kind of repercussions for this, almost certainly beyond what he’s gotten. But I’m pretty sure if his name comes out that he’s going to get much worse than he deserves. Please don’t take this sentiment personally; I’m not the target and I don’t profess to understand how you’re feeling about it.
As I said in the first post, I don’t think people, least of all you, should stop criticizing Mooney about this. The post does seem to angle for Mooney to out Tom Johnson, but it’s unfair accuse you of demanding it on that basis. At any rate, some people are certainly demanding it, and I think that those people should certainly let it go. As I said, you have a legitimate grievance here. I’m sorry to have come across as suggesting otherwise.
See, that clarifies the point for me – it clarifies why Dan is wrong (and why Mr “baying for blood” is wrong, too). It’s not that I’m slavering for revenge. It’s that the anonymity is what made the whole thing possible – and the whole thing was really extraordinarily vicious. The lack of any consequences is what made it possible, so there really are principled reasons for saying he does not have an obvious right to enjoy a lack of consequences forever.
OK, this thing about anonymous sources and their requirement to be revealed if fraudulent doesn’t really sit well with me.
Seems to me that if a journalist chooses to offer his sources anonymity in the “real world”, then he is implicitly saying he will stand behind the information right or wrong, that if there is any fallout it will come to the journalist and not the source. It’s obviously up to the journalist to try and make sure that his information is correct, because it’s his reputation on the line – not the source’s reputation.
I’m not seeing how this situation is any different. As an anonymous commenter on a blog, Mooney was obviously not responsible for anything Tom said – but as soon as he started quoting him, then surely it is nothing more than special pleading not to point the blame squarely at Mooney himself. Of course Tom is reprehensible for lying, but journalists are supposed to verify information before quoting it. Mind you, “special pleading” is pretty much the accommodationist catchphrase…
Scote, you’ve already quoted my words so I assume you’ve read them:
Consequences can be brought upon him, but not by you.
Oh please. Ruined?
Perhaps he is telling the truth remember?
Mooney said so.
Dan, that’s ok. Sorry I was huffy.
I’m squeamish about outing him myself…but I’m not sure I’m right to be squeamish. I don’t feel much concern about Andrew Breitbart’s source, for instance – I just think that person (if there is such a person) should be exposed. I’m not sure why William would be more at risk from crazed internet loons than anyone else – this is a pretty local fuss, for one thing.
Anyway – if Greenwald is right – there is a real issue of journalistic ethics here. That aspect of Mooney’s MO has puzzled and interested me all along. I really don’t get it.
No that wasn’t quite it – it was a requirement that they be revealed if they used the journalist to perpetrate a fraud.
Just saying.
Not sure that matters. Journalists that want to use anonymous sources, as far as I am concerned, should “let the buyer beware”.
Dude got trolled and then didn’t apologise for it. Trolling is bad, m’kay – no arguments – but if you are regularly trolled as a professional journalist, then don’t you pretty much have to admit that you suck at your chosen profession (at the very least)?
This reminds me of the Proposition 8 anti-gay campaign in California. The proponents didn’t want to be outed and they lost at the supreme court. One mormon woman whose family ran a restaurant in LA gave money to the campaign because her bishop told her to, but became upset because the workers and diners who were gay started to boycott the restaurant. She was a hostess there and she knew all of these people and yet she acted against them. She complained that she couldn’t go to work because people were mean to her. Actions have consequences, actions have consequences. The perpetrator of the TJ lies needs to learn this basic fact.
Oh, that’s a good parallel. So we’ve got Michael Novak, we’ve got Breitbart, and we’ve got the proponents of Prop 8. Interesting.
I think there is a great deal of anger directed at this person from people who aren’t really justified in being angry, and I think that will manifest somehow if his identity gets out. Maybe I’m just cynical, but human beings still relentlessly disappoint me — if I were really cynical, I wouldn’t have anything to be disappointed about.
Sounds like Oedipus kinda handled it anyway. Go team.
No, no, no. A journalist is not obligated to respect the anonymity of a source whose intent was to exploit the journalist for purposes of fraudulent defamation. You should not allow Mooney’s embarrassment with his complicity to be distorted into some kind of noble gesture.
Ruined? Does anyone know how Lee Siegel and Orlando Figes are doing?
Yeah, I read that, and it is crap. It is you abrogating your personal responsibility by passing the buck. That is you **ducking** responsibility, not taking it, a rather ignoble end to what was a noble effort to get to the truth, the latter being an effort you have now abandoned.
Utter BS. What happened to Mooney? Nothing. What happen to the people who are covering for Tom Johnson, including you, TB and Kazez? Nothing. But what will happen to “Tom Johnson”? Not much. But it will give the public a chance to double check his claims when he makes them in future under his own name. I’m really, really un-impressed by your support of withholding information to protect the guilty, and to keep the public in the dark about a self-admitted serial liar.
Go…team?
Ah, more of the “Baying for blood” accusations, because, as we all know, the New Atheists are such a violent, vengeful bunch, which is why they created an army of sock puppets and defamed people using lies and–oh, wait, that was “Tom Johnson” with the support of Mooney and his cadre of supporting trolls.
At this point Dan L. I think you are just concern trolling, but you might wish to consider a job as a defense lawyer: “If my client is held accountable he’ll have to suffer **consequences**, and that would be totally unjust to my guilty client!!!”
So I guess the only closure that would satisfy both parties would be if Tom Johnson comes clean himself, owns up to his real identity and admits his mistake (under his real identity) with some assurance of not repeating his activities.
Dan L. wrote:And let’s face it: this guy’s life is fucking ruined if his name gets out.
Are you serious? Do you really believe this? Some guy spreads some bullshit on the Internet and his life is ruined because people find out who it is? I can’t believe anyone in their right mind could actually believe this.
Scote (#44), I think that was unfair. Dan L isn’t concern trolling. What he may be doing, at least to some degree, is tone trolling.
What I mean by “tone trolling” is this: It seems to me that expressing concern about what sort of behavior might make some party or parties appear to be assholes to hypothetical disinterested outside observers is, at its heart, just another variation on the theme at the heart of the accommodationism position as Mooney and others advocate for it. The unifying theme here is the evidence-free assertion that someone or other’s tone is harming some not-very-well-delineated cause or movement. The claim is evidence-free on both ends, as it were, for not only is the claim of harm unsupported, the very idea that setting the wrong tone is keeping us from accomplishing our goals presumes that there is an “us” and that “we” share some largely unspecified goals – which in almost every case presumes far too much. Of course, what makes all this so very trollish is not simply the lack of evidence, but the fact that many if not all of the accommodationists making these claims consistently and persistently distort or simply lie about both the content and tone of the actual arguments advanced by the people they oppose – like when Mooney characterized Jerry Coyne’s perfectly reasonable and very well-reasoned book review of Ken Miller and Karl Giberson’s efforts as uncivil and intemperate and all sorts of bad, or Phil Plait’s recent embarrassing hyperbole.
The tone trolling characterization is not entirely fair to Dan L though, because he did make an effort to delineate and justify the latter parameters to some degree: That is, he wrote things to indicate some of what goals he thinks are important that his target audience (the people reading this thread) presumably shares. But the front-end argument about the harm – the whole “looking like assholes to disinterested observers” thing – is just as thin as the gruel served up on a daily basis by accommodationists. I find it figuratively unappetizing and literally unconvincing.
Dan is implying, like Tom Johnson is implying that there is some group of atheist inspired child soldiers who are high on a mix of PZ, Coyne, and Dawkins, and empowered by this licentious bunch and the echo chamber of the internet and go around and “hurt science”.
This is all a lie.
In actual fact, you have sockpuppets and dissemblers applying labels to men like Dawkins – and accusing them of “militancy” for writing books.
The idea of course being that the mob will read the books and break the stained glass windows and tear the clerics apart in fits of “reason”.
“Exhibit A” … is a fiction. A slanderous, libelous fiction, cooked up in the mind of a person who, didn’t just “exaggerate” but set up a series of elaborate ruses – positioned himself as an atheist in the deep south and tricked a prominent public intellectual into promoting him as “evidence” of his theory that we should all shut up.
This guy’s story, identity and circumstance are needed for us to carry on an important conversation.
Everyone, Mooney, Tom Johnson, all the NA’s and everyone will be served by studying this real life example of fraud.
Oedipus, cough it up, blog it up, and lets get our comment machine working. Tom Johnson, its judgement day. What Church do you really attend?
Does anyone think Tom Johnson is actually an atheist?
It is one thing to say, as an atheist that it is wise to give credit to religion in some areas, or to call PZ, and Coyne, occasionally boorish … or to think that so and so should adopt another tone.
But Tom Johnson was an elaborate fabrication that detailed the fantasy of what atheists are like. Screaming, shouting, hurtful people who don’t care about others feelings, etc …
Tom Johnson didn’t just opine that PZ and Coyne, might have a negative influence or put people off, but that they DID, and he witnessed it.
What kind of an atheist does this? A self hating one?
Really, Tom Johnson sounds like the ultimate believer to me. A person who can’t understand why the ends don’t justify the means.
Time and time again, the model of the evangelist is exposed as fraud … puddles of eye make up as they stare into the camera and beg forgiveness and understanding.
Lets see the running eye makeup of Tom Johnson … then lets decide if we want to forgive him for the lies he told, and the people who he’s hurt though his deception.
I’m hearing justice, I’m hearing revenge and not revenge, I’m hearing justified anger, I’m hearing consequences etc, etc. What I’m not hearing is what happens if this guy goes unexposed and one day gets a job where he can do much more serious damage, a job he would never get if his record were known. Does the person or agency who hires him get to be angry at us in 2010 for having left this alone and said, no , let’s not risk damaging the career of someone who’s been so recklessly vicious with the reputations of others? Do we end up looking better than someone who shifts a paedophile priest to a new parish where no one knows his reputation?
Dan L
What “William” did was basically engage in a long term defamation campaign against various figures. He was joined in this by various other posters on Mooney’s blog – TB for example.
In Ophelia’s case this has had a negative effect on her career.
A big part of revealing “William”‘s identity is not about revenge, but about full disclosure in order to repair the said damage.
It is not simply a matter of revenge, it is a matter of clearing one’s name.
And now we know what it is really all about for Chris Mooney:
I’ve a good mind to stop spelling his name right.
I’m sure this isn’t all that important, but I do want to point out to Dan L. that I didn’t miss anything that he was saying. I saw the remark about being principled. Yes, we could, and we have, pointed to Mooney and said that he’s really not being very open and honest about this, and that his framing got him into trouble. I haven’t said anything about Jean Kazez, nor have I bayed for her blood. I don’t know exactly what her role is in all this, but it does seem ambiguous, but I have never suggested that anything that she could do would really resolve this issue. Her promise was a second order one. It’s up to Mooney to come clean, not his confidants.
My concern is simply that a lot of people have said, about a lot of other people, that they are shrill, strident and just generally impolite in their attacks on religion. Not that some plain speaking is not in order. But Mooney got into the centre of this exciting little battle and introduced an aspect of supposedly real honest to goodness evidence of the way the New Atheists have been fomenting some bad table manners over religious belief. Now it turns out that this was a lie, and that it was opportunistically used by Mooney to strengthen the point that he was trying to make in his book Unscientific America. The problem, he suggests, with nutty religious belief about creationism is the fact that the “New Atheists” are so rebarbative and nasty, and just makes it all that more likely that they’re going to stick to their dogmatic idiocy, which shows that he knows next to nothing about dogmatic idiocy. It’s all about tone, says he. Let’s frame this in the right way, and before long people like Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson will be as cuddly as puppy dogs when it comes to evolution. They’ll finally see the point, and America can go on being a scientific power house.
Well, quite frankly, knowing a bit about religion and how it functions, I think this is a pipe dream. But I also think that promoting this pipe dream by playing fast and loose with the truth is really despicable. And since he has raised this TJ character to iconic status, the fake who claimed to have watched people influenced by the bad manners of people like Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, shouting obscenities (or whatever it was they were shouting) at public meetings, and being ‘in your face’ about their disbelief and contempt for religion, he has a responsibility to make this right. It’s not about revenge at all, so far as I can see. It’s about setting things right, and clearing the air, and perhaps even saying that he got so deeply involved in his own point of view that he simply couldn’t see anyone else’s. But in order to do this he simply has to let people know who this guy is who has played such an important bit part in the whole affair. And since it was all a fabricaton from start to finish, it doesn’t seem to me that TJ deserves any privacy over this. He’s already come forward anonymously to acknowledge his faults, but there’s been so much ambiguity over this — there’s still no clarity about whether he really was a witness of all this boorish behaviour — Jean Kazez, the last time I looked, was saying that it really did take place, and that there really was such an event — that only naming him and the supposed event or events at which he supposedly witnessed New Atheists doing their storied shrill and strident thing will clear the air.
Jean might have promised not to tell, and even Mooney may have done so, but now that we know he was resting his case on a fraud — a case, by the way, that he retailed at the LA Times and in Newsweek — that promise is effectively null and void. And he should come forward and let everyone in on the secret. It’s not about revenge at all. It’s about responsible reporting, at which Mooney so egregiously failed. And the man who helped him do it doesn’t deserve privacy here. Why should lies be privileged? And if, as Stewart says, he is the kind of man who is prepared to lie in order to make his way in the world, perhaps the sooner he is exposed the better for all concerned. And I don’t think those who think this look like jerks at all. In fact, failing to act like this is playing Mooney’s game. Let’s pretend we’re all friends, and that what we say is not important. What is important is how we say it. I think principled behaviour is more important than this. Sorry to go on at such length.
Just one thing more. PZ links the Intersection in connexion with Breitbart. The linked text ends with this:
In other words, forget about, it’ll all blow over. Now that is irresponsible journalism. Mooney doesn’t want to take responsibility. The shit’s too deep for him. But he could clean out the sewer by pulling the plug, and he won’t. That’s not only poor journalism, that’s bad personal morality. And framing gets you there.
It can’t really be a coincidence that the featured article on Wikipedia today is “Confirmation Bias”. Some or many journalists may be as prone to this as any other seemingly rational human being, but me passing on a “confirmation bias” friend of a friend tale over few pints doesn’t have the same weight or impact as a journalist and publication.
In too many cases blogs are replacing genuine articles and reporting and journalistic standards are slipping as a result. Well, they’re slipping any way, but online moreso as it moves to pure opinion pieces.
I don’t buy the mea culpa I was conned message. The point is you shouldn’t have been conned. It wasn’t difficult to check, you satisified yourself with minimal checks, you pay the price.
It may seem harsh (though in fairness his hope of forgiveness is at least consistent with his tea and cakes sit down approach to atheism), but the impact of reporting is huge. It sticks in society and no amount of sorries or retraction will ever remove that (not that we’be had that here). Look at celebrities who are accused in the media of various acts, they sue, they win, there’s a retraction, there’s an award, but there’s still a wink and a nod “no smoke without fire”.
Just because it’s a blog, just because it’s one comment doesn’t mean that those who wish to be seen as journalists should reduce their standards. Everything should be written and treated the same as if it were for “publication”. The consequences of failing to meet those standards should not only reflect the loss to those named in this case, but also as a deterrent to others.
There just isn’t any excuse in this case for the most basic journalistic failure. This wasn’t urgent, there was no rush, it wasn’t breaking news, it wasn’t of national importance (sorry Ophelia, but the “pub test” has the Brangelina defamtion up 40-Love over Tomgate), so at what point is there an excuse for his actions? I’ll admit, people want their stories now, a hundred or so characters on twitter and then more detail on numerous blogs. I can see where in order to maintain position in that area there’s a temptation to overlook some standards. But in this case? What difference would another day make? What difference would a week have made? What difference would a simple IP check make?
I sympathise with him, he messed up and was stung, but the consequences have to be enough that all journalists out there blogging learn the lesson too. It’s not wanting blood, it’s wanting people to subscribe to the standards and codes you have to when presenting yourself as a journalist.
Though I feel the motto in this case should be “What Would 4Chan do?”
Oh, Chris. I’m in tears.
Not a single mention in there about the grief the guy caused other people, nor Mooney’s complicity in same.
Dan, it’s clear that you’re not trolling, and a lot of electronic ink has already been spilt on this, but I think three points are worth adding:
1. If “Tom’s” career is in danger, that is *his* fault, not the fault of those trying to find out the truth.
2. Please don’t attribute motive to abstract people like “disinterested parties.” How would you know what disinterested parties would say? (And why are disinterested people so important? By the very nature of their disinterest, they are probably not going to come across this story so there is no point in trying to appeal to them.)
3. How do you know that no good will come of exposing “Tom”? Perhaps “Tom” will turn out to be a DI fellow. Perhaps “Tom” will turn out to be in a position of authority which he/she currently abuses and being sacked will protect the jobs of dozens of others. Perhaps “Tom” is out there sockpuppeting right now, having learnt some useful skills about covering tracks. Most likely “Tom’s” real identity will turn out to be of little importance to anyone but him/herself, but the only way to find out is, well, to find out.
I think what’s worse is that Mooney is trying to put all the blame on “Tom”, it’s also why the story linked in Ophelia’s post isn’t the same situation as this case.
Let’s not forget “Tom” is just a kid who made something up/lied/grossly exaggerated an anecdote in the comments section of a blog. Well comments sections are pretty unreliable and emotive sections anyway.
However, Mooney then elevated that comment and Mooney posted it as a truth without applying any due care to establish its accuracy. It’s not “tom’s” fault, he didn’t dupe Mooney, he didn’t contact Mooney as a “source with a story” he just made something up on the comments section.
Yes he then lied when Mooney contacted him, but again he was probably shocked at being contacted the first place and dug himself deeper.
It’s not the same as submitting edited video tape, or photographs of GI Joes made up to look like tortured Iraqis. There was no issue, no story, no lie, nothing without Mooney being the prime mover. It would be totally different if “Tom” contacted Mooney with the anecdote and pushed it as a story, but he didn’t.
“Tom” deserves to remain anonymous because it was Mooney who tried to make this a story. Yet Mooney’s trying to deflect blame onto this kid (though nicely with his compassion and forgiveness), people are buying it. This is all Mooney’s doing, if anything he owes “Tom” an apology too. “Tom” should never have been put into that position.
One more point,
Here we have unethical behaviour taking place over a long time and multiple actions and yet Dan is arguing that we shouldn’t pursue the matter *because some people might think badly of us for doing so*. Does this not echo the wider accommodationism debate?
C Anders,
We don’t know if “Tom” is just a kid , but we do know he did a lot more than just exaggerate a little. He ran a prolonged campaign of deception using multiple sock-puppets to create a false sense of corroboration, at one point even set up his own blog/website to pursue his agenda. Most tellingly from my POV, the stories he told were so malicious that I don’t see any reason to extend him any sympathy at all until he owns up and apologises.
You seem to think that Mooney contacting “Tom” to verify his identity “put him on the spot.” I presume Mooney did this through email, so “Tom” had as much time as he wanted to think over his response before he decided to continue the facade.
Well, I find Mooney complicit by way of promoting an account that he should have found questionable. But this TJ guy, you know, didn’t just relate as to how he heard about something…He made a calculated decision to fabricate a malicious lie for the purpose of defaming a group of people. Once we reach adulthood, we’ve made the decision to live honestly or not. Unless TJ is fourteen, he is someone who has made the decision not to live honestly. If he’s a pharmacist, he could be diluting cancer drugs to make a buck, etc. Stewart was maybe being a bit hyperbolic up there, but it’s a point.
Chris Lawson,
Apologies on going too far on the defence of “Tom”. I posted in haste and couldn’t edit…lesson to be learned on blog comments.
Ophelia’s case against “Tom” and his further postings/website all come from Mooney giving credibility to Tom.
Again, this isn’t the Hitler Diaries, this isn’t a media hoax, Mooney admits he picked out the comment, elevated it and only checked the source after it was posted and doubts were raised.
As idiotic and wrong as “Tom’s” actions were after this, it’s just a complete red herring to get Mooney off the hook. This “I was duped” approach and “sockpuppet” issue is a red herring. Mooney’s found a scapegoat and he’s trying to pretend he’s the one with dignity by protecting his source. That’s just wrong and callous.
Mooney made the story out of nothing and didn’t even check before posting. Everything that follows is at his hand. He promoted “Tom” to commentator status, “Tom” played up to his new celebrity, Mooney apologist identity and the rest is history. In my opinion he helped create “Tom” and sat by like Frankestein while his monster went off and did the damage he did.
Ken,
You’re right, I admit to being overzealous in defending the “source” (promise I aint he). But Mooney is more than complicit, I wouldn’t go as far as saying he acted in connivance with TJ, but he has yet to take any responsibility for what happened.
It’s all too common that as a journalist you get told anecdotes. Some interest you, some don’t, but you have complete mistrust of them all until you can verify them. And that’s verifying the anecdote as well as the credability of the source.
Mooney didn’t do either. He only checked the credability of the source after the event, but didn’t take any steps to check the anecodte. He still doesn’t see that what he did was wrong, a shrug of the shoulders and claiming to be the victim of a hoax is pathetic.
If TJ’s statements had been left buried in the middle of a comments section of a lowly blog, would TJ have gone on to do what he did? We’ll never know now.
Oh, poor Tom, who’s deliberate campaign of serial lies, including an entire website and blog set up just for the purpose, was used by Mooney just as Tom wanted him too. Yes, yes, pooooooor Tom.
You act like the sel- admitted serial liar, “Tom Johnson,” is some sort innocent victim, as if Mooney broke into his house and dragged him kicking and screaming into the debate, which is utter BS. “Tom Johnson” did everything he could to spread his lies to as large an audience as possible. He posted at Intersection for that purpose. He set up his “Your Not Helping” blog for that purpose. When Mooney used his comment as the basis for a thread Mooney was fulfilling “Tom Johnson’s” purpose, spreading “Tom Johnson’s” lies to an even greater audience, and with the imprimatur of Mooney’s vetting.
The constant whine of people who think we should protect the identity of the **self-admittedly** guilty “Tom Johnson” and leave the innocents out to dry is abhorrent.
That is an empty promise since we don’t know who he is. Even if we knew who you were we still wouldn’t know you aren’t he–kind of the reason we **should** know who he is.
Less poor Tom and more let’s not let Mooney detract from what he did. Tom was one random oik on the internet, Mooney professes to be a journalist, his is the bigger responsibility, his is the bigger error.
The focus on Tom is diluting from Mooney and letting him get away with it. In my opinion Tom can be exposed in a heartbeat because I don’t believe he would meet the test of actually being a “source”. He was quoted after making a comment, that doesn’t make him a source and doesn’t give him the automatic right to protection or at least the journalistic code to protect.
Letting Mooney call Tom a source and letting him give the whole “forgiving” Tom appeal removes Mooney from the whole situation. Putting the whole emphasis on Mooney naming his “source” legitimises what he did. Putting the whole empahsis on what Tom did next further dilutes the blame from Mooney.
Yes, one vicious little oik with a tosspot agenda on the internet among thousands of other similar nothings against someone who purports to be a credible journalist and author who put him on the pedestal in the first place. Tom wouldn’t have had the “credibility” to spout the crap if Mooney hadn’t given it to him. There was no hoax, there was no duping, there was blind, blinkered, botched, bull, blemished, bilious attempt at journalism.
I’m going to make an assumption about “Tom Johnson”:
He wants to keep is real identity secret to avoid accountability for his deliberate and elaborate campaign of lies and defamation above all else.
I’ve seen a sockpuppet get caught in another other forum, only to have a new poster pop in and pile on with criticism, seconding what a cad the sockpuppet was. Turns out the new poster was another of the same puppet master’s sockpuppets, trying to gain credibility and separation from the esposed puppet by being critical. It is possible that “Tom Johnson” may try the same trick, popping into forums like this one and using criticism of “Tom Johnson” as a way of boosting his credibility and of not being, or being on the side of, “Tom Johnson”. Then, ersatz anti-“Tom Johnson” bona fides established, he’ll go on to advance his real cause. The poster will then state that while “Tom Johnson” was wrong, “Johnson’s” identity should be kept secret for some reason, such as “it will ruin his career,” “it will take the focus off Chris Mooney,” “it isn’t his fault that Mooney ‘elevated’ his post,” “the New Atheists will look vicious if they out him,” or “he had an agreement with Mooney to stay anonymous,” etc.
Just about any of us could be “Tom Johnson,” even those nominally criticizing him. However, the one thing we can probably assume is that “Tom Johnson” is not calling for his identity to be exposed. I surmise that “Tom Johnson” is delighted by the FUD and pearl clutching by those who aren’t his sockpuppets but are still advancing the idea that we mustn’t reveal the identity of the self-admittedly guilty serial liar and deliberate defamer, “Tom Johnson.”
Those who know “Tom Johnson’s” identity need to come clean and stop hiding the truth.
C Anders,
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that “Tom’s” actions let Mooney off the hook. They’re both complicit.
Scote,
Another “Tom” sock-puppet may well be calling for “Tom” to be exposed. Part of the M.O. is to establish credibility and spread confusion– it’s the same reason some athletes get involved in anti-doping campaigns while they are taking performance-enhancing drugs.
One thing that still puzzles me in all of this — why did “Tom” reveal his sock-puppetness in the first place?
Just for the record, I think C Anders has been commenting at B&W for years; I don’t think there’s any connection with WillTom.
So how do I find out if I’m still Ken Pidcock? :-)
Thanks. I’m not suggesting that any individual poster is a sockpuppet, let alone anyone here. However, just about anybody here or anywhere else could be “Tom Johnson.” And that issue wouldn’t be solved if we were to know the real name of every individual here because we don’t know the real name of “Tom Johnson.” So, if C Anders (or anybody else, including me) ever wants to be definitively known to not be Tom Johnson they should be for publishing “Tom Johnson’s” real name.
Right now there is a lot of FUD being passed around. Proven facts, transparency and accountability are the antidote to FUD. It is time to shine some sunlight on the “Tom Johnson” FUD. It is time for people who know it to come clean with the identity of “Tom Johnson” and to stop conspiring to keep him from being accountable for his deliberate actions.
Yes, that is possible, and even I could be his sock puppet (just about any of us could be). But I think such a tactic would be more likely if he was certain that it his identity couldn’t be revealed. At this point, too many people have his info for him to be certain, so at this point I think he would be advocating for his name to be kept secret. But that is all supposition on my part–but I think it is reasonably founded supposition. Even so, it is ultimately secondary to my position that his identity **should** be published by those who know it so that he can be accountable and so that we can shine some healing light on this whole morass.
If you check out Oedipus’s blog (linked from his post in this thread), check out “The Curious Case of the You’re Not Helping Blog” post. He was discovered and exposed as a sockpuppeter, and “came clean” (in several steps over the course of a week or so). Tom was actually the last revelation before he got scared and stopped posting.
Can we stop with the “anybody could be a sock puppet” line? This is one of the many bad consequences of Tomiam’s game – this poisoning of the well. Tomiam’s sockhood became apparent because of the vulgarity, malice, dishonesty, obscenity, sexism, and general abusiveness of his posts and comments. There’s hardly ever any reason to suspect sock puppetry here for the simple reason that the comments are usually rational and non-vulgar. Write good comments, and sock puppetry won’t be an issue. (Many of you are already “sock puppets” in the sense of being mere single names, and that’s not an issue, because you write good comments.)
Why? Frankly I think the well is poisoned. I agree that poisoning the well is part of the FUD that “Tom Johnson” created through his deliberate campaign of deception Pointing that fact out isn’t the poison, rather I think it is a good argument that the best way to unpoison the well, to purify the water, is for Oedipus to come clean with “Tom Johnson’s” identity. I think it is a pretty strong argument.
I said why. The well isn’t poisoned here, and I don’t want it to be. I also don’t think Oedipus is responsible for naming Tomiam, and he doesn’t know that he has Tomiam’s actual identity in any case.
I’m interested in the ethical issues around this but I’m not interested in pressuring Oedipus.
I think Oedipus’ withholding of information **is** an ethical issue, hence my arguments for him to resolve that issue by coming clean.
I don’t think Dan is concern trolling or tone trolling. I think he’s got some pretty good points. This is a matter of social politics, and I think Dan is thinking politically. And I agree with C Anders: too much focus on the identity of “Johnson” could divert attention from Mooney’s shifty ways.
I’ve also thought, “What happens if this “Johnson” guy gets into a place where he can do more serious damage?” Well, then, we’ve got a creepy, untrustworthy, misogynistic, atheist-hating twerp in a position of some power. That looks a lot like ordinary life to me. (blah blah Mosaic Project blah blah) There are so many of these guys that one more doesn’t seem overwhelmingly special to me.
Anybody taking bets on the topics of Mooney’s next books? Because he sure looks to me like a guy who’s trying to nurture a backlash and ride it to fame and fortune.
I’d love to find out who “Johnson” is, mostly because I like Ophelia and I have a taste for schadenfreude. (All y’all who don’t want revenge are kinder people than I am.) But I don’t see that we have any leverage here. And when I see a political animal like Mooney handle things in a fashion that gives him a fake but superficially plausible moral high ground while completely failing to address the concerns of people he’s pleased to consider his enemies — well. I have to wonder if we aren’t being stampeded. (Or framed, if you like.) Having a collective freakout over the identity of “Johnson” is exactly what the atheist blogosphere could be expected to do, and I have the creeping suspicion that Mooney is prepared to take advantage of that.
I should add that I would have supported Oedipus keeping information given in confidence secret if the puppet master’s mea culpa had been genuine, complete and contrite. Instead, the puppet master was being disingenuous and was still lying, and, according to Kazez, his later confession (when caught *again*) about being “Tom Johnson” contained additional lies designed to throw all of us off his real trail. So any initial confidences were broken several times over by the puppet master, and Oedipus should release the information he has to shine light on this issue and clean up the the water.
If you think Mooney should reveal the puppet master’s identity, why do think Oedipus should not?
Mooney is going to do his thing no matter what, even if he has to use fake stories to do it, as this whole kerfuffle proves. Worrying about what Mooney might do is a poor reason not to do the right thing.
Cam – heh. I’ve had exactly that thought about Mooney. He’s doing his best to work up a backlash so that he can be The Expert on it. It’s worked pretty well so far – he’s gotten a lot of paid gigs out of it. I’m sure he’s working on The New Atheist War on Believers at this moment.
I’m betting on The New Atheist War on Common Decency, myself.
I’m really not interested in the identity of Tom, it’s of little relevance to me. Now I’ve not been attacked or abused by him, so I don’t have that motivation and those who were I really do see where your anger is coming from, I’m not taking away from that or making light of it. But I’m not interested in the same way I’m not that interested in who wrote the Hitler Diaries, who sent The Daily Mirror fake pictures, or in internet history who John Titor really was. What’s of interest is the complete failure of someone taking a higher ground as a journalist or writer and their complete failure to follow even the most basic, simple journalistic procedure.
That to me is the biggest issue here, it’s a classic case of failure of standards and just how can you really take Mooney seriously (if you ever did) after this. Like those journalists involved in the other hoaxes, I’m sorry but you step aside and try and retain some tiny fraction of dignity. You don’t sit there and try and present yourself as blameless or hoaxed.
Whether Tom is a kid or adult is irrelevant, I’ve stepped and scraped off my shoe more interesting, dangerous and relevant things. But to have that individual taken seriously without one scrap of checking is a worse crime. At least when reporters speak to David Ike, they’re taking the piss out of him. But no, because this kid/adult gave a half arsed anecdote that supported Mooney’s supposition, he went ahead and made a story out of it.
My journalism training had one simple rule, if your mother says she loves you, you’re sceptical. Well that’s a bit extreme, but the principle is obvious: check the story and facts first (and while your at it, get a DNA sample just to make sure she’s who she says she is).
And what’s worse is we’re buying Mooney’s story, it’s full of holes so big I’m surprise OSHA hasn’t shut the Discovery Blog site down. We’re buying into this “source” crap. Tom is not a source. Directly quoting an individual off an blog comments section does not make them a source. If that were the case then I’m a source for all the quotes ever made on the internet of any post I’ve made. Every website accused of defamation because of the comments of an individual could quote them and say they’re protecting a source and not name them.
It’s all bull. It confirms Mooney’s about as much a journalist as Dawkins is a scientologist. There is no ethics here. If you really want to know who the guy is, there’s no journalistic morals to hide behind, just the usual privacy ones applying to a website.
And that’s what rankles even more, Mooney’s laying claim to some journalistic code when he’d pissed on the basics of that code in the first place. He can’t hide behind it, he’s accountable, he should go. That’s the issue, he’s made a a fatal error as a journalist, writer and commentator, there’s no option as I see it, you’re either pushed or you jump.
But sticking with this hidden identity detracts from that, it gives him the moral high ground. Look at him in the recent posts “forgiving” Tom for Mooney cutting and pasting his comment without one single check! Asking us to leave the poor kid alone. And we buy it and start sticking on who this Tom is while Mooney sits back and as others have said, writes another chapter for his book.
I suggest that doing what he says, to leave the perpetrator of the hoax alone, is “buying it.”
Yes, Mooney could be creating a Machiavellian set up but I don’t live in a world where I worry about what Christ Mooney plans to do–nor do I think he is really that deep or clever. He’s going smear the New Atheists **anyway**, no matter what we do or don’t do, so I don’t let such concerns dictate my arguments or my actions.
Mooney wants “Tom Johnson’s” identity to stay secret so this story won’t have legs. If Mooney wants it to be secret, I see no reason to want the opposite. I see no convincing reason why it would be bad to reveal the identity of a self-admittedly guilty serial liar who deliberately orchestrated an elaborate and long-running campaign of deception and defamation so that he can be at least minimally accountable for his past and future actions. I think informing the public of “Tom Johnson’s” identity will put this whole issue **back on Mooney** rather than the opposite, as you are arguing, and bring Mooney’s own lack of accountability to the fore, and even more so if it turns out that “Tom Johnson” is a theist who was posing as a concerned atheist.
Scote, exposing publicly (or to those websites and blogs concerned with this) one individual who’s lied on the internet will do zip. Maybe there’s some payback from his school if he used their resources, maybe if he has friends they’ll think him even stranger. Maybe. But a public statement of who Tom really is will be the internet equivalent of tumbleweed.
It won’t make any difference to Mooney because he’s got a nice scapegoat to hide behind. It won’t add anything to Moomey’s accountability than what is already there. We might get some new information like just how rigorous Mooney was, but that’s irrelevant given he’s admitted to a major error at the very first posting of Tom’s comments.
As I said, I’ve not been personally attacked or involved with Tom so from my perspective he really is just one of those freaks the internet era has thrown up. But right there in our laps is to me a bigger victory and that is Mooney’s role in this. Hassling him to reveal the name gives him the moral high ground, he can claim integrity. If Tom is “exposed” even better for Mooney because he can say how he was pressured by lawyers or the a team of New Atheist Ninjas kidnapped his family until he revealed who Tom was. Another tick in the diversion tactics box.
Call him out on what he did, keep calling him out, it’s that failure that is the most important, not who some sap sicko on the internet.
of course finding all we can about exhibit A is going to be edifying.
that is why it is called “exhibit a”
mooney just doesn’t understand that southpark is mockery:
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155388/?searchterm=Allied+Atheist+Allegiance
Mooney thinks there really are Atheists who run around telling religious people in public meetings that they are stupid because they believe in God.
This is the ultimate religious fantasy. The idea that you are persecuted for “believing” itself, and not rather the stupid things that your beliefs cause you to say or do.
But, lets not find out who created the You’re not helping lies, lets just let Mooney withdraw exhibit A, after all it might be true, Mooney says so.
I was certainly interested to learn that Oedipus has his identity but Mooney won’t respond to him with corroboration. That seems rather telling of Mooney, though what exactly it’s telling, I’m not quite sure. For a while I’d missed that little fact in all the hoppitamoppita over who “Johnson” is, why we should care, and whether we’re baying for blood or not.
This. This has been driving me batty the whole time. Unless I’ve gotten this entirely wrong (and I might have; life is busy for me right now) we’ve gone from unsupported anecdotal howling from someone with an unknown identity to unsupported anecdotal howling from some guy whose name is known by a few people. Apparently this guy has a position that sends him to the kind of places at which this anecdote might or might not have taken place. This does not seem to me to be the kind of giant leap in credibility that it has been sold as in some quarters.
Strategically that just won’t work. What keeps a story going are new facts, revelations and angles. By keeping “Tom Johnson’s” identity secret Mooney hopes to make the story go away. We just don’t have much in the way of facts to hang our stories on. Not the name of the hoaxer, whether he is a theist or atheist, other scams he may have perpetrated, whether the facts he revealed to Mooney should have set off even more Red Flags, etc. If you want to keep this story going, if you want to keep the pressure on Mooney, you need to give the story legs. To do that we need new facts. The next step in that process is getting the identity of “Tom Johnson,” and moving on from there. That’s how news works.
we don’t want the person, we want the story, the biography, the reasoning, the explanation.
We want exhibit A, look, the person isn’t the point. We don’t need to know the person, but we want to know the story. Is this a pastor? Why did this person feel so strongly about the issue to embark on this libelous fantasy voyage of socks.
Is ANY of his story true. After all Mooney has told us, it MIGHT be true, even if it wasn’t. He checks out, he’s something like what he says he is?
So is he really an Atheist like Mooney? Someone who is just soooooo concerned about science, that he needs to tear down coyne, and dawkins because they give science a bad name, or is he a person who has a personal relationship with god, and was doing this because god needs the protection of sock puppets.
This whole, person thing isn’t the point. We need to know more details so we can get the story.
Right now all we now is that Exhibit A is lies, we don’t know what the motive for the lies is …
That’s true. Part of why I was annoyed when he stopped talking was because I wanted some things explained. He did explain some things – such as, he said that it was probably because I said early on that YNH looked fake, that he got so fixated on and vicious about me. That was interesting and useful (for me). There are other things that would benefit from explanation.
The problem is you still get stung for the collection tray, it’s not worth the effort when you have to pay at the end.
Really, what’s the most likely outcome of finding out who Tom is? It’s easily done, those who were defamed on his website can easily find out with one solicitors letter and you can bypass Mooney or anyone else.
If there’s no intention to sue, then what is going to happen once Tom is exposed? Nothing, because he is nothing, he means nothing. Even if he were the Pope out trying to troll atheist websites, so what? It’s still a glorified troll (with a nice hat if it is the pope and a good bit or real estate) who only really managed to convince those who were already convinced. I didn’t see anyone walk away from their beliefs on the back of it, I didn’t see any Dawkins book burnings by disenchanted fans, it amounted to another voice lost among 95% of all the other blogs with lonely people behind them and limited readership.
And it might just be my humble opinion, but all it will do is serve to absolve Mooney. There’s a reason the names of the Hitler diaries, Mirror Pictures, etc names are unknown: because they’re irrelevant, sad, attention seeking nobs and the bigger issue is the failure of journalistic standards.
New facts or new angles, either work. The question is what’s to have the bigger impact in the short and medium term. The more Mooney is commenting, the more spin he’s having to put on this, the more he’s digging a hole. That’s an angle, that’s news.
I’m just doubtful of what knowing who Tom is will actually bring to this other than as an even bigger diversion.
Aha! A clever ploy, but I see through it. Scote, you are
Lobby LudTom Johnson, and I claim my five pounds.(I apologize for the snark, but come on.)
not true, learning more about exhibit A will inform an important topic of public discussion.
We don’t know anything about Exhibit A, all we seem to know is that Mooney bit hard and swallowed the hook. We know that this puppeteer was hard at it, and not doing it as a drive by, but stayed at it, day in day out … he’s a capable and intelligent person.
What motivated him?
Do we have a situation where Mooney makes scientists think the situation is so dire that they defame other scientists to silence them, or is Mooney simply giving believers an angle to attack science. We know that science itself is the target of the bigger battle. Read Phillip Johnson (aka the other Johnson), read Albert Molher, these men both want to discredit the scientific worldview.
This is a battle that matters. Exhibit A matters. The motives and biography of the exhibit matter, because we need to know if this is motivated out of fear for science, or out of fear OF science.
Either way, we are owed an explanation. I want to know the truth. But then, I’m a scientist.
Hyperbole or not, we simply don’t know how old this person is, or what kind of career he might be trying to embark on, so there’s no future scenario we’re in a position to rule out.
In other senses, I don’t so much care who he is (we know who Mooney is, so we already have the full identity of one person who behaved very badly in this affair) as I am curious about what he is. In the one exchange I had with him on Oedipus’ blog, I mentioned my doubts about his atheism, but he didn’t respond to that part of the post. Now that I think further, there’s one particular detail that makes me doubt his atheism more. He talked about the brutes inspired by Coyne, Dawkins and PZ as indulging in loud, forced laughter. That makes me think he’s incapable of conceiving of an atheist who’s genuine and that could come from never having been one.
I tried to think of analogies for this. We already know that most anti-gay politicians are eventually revealed to be gay themselves and that phenomenon has its own explanations (I seem to recall Johann Hari did a very interesting piece on it once). It should be clear to most people that religious figures like Pat Robertson and the televangelists who manipulate what their god is supposedly saying for their own benefit cannot be genuine believers themselves. But to stick with the gay analogy (which is suitable in many ways, as they are arguably the minority whose coming-out path we are emulating), where do we see people claiming to be gay railing against the openness of other gays? That’s what the Tom Johnson case would be if transferred to another setting and that’s why it rings so false from the start. And it’s also why I have a lot of doubt about what motivates Mooney and others of his ilk. I do understand that a lot of it must be cultural conditioning, where religion remains somehow sacred even to those who don’t accept its claims, but there’s a lot more that is not explained by understanding that.
Yes, we really can’t go forward on this story without “Tom Johnson’s” identity. Mooney knows it, which is why he surely won’t give it up. By keeping it secret, Mooney’s self serving posts are essentially the last word on the subject since he and he alone has access to the most information, including IP logs, Johnson’s identity, the school he goes to–all the things one needs to further investigate this story.
If we want more facts, to contrast Mooney’s claims, with what he claims what “might” still be true, with what actually is true, we have to have “Tom Johnson’s” identity, it is the key that leads to further facts about the story, the only key. All the people who claim that “Johnson’s” identity is irrelevant or a distraction are ignoring this fact. That is also why it is critical that Oedipus come clean with what facts he has.
Where do we see people claiming to be gay railing against the openness of other gays?
Are you being rhetorical here, Stewart? I’ve mentioned this before, but the railing does remind me of the clash between “respectable” Mattachine Society types and Queer Nation types back in the day. (“We’re here! We’re queer! Get used to it!” received its share of “Shut up, quit provoking people, you’re making us all look bad, shut up shut up shut up,” as I recall. Alison Bechdel touched on this briefly in her usual lucid way in DTWOF #98-99.) If it’s a dynamic that interests you, it’s probably also worth looking into the generational disconnect that helped lead to the disintegration of the Daughters of Bilitis in the sixties. Marcia Gallo makes the point that there was an ideological rupture there between older members who wanted to conform to societal norms as much as possible, and younger members who were eager to be significantly less quiet and conformist.
No doubt there’s a master’s thesis on this phenomenon somewhere out there.
This is the really galling bit of Mooney’s attitude, where he says:
Once the person behind it has been revealed as a liar of pretty impressive proportions, you can’t just say “it might still be accurate,” any more than you can about any tale of Baron von Münchhausen. And if you possess knowledge that does give you a reason to believe some information from this source might be accurate in spite of everything else we know, you still shouldn’t say it, unless you are prepared to share that knowledge. Mooney isn’t, so we are still at the point where all we know is that Tom Johnson is a liar and that Mooney believed him and trumpeted his lies for him. Nothing else. Certainly nothing confidence-inspiring in how Mooney handled it. Nothing that gives us a reason to think Mooney will do better in future or has reconsidered any of the opinions for which Tom Johnson’s lies were “Exhibit A.” The fact that he called the anecdote “Exhibit A” is enormously telling, as far as what else he had to back up his attitude is concerned.
perhaps we should frame this as wanting his motivations, not his identity.
framing it this way would honor Mooney, after all it isn’t like we don’t listen to him.
We want to know the motivation behind the fabrication of exhibit a.
we don’t want to punish, but understand, what makes a person want to lie about the leading voices in the public discussion of religion and science?
Was this guy using Mooney because he agrees with Mooney and values science, or was he using Mooney because he wants to discredit science, and understands that Mooney is an effective counter to many who would be more vocal about their objection to religion, but don’t, because they see it as “not helping”.
FWIW, my money is on this guy being a Churchgoing fool, the blog equivalent of this guy:
http://www.jsonline.com/multimedia/photos/62680607.html?index=8
Mooney was duped by his enemy, rather than being the inspiration for a zealous collaborator in the “you are not helping” camp.
Cam, I claim no expertise on gay history and was hoping that I would be corrected if I had overlooked something of significance, so thank you and maybe somebody better informed can enlighten us with parallels, which may not be irrelevant to understanding what’s now going on. Your comment made me look for the Hari piece and I think this is it: http://www.johannhari.com/2004/06/24/the-strange-unexplored-overlap-between-homosexuality-and-fascism
i love how on one hand, outing the motivations of exhibit a, will “ruin” him, because everyone will know, and, on the other, how outing is pointless since no one is listening except a few lonely people with blogs, or the self hating people who read them, and the vile people who comment on them.
Oedipus, since this is all directed at you, please, can we find out what you know so we can send the doped up child soldiers who are programed (by Coyne) to insult believers to make Tom Johnson sorry that he ever insulted the great god of atheism?
This is getting BORING. Or it got boring long ago. It’s kind of making Dan L’s point for him. Let’s wrangle endlessly about something else.
yes, speaking for my other sock, with the e in place of my t, I agree, don’t you understand your role in the culture pyramid?
We convince Oedipus to get his Buddha Serious, you alert, Coyne, Coyne alters Dawkins, Dawkins alters HuffPo and Sullivan, NYT & NPR & Maddow, runs story on how Mooney smears all the New Atheists who are really just white male versions of Shirley Sherrod, and how Albert Mohler, and Phillip Johnson are really the Klan (actually Mohler and Johnson are the Klan … ).
Now stop telling us what is interesting and do your job so we can set our zombie child soldiers on this alleged university in the south where the You Are Not Helping congregation is hiding, and expose their shenanigans like sow bugs under a rotted log.
plus we still don’t know how to improve science education in the bible belt.
How strange. My post responding to your July 23, 2010 at 3:38 pm post just disappeared.
Ms. Benson: If I recall, you were much aggrieved, and still are to this day, to have been banned from Intersection not for breaking any rules but for your inconvenient but cogent persistence. It seems my post was just deleted for exactly the same reasoning. Am I correct on that or is there some mistake?
It just disappeared because I just deleted it because it mostly just repeated things you’ve already said. This is not a good response to my very unsubtle hint that you are being boring. As a matter of fact it’s a rather rude response, and that’s why I rolled my eyes and deleted it.
You’re not banned. I haven’t stonewalled you, I’ve replied to you many times, I’m not ignoring you or the conversation, I’m not doing any of what Mooney did. Your latest comment is #106. You’ve made plenty of comments, and you’ve had plenty of replies! Enough already.
the Al-Akhdam of the new Atheist comment machine have no rights …
Maybe I should draw up a few rules. The first would be Barney Frank’s for members of Congress: “be interesting or shut up.”
Seriously. The quality of the comments is one of the virtues of this place. People are always telling me that. So I don’t want to see them go to hell; I want quality comments. I mostly get them. The fact that I mostly get them means that I go on mostly getting them. So you don’t get to be boring. Yes that can even be a banning offense – though it takes a long long time and a lot of warnings.
Obviously I’ve not been banned since my comment went through, but don’t you even see the slightest bit of irony here? When you saw a post that **bored you** you deleted it. My post, so far as I know, didn’t break any rules. And I believe that you and others in this debate have specifically chastised Mooney for his utterly subjective and often arbitrary approvals and deletions of posts, decisions that have nothing to do with objective stated rules of posting. Now you are doing something in the same vein, even if on a much smaller scale.
One of the challenges in taking the high road, the road I think you usually take, is that can’t do yourself what you criticize others for doing. Otherwise you loose the high ground and you are morally estopped from making such claims.
It isn’t that I don’t think you have a right to delete my post at your whim–it is your blog and you do, just as Mooney does. But if you want to criticize Mooney for such antics you can’t and shouldn’t mod capriciously, certainly not for the offense of “boring” you. That is waaayyyy too Mooneyesque.
Oh, bullshit. Get a fucking grip. You’ve been boring me throughout this thread. I finally said enough already, and you elected to reply by repeating things you’d already said. Yes, I get to delete that, and I get to delete that without being compared to Mooney. Don’t be ridiculous. You’ve gone on and on and on and ON, so yes, at comment 106, after I’ve said this is boring, I get to delete a comment that just repeats previous comments.
I know how to end the tiresome wrangling! I know “Tom’s” real name…I could just out him.
I’m thinking about it.
Excellent, now Scote can nag you instead of me. You can’t possibly read all your comments anyway, so Scote won’t even be noticed.
Now you’re trying to discourage me.
Noooooo. Just trying to encourage Scote to share the wealth!
Oh, good grief. I’m hardly your Kwok.
But, do tell Ms. Benson, if you think Mooney should identify “Tom Johnson” do you have any reason to say that PZ should not?
So now Mooney, Jean Kazez, Tim Broderick, Oedipus and PZ either know or have some info as to who Tom Johnson is. Have I missed anybody? I have no hopes for interesting developments from the first three . Oedipus has certainly earned a lot of respect, but I think experience leads me to trust PZ most to do whatever needs doing in a way that will be dramatically satisfying and least easily forgotten. Maybe do it live later this year with Mooney sitting opposite you?
Scote, I didn’t say you were my Kwok. But it’s possible to be somewhat excessive without being a Kwok.
That’s the third time you’ve asked a version of that question. It’s a very silly question. Mooney’s relationship to Tom Johnson is entirely different from that of Oedipus and PZ (and Jerry, and Richard, and Greg, and me).
Stewart, you have missed some people. I know of others who have some info as to who Tom Johnson is.
Well, Mooney keeps up with this story (he’s made a post saying how PZ knows the name, but don’t ask me to link to his drek). After he banned Kwok, well, what reason is there to read his pseudo-journalistic scrawl? Anyway, would somebody please just release his name so most of us can just go “Who?”, and maybe we can get a real story instead of Mooneys sanctimonious posing and framing. I do think in his newest book, “Tom” will be framed as a real atheist posing as an evangelical posing as an atheist, in some bizarre conspiracy-theory level attempt to get people stirred up against evangelicals and other religious nutbags. When will CFI dump Mooney so that I can go back to listening to the podcast without having to delete his shows?
Ew. Of course I had to check out the Mooney post – which links to what he calls a “thoughtful” post by Kazez – so of course I had to check that out too, mostly to see if it is another example of Kazez’s practice of throwing crap at me while preventing me from commenting. It is. The “thoughtful” post is mostly a sneer at me, posted in a place where I cannot reply. Typical New Accommodationist ethics. Bleah.
Yo Jean! You’re a real piece of work.
We don’t, nor did we ever ask for the name, want the identity, which is to say we want the biography and motive of the You are not Helping species.
Are we dealing with a deep cover evangelical, or did the combination of Mooney’s fretting, and PZ’s cracker abuse actually make a perfectly good atheist into pathological puppeteer witness to the window smashing?
Remember, this is about how to advance science education in the South. Not about V for blog.
haha, Mooney is saying that if PZ pushed on with the identity of exhibit a, that he’ll have to say more about exhibit a! Therefore PZ should think twice before he discusses exhibit A! Take that you comment machine. Explaining why a person would claim that he saw PZ’s child soldiers hack off the limbs of scared believers who were lured into a meeting to discuss science, will cause Mooney to expound on “the original claim” … hahah.
this is great. of course Mooney has got everyone to buy his frame of “outing” …
which of course, according to Mooney, might be true, even though he says, there is no reason to believe it. BigGuvvmint will hire mooney if discover ever tires of him rubbing the worry stone.
kazez doubles down on the whole “it might be true angle” … I love this, Mooney’s defense is to go to the Tom Johnson as plausible meme. Exhibit A, is alive and well … because we can’t frame.
They have no shame.
I know. Mooney offers a threat, Kazez says the story is not disconfirmed – what a crew. I wonder what The Third Man will say.
no wait, kazez is saying, it IS true, it happens all the time … she is saying it is trivially true, and true QED.
They are definitely right, drop the whole discussion of Exhibit A, forget they ever felt the need to elevate it and highlight it … because what they are saying is so obviously true, that they didn’t need to make shit up in the first place.
Atheists are so mean and insulting to believers, so hurtful to the cause of science education in the south, such an obstacle to “dialog” … that pointing out examples of these things is like proving that the sky is blue.
PZ is going to look really bad if Mooney is forced to say more about exhibit A … Believe him, the last thing he wants to do is discuss how similar he’s acting to Andrew Brietbart when it comes to Big Atheist Comment Machine …
Well you see these are subtle matters. These are deep waters. The Tom Johnson story is terrifically interesting and significant for purposes of making affirmative atheists look eeeeevil, but it’s “minuscule” when it turns out to be in fact a pack of lies told by a fraud.
PZ is not going to look bad on his own; I’ve told him if he decides to out TJ I’ll do it at the same time. Shared opprobrium.
Really, I’m excited about Mooney’s threat. What will it be? New atheists killed TJ’s mother. New atheists sold TJ’s sister into sex slavery. New atheists borrowed one of TJ’s books and scribbled all over it.
Mooney could however produce a white farmer.
He could easily find a real life pastor to say that he spends all this time dealing with the rejection that believers feel when they are mocked … Mooney could essentially become Tom Johnson. Mooney wants Tom’s testimony to be true, he wants it so bad that in his mind it already is true.
True Believers like Mooney see Ivory Billed Woodpeckers every time they go into the Swamp.
Tom Johnson was irresistible to Mooney, because of his confirmation bias, but it is the bias that is the treat. Tom Johnson, and our clamoring for the truth, have “radicalized” Mooney. He’s now driven to discredit anyone who is “explicit” about their Atheism.
Just like Kazez’s post shows. The bad effects of Atheism are everywhere. Just look.
Got to give Tom Johnson his due, he radicalized Mooney, and gave him example of the usefulness of carrying a basket of throw away saturday night specials with the serial numbers filed off … to make it look like all atheists are PZ’s child soldiers.
Gee, I just made a casual comment about the mysterious Mr Johnson, and it wakes Mooney up? Weird. I really don’t care that much about the wretched YNH sock, and I hadn’t thought much about it. Now you’re telling me I do have to think about it?
Oh, bother.
Ha! Nope, you don’t have to.
This is the price you pay (Conservapiddia pinup of the week and all) – your lightest word galvanizes even the slumbering Mooney.
Mooney’s very recent post omitted any mention of the offers made, such as Oedipus’s, for an identity-concealing form of disclosure of the Mooney/Johnson. This is the important detail missing from this thread (unless I’ve missed it). Just thought that I would mention it.
@Scote, we get it, really. Did you suffer some grievous personal loss because of Tom’s behavior or something? Step back, repeat the word “internet” out loud a few times, have a nap and a chai tea, read a book, and come back afterward. And note, my reasons for saying this are not subject to debate; they’re crowding this thread, so please do not feel the need to argue the point. In the interest of honesty, I have to say that I am not interested in a debate on this point, and that isn’t where the thread needs to go, so e-mail me if you feel the inadvisable need put up a defense.
Moving on…
I won’t repaste my thoughts on publically revealing Tom’s identity again here. I’ll only note that I hope that those who have that capability understand that there’s a heavy con side in doing it. If it comes to only revealing relevant personal details, that is of course another matter, depending on how obvious this makes his identity. This was the basic idea behind my previous suggestions. Whatever is let out, I hope that the content was arrived at via a consensus of those with privileged information. But, whatever does come out, I dread the nonsense that would surely follow at The Intersection. I smell lots of abuse potential. As an empirical test, we could see if not releasing anything resulted in an applauding post by Mooney on the merits of atheist bloggers, but call me pessimistic.
I loved that not disconfirmed. So, if somebody makes up a story, it falls on the skeptic to prove that it isn’t true. Otherwise, you know, it could be true and the rest of us are justified in believing that it is.
Wait a second. That sounds mighty familiar.
Science can’t prove that Tom Johnson’s story was made up, therefore God exists.
holy stockholm syndrome, you have mooney at breitbart and you want to go kumbyyah, and hope he says something nice about you?
OMG.
yes, yes, Br’er Bear and Br’er Fox throw mooney in the briar patch, this poor lad’s “career” could be ruined … sheesh.
If you have some disagreement with the substance of my argument, by all means present it; however, your ad hominems are not a valid substitute for substantive counter argument.
I believe that this story goes nowhere without new facts. Without new facts Mooney’s kerfuffle goes away because it doesn’t have any legs, any hooks to advance it further to keep Mooney and his culpability in the limelight. So, for that and many other reasons, I think people should come clean and identify “Tom Johnson,” so that this story can progress and so the real facts can be unearthed and compared to the fanciful stories that have been advanced by Mooney.
I’ve advocated my position and made rational supportive arguments. And I’ve been persistent. When Ophelia Benson was banned in part for being cogently persistent people chastised Mooney up and down for being so un reasonable, when I’m cogently persistent you attack me with Ad Hominems. And my position is not even far off from Ms. Benson’s position. She has also suggested that for “Tom Johnson” to be identified. So the Ad Hominems really aren’t appropriate, nether in general in rational argument nor specifically against mine.
*cough* Yes, I do believe you’ve said that.
Scote, please stop. You’ve made your case, repeatedly, and this isn’t the place to make it anyway. Tom Johnson isn’t my fault, so it’s not my duty to out him.
Use the contact form if you want to discuss it via email.
Yes, you could look up the definition of ad hominem, or you could toss it around casually and miss the point. Nowhere did I argue against your position by substituting your character for the argument. In case this is a source of confusion, everything past the “moving on…” was not addressed to you. I’ve made my position available, and really, it’s at least very similar to yours. Really, you can look at my past comments on related threads. Trust me, I haven’t missed out on the fact that Ophelia was unfairly banned like many other critics (myself included). Seriously, I think that the correspondence should be published, only eliminating specific identifying information with an explanation of each omission. So again, I was not, nor do I intend to, argue against your position.
My point, which is again unrelated to your stance on issue X, is that you are showing a lot of the signs of obsessing over the issue, repeating yourself constantly, etc. And if this is the case, the appropriate response would be to stand back and regain perspective. It’s not an essential character flaw; it happens to most people, myself included. You’ve personalized Tom Johnson wayyyy too much.
So again, brew a chai tea or something.
[…] flying around out there, especially between New Atheists and the Nice Police. One commenter on Butterflies and Wheels really– well, we all have days when we get an idea and run it into the ground, eh? He’s […]
This is the one reason I would become a believer, they reward zeal and enthusiasm. Devotion. Commitment. Drive.
Us. Meh. The guy presses his point and its all, “here, here , order, gavel, gavel”.
These dismissive quips of calm down, and don’t obsess. Why not? Celebrate the excess. No matter how nice we are we are still going to be referred to as Militant. Unleash the child soldiers. Set them free. Get the secular club of the university of deep south U to burn a symbol of *nothing* on his lawn.
And Ophelia, stop with the “its not my place” … as if justice should only be demanded by the victims. Where is your inner Madame Dafarge? What kind of revolution is this, one where demand soft pillows for the monarch and worry about the families of the courtiers?
You’ve got to be kidding! Not enough zeal and enthusiasm? Here? From me?
Surely you jest.
I didn’t say it’s not my place, I said this isn’t the place. It’s not. TJ isn’t my responsibility so I’m not the one to harangue about him.
no one would accuse you of being incapable of your own distress, Ophelia,
but this is as good a place as any, you’re here, PZ’s here, Coyne’s here, Mooney and his underbloggers are here, your underbloggers are here … all the principles are here.
The mob is baying, what more do you want? A man in a horse hair wig?
Demand that the details of this Tom Johnson be shared, and unleash the child soldiers, who are starting to tear each other up and getting bored smoking pot rolled in pages ripped out of “TGD”, and “Breaking the Spell” …
Careful, you’re scaring people. “amos” at Kazez’s blog is terrified.
what kind of alliance is this? This is why humans need religion. The religious know that an attack on one is an attack on ALL. Of course you should send knights to the holy land. Even if you’ve never seen a Muslim. Is there no honor among non believers? It is genetic?
Even in the case of your closest allies being trashed by an unrepentant mendacious talking head with a significant megaphone, you say, “its not my place”. I’m at a loss for words. Rome burns.
I said, I didn’t say “it’s not my place” – I said this is not the place.
I was more trashed by the mendacious store dummy than anyone, which is why TJ is not my responsibility.
Oh, god, I’m sorry, I didn’t know there really where child soldiers.
I take it all back, Tom Johnson should be given an Endowed Chair at Liberty University for the advancement of science education in the deep south.
Liberté, Egalité and Fraternité
Quite. The blood dripping from our fangs is scaring people.
PZ, for what it’s worth I’m pretty sure I know who he is too. My decision was to not even comment about my knowing, but alas. My overarching decision was to not reveal what I know.
Reasons being simple:
1a) He has gone through hell and deserves a second chance.
1b) Outing him could do unforeseeable, and more importantly potentially excessive, damage to his future. I would not want the responsibility for making such a decision.
2) The real ongoing difference is not with him but with Chris Mooney. Persistent negative stereotyping of new atheism is a problem, but TJs identity will not contribute to improve that larger issue.
3) I comment on blogs anonymously. This is a choice that I want respected for myself, so I will extend it to others. The cases where I am willing to breach this have to have numerous qualities that this case doesn’t have.
Back to the issue. Mooney elevated a hearsay story to make a point about New Atheism. He then proceeded to parade the doubts and opposition people voiced to the story as further evidence against new atheism (the infamous “New Atheism comment machine”). He to this day has insufficiently acknowledged his own part in this.
I think atheists are good to be concerned about this. After all atheists are the last group that is OK to negatively stereotype. Rejecting and arguing against those kinds of hearsay arguments, against selective quoting, against arguing caricatures and so forth. That is the real thing to work for. But we do not have to look to TJ for this. One can find it voiced by prominent academics such as D. S. Wilson (out of context quoting) or Terry Eagleton (caricature).
Case in point is an article in the HuffPo titled “Atheists can be stupid, too.” where a hearsay experience with one atheist was used to construct a broader stereotype about atheists. I have no doubt that the story reported is true (from the author’s perspective). But it goes to show that knowing identities does nothing about the larger issue. People can still build and reinforce stereotypes using hearsay. That is what should be criticized and that criticism does not lie at the feet of TJ, but rather with quite a few perfectly non-anonymous people.
We don’t care who he is, but we are interested in knowing if he lied because he’s afraid OF science or because he is afraid FOR science?
Mooney claims to be afraid FOR science … and I think he is sincere in that fear. But a vast swath of the American South is afraid OF science, and what it will do to their beliefs (see Mohler, Albert, President, Southern Baptist Seminary, for discussion of these points).
I just want to know, was Johnson using Mooney for a sly an tactical reason, or was he just strongly sympathetic to Mooney’s point of view: that criticism of religion and arguments that religion is incompatible with science specifically, drive people away from science.
Can anyone tell me, was Mooney tricked by an ally who just told him what he wanted to hear or was he fooled by an enemy who wanted to use him as a megaphone to demonize Coyne and PZ and others who are vocal about their non belief, and not cuddly.
I think that the thing we haven’t been honest about is that Tom Johnson, and the YNH, thing, had good points, unfortunately we can’t have an honest discussion about it. For whatever reason, Mooney wants to keep it all vague and not answer his critics, and Johnson, he said might really have a point of view, but for whatever reason, they aren’t open to the discussion, and they don’t want to engage the topic, just frame it, and Breitbart it.
Having thought about it a while, I’m with Hitch, particularly on #3. And, since I seem to be carrying the flag for sentimentality lately:
4) William/TJ/whoever does seem to be ashamed of his behavior, which counts for something with me. Or at the very least he has the sense to know that shame is appropriate. Those were some contrite statements over at Oedipus’s place. Mooney, on the other hand, not so much.
And to speculate wildly for a moment… the last time I saw someone strike quite that note of contrition was after their recovery from a visible failure of mental health. I don’t know what was going on with this guy, but it’s not beyond imagining that making him more miserable over this would be unseemly. That’s something I’d want to take into consideration before spilling his details, if I had any.
Now, odds are I’d still enjoy the schadenfreude if his details came to light, but I can be a rather unpleasant person in all sorts of ways. In fact, I think I’ll go have a cup of chai myself just to get this pesky blood off my fangs.
On preview: perhaps we could have an honest discussion about it, fsvo “we”. If the discussion’s worth having, it’s worth having without Mooney.
Ophelia, PZ, are you willing to state, here and now, that you have never made a comparable mistake in your blogging or writing, something on the level of trusting someone who seemed to have been using a real name on blog comment threads to be accurately relating an incident?
As for the blood dripping from your fangs, I’m finding the ersatz blood more tiresomely amusing than scary. It’s like the special effects in Dawn of the Dead, too over the top to be scary.
You guys are too thin skinned for this kind of thing.
As for the status of atheists in general, after the rise of the new atheists, I’ve heard people express annoyance with atheists who would never have expressed annoyance about atheists before, me, for one. That’s the reason I try to always distinguish between normal atheists and the fundamentalists who give them a bad name.
Ophelia, a blog owner has the right to control the content of their blog. If that means they don’t want you to post comments, that’s their right. Get over it and grow up.
Ah, Anthony. A question I tried to ask you at The Intersection but wasn’t able to. You said
I wanted to ask if you found Exhibit A a credible story when it was presented, and whether you had ever witnessed anything remotely resembling that behavior at a professional meeting. And I didn’t mean whether you had ever read deranged commentary from someone describing themselves as an atheist. I meant, Did Exhibit A sound at all plausible to you? Because it doesn’t to me.
Yet, Chris Mooney leaves it hanging out there as a “credible story,” never acknowledging that he should have questioned its credibility at the start, and never commenting on its credibility since. (Saying there is no reason to believe it because TJ is a fabricator is not the same as saying there is no reason to believe it because it sounds ridiculous.)
Hitch and Cam,
Do keep in mind that “Tom”/”William”/bilbo et al. has a clear track record of feigning repentance and proceeding to do the same sort of unconscionable thing.
There was a thread at the Intersection, which Chris took down, in which two of his socks tried to out someone whose views they didn’t like.
Ponder that.
“William”‘s socks expressed regret at their behavior, but then went on to do bigger and better things like the YNH blog, systematically.
Then when it became clear that somebody was sock puppeting, “William” owned up to it, but only very incrementally—repeatedly admitting to what was already known and making it sound like that was all.
This guy isn’t just a liar and a libeler. He’s repeat offender who feigns contrition, and feigns coming clean.
If you believe he’s really sorry for what he’s done, you are gullible suckers.
I, for one, think that William is a bit sociopathic and a bit Machiavellian, and will never be truly sorry for any of this, and will likely proceed to do the same sort of thing, more carefully, in the future.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think that there’s any credible evidence that “William” is either sorry or reformed. None. Not a smidgen. It might be true, but he’s thoroughly destroyed his credibility on that count.
And that’s not our fault. It’s his fault.
He’s the one that tried to squelch other people’s views, by tag-teaming them for months and months to make it not worth posting dissent at The Intersection.
He’s the one who chronically lied about what other people were saying, and about what it meant.
He’s the one that was utterly hypocritical about honesty and outing.
He’s the one who forfeited his right not to be outed by trying to out someone else.
He’s the one who forfeited his right to be believed when he claims to be contrite and reformed by repeatedly lying about being contrite and reformed.
From all the evidence we have to go on, this guy is as dishonest as the day is long, and has not changed. He has admitted to knowing that what he did was wrong, and continuing to do it anyway.
After systematically lying about other people, and even trying to out somebody, he has zero right to expect people not to simply tell the truth about him.
There’s nothing the slightest bit wrong with doing that.
I think it would be wrong not to. It would be wrong to give this guy second and third chances, only to have him abuse them, and then let him off scot free.
Next time he considers doing this sort of thing, he should be afraid that it will be tracked back to him and his prior offenses, and the pattern will be even clearer. That’s the only thing that would credibly provide him with a motivation for keeping his nose clean.
It’s not our fault he created the dilemma of either outing him—which I admit is an unusual and extreme step, but in this case clearly justified—or letting him off scot free. (And not just unpunished but <i>unaccountable</i> when he does it again..)
He created the dilemma, by feigning contrition, and by pretending to come clean while concealing some of his major offenses, and clamming up about others.
Tell the truth about the guy, and get at the truth behind his story, “Mooney’s Exhibit A.” Inquiring minds want to know what really happened.
Huh. I missed that outing thread. (I’ve been known to scan the Intersection occasionally, but rarely the comments. My impression was of an awful, awful comments section — feral and ill-managed.)
Man. Forget “can’t tell the players without a scorecard” — at this point, I’m starting to think that I can’t tell the player without a wiki. I’m glad I don’t know who this person is and therefore have to care only so much about the dilemma of it all.
ZacharyVoch [to Scote]:
Wow, that was an obnoxiously condescending thing to say.
Don’t say stuff like that in public and expect people to just shut up or email their defenses to you. It’s flame bait.
I don’t buy this “it’s only the Internet” minimization.
For months and months, “William” put a tremendous amount of time and energy into making other people miserable, to make it not worth expressing their opinions, and smearing them as publicly as he could figure out how.
The fact that it happened on the internet doesn’t make that a whit less serious, IMHO.
The fact that such things happen, on a lesser scale, all over the internet all the time, doesn’t mean you should just let it go when you do catch somebody doing it so systematically and determinedly.
The fact that people often lie without consequences on the internet is one of the things that’s wrong with the internet, isn’t it?
That’s exactly why you should do something about it when you catch somebody like William, who has done it so much, and so mercilessly, and who has so clearly forfeited his right to anonymity.
If not in this case, in what case should there be consequences for this sort of behavior?
Real people spend real time on the internet, and try to express real opinions.
William spent hundreds of hours trying to make other poeple’s lives miserable and suppress their opinions by morally illegitimate means.
Personally, I’d rather he’d spray painted graffiti on my car than do some of the things he did to me and others at The Intersection. It’d have been less trouble, and would not have significantly impaired me in trying to do what I want to do.
You can bet that if I caught him vandalizing my car, feigning contrition, and doing it again, I’d try to ensure that there were real consequences for the real person. If it didn’t get him put in jail, or get him a criminal record, I certainly wouldn’t be shy about describing the incident on the internet using his real name—I’d think that was the least I could do to try to enforce some minimal moral norms.
People should know that there are moral norms on the internet.
They should know that it’s not true that what happens on the internet stays on the internet, no matter what you do, and no matter how much you do it.
They should know that if you lie to people, and lie about people in a big malicious way, those people don’t have to respect your anonymity. If you lie about them, and they can find out who you are, they have the right to tell the truth about you—how could they not?
This guy is basically a vandal, trying as hard as he can to vandalize people’s ideas and reputations. The fact that he’s doing it on the internet doesn’t make him any better than a guy with a spray can trying to vandalize people’s cars; I think it’s worse. My car is a heap, but my reputation means something to me, even my pseudonymous reputation. I’ve spent considerable time over several years building it, and other people may think that’s dopey waste of time, but it’s my choice and my time.
You might think somebody’s extensive model train system is a dopey waste of time and money, too, but that doesn’t mean he should be okay with people wantonly vandalizing it, does it?
Creeps like “William”—and a multitude of lesser ones—are a big part of what’s wrong with the Internet. What’s right about just letting it happen, and letting it go? What’s wrong with doing something “extreme” about it, like telling the truth?
(And if you tell people who dealt with this chronic, mercilessly malicious asshole that it’s just the internet, and have a chai tea instead of doing anything about it, well, you can take your chai tea and give yourself an enema with it. :-) )
Cam –
Hahaha – yes it’s all very baroque and tangled and tedious. I know more about it than anyone should, merely (and obviously) because YNH ended up being so focused on me and in such a disgusting and/or libelous way.
The stuff about the incomplete admissions and the history of energetically apologizing and then going on to set up YNH and all its mendacious sock puppets is one reason I’m not convinced that his anonymity should be protected. His possible fragility of course is a reason I’m not convinced he should be exposed. I’m not convinced either way. (It’s like the burqa ban this way. I’m not adamant in either direction; I have competing reasons.) I have a mass of conflicting competing thoughts, including the thought that it’s not worth that much attention.
One thought is that I’m very very tired of being called a witch hunter, particularly by people who used to be friends or colleagues. But another thought is that I’m also very tired of people saying William/TH didn’t do anything all that terrible, since I’m the one that William repeatedly called a liar, a meme that got picked up by other malicious craps in the “blogosphere” and is now stuck to me. William/TJ didn’t do anything all that terrible to various bystanders, that’s true, but he did me some damage; possibly considerable damage, I don’t know. I find the aching sensitivity toward William/TJ coupled with the loathing of me pretty repellent. So this is a factor. But there are other factors.
So I don’t know what I think about outing W/TJ – and I don’t know who he is in any case. I know his university, but not his name.
So I don’t know what I think about it, and I don’t know the relevant facts, so I do nothing.
I hope that clears that up.
I cross-posted with Paul. See, all that is one thing I think – or one view that I have. But there are conflicting worries.
So at the moment it’s just as well that I don’t know who W/TJ is. It doesn’t make any practical difference what I think, because I couldn’t out him if I were sure I wanted to.
I wanted to ask if you found Exhibit A a credible story when it was presented, and whether you had ever witnessed anything remotely resembling that behavior at a professional meeting. Ken P.
Let me see if I can guess how I might have responded to it without looking, I think I’d have said it sounded as if it could be true, I’ve certainly heard that kind of talk in and around universities, during Q&A periods, coming out of people who teach at universities. I would be surprised if I gave something I didn’t have any actual evidence of an actual endorsement as being an accurate description of what happened. Do you know what I said at the time? I know gillt has asserted I said I believed it but gillt’s got a long record of misrepresenting what I’ve said.
Do you know, for a fact, that it didn’t? If there is that kind of real evidence it should be presented before this gum ball rolls much farther down hill. In my profession we don’t have time for stuff like that. I’ve heard some quite impious stuff coming out of the mouths of singers surrounding sacred texts, well worn and silly and vulgar puns, but it’s a time waster of valuable time.
Anthony McCarthy @ 153,
No, of course I’m not willing to state that I’ve never made a comparable mistake. I wouldn’t dream of such a thing. I am however willing to state that if I did, and were apprised of it, I think I would apologize for it properly – I would try to undo whatever damage the mistake had done.
I am also willing to state that I don’t think I have made a comparable mistake.
I didn’t say anything about you and the bloody fangs, so your view of that isn’t particularly relevant.
A legal right, of course, but I’m not talking about the legal right. I’m talking about the moral right. I disagree; I don’t think people have a moral right to talk smack about people while blocking their comments. I think doing that is fundamentally dishonest. I don’t consider that a childish view.
Yeah, quit complaining about being banned. Big deal! Look at McCarthy, he’s <i>never once</i> complained about being banned at <i>Pharyngula</i>, because it’s…
wait
No, I don’t. Along with many others in this conversation, I didn’t know about the story until the YNH stuff broke.
On reflection, I can’t say how I would have reacted to Exhibit A on first presentation. Although it goes against all of my personal experience (I once heard Eugenie Scott urge accommodation in the strongest terms, and recall nothing negative from any of the thousand or so scientists present), I also know that everywhere you go, there is an abundance of jerks. And it was endorsed by Chris Mooney, who is not an immoderate person. So, yeah, maybe my initial reaction would have been, “Oh, shit, here we go.” However, I think I would fairly quickly have been dissuaded by the lack of detail and corroboration. Maybe not. Maybe I’d still be thinking it not disconfirmed.
McCarthy, if you can’t grow up and get over it, at least try to make your hypocrisy a little less obvious.
Sven, that old saw again, eh? You mean when I said this at The Intersection?
362. Anthony McCarthy Says:
July 11th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Gee, spurge, I’m getting my comments held, I’d imagine because O.B. got in a huff and claimed I was libeling her. I’m not bawling.
PZ banned me, I suspect because I pointed out a research scientist at Yale was actually engaged in research whereas he wasn’t. And I didn’t bawl over that either.
You people had better toughen up if you intend to keep this up. You can’t depend on your gang getting your back in ever environment.
His subsequently finding comments that hadn’t shown up when I posted them, after I mentioned my impression that I’d been banned (as I seem to have been at Coyne’s blog, as well) has nothing to do with my assertion THAT IF PZ WANTS TO BAN ME HE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO DO IT. I know that’s too subtle a point for the boy packs of the NA blogs to fathom but it happens to have always been my opinion on the subject. That people are banned at PZ’s place, in a particularly mean way, apparently doesn’t keep his fans and friends from whining about other bloggers banning people.
I wish you people would get the point after, this must be about the ninth time I’ve had to make it. As I said to PZ later in the same comment thread:
393. Anthony McCarthy Says:
July 11th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
It’s all the same to me PZ, like I told the guy who I first mentioned it to above, am I bawling about it?
And, especially:
434. Anthony McCarthy Says:
July 12th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Hey, PZ, I told you, it’s all the same to me. I don’t really care. It’s your fan boys who are keeping it up. You want to get shut of it, tell them, not me. Matt can’t stand because a Mic doesn’t show sufficient reverence to his idols. He’ll never let it drop.
What part of a blog owner has a right to determine the content of their blog don’t you guys understand. I said to spurge I didn’t care as I was saying it. I only mentioned it to Dan S. on May 21 because he was really over the top annoying me over one of his lexicographic obsessions.
Ophelia, well, how many times have the owners of The Intersection mentioned you in a blog post since you’ve been banned that wasn’t in response to something you said?
You post piece, you make comments, you take your chances. If I looked down all the times the common names of NA comment threads actually lied about what I said, it would be a full time job. You have chosen to become involved in a pretty vicious polemical battle. Them’s the breaks.
Cam,
Yeah, it’s an ungodly mess. I myself was inclined to be somewhat forgiving of “William” despite all the shit he flung at me and others for months and months; I was squeamish about outing him, until somebody reminded me that he had tried to get somebody outed, with the clear intent of getting them fired, IIRC. (And feigned contrition about being such an asshole when even Mooney wouldn’t let that fly on his blog.)
Next time somebody engages in handwringing about the possible effects on this guy’s career, remind them of that, and his subsequent rampant assholery. He really is a special case.
Funny how Chris Mooney and Jean Kazez never let on just how seriously this guy abused people when pontificating about appropriate courses of action and others’ supposed overreactions.
It’s also funny how Jean Kazez abdicates moral responsibility to Chris Mooney in deciding such things—she doesn’t know or want to know the gory details. She just trusts Chris’s exquisite ethical judgment, and proceeds to vilify people that don’t.
From a professional philosopher who teaches ethics, I find that really interesting.
Anthony,
That’s very interesting. I may have misremembered and misjudged you on that point. If so, I am truly sorry.
I do seem to recall times when others have whined about being banned by PZ, and you didn’t call them out, and other times you’ve complained about being banned. Am I mistaken?
(BTW, I’m not saying you’re obliged to call them out every time. Doing it even once is pretty cool. Not that I agree about “rights”—I’m with Ophelia that there’s a legitimate question of when it’s morally right to ban somebody.)
I figure PZ’s a big boy and can fight his own battles. And if he isn’t his boy pack can.
That’s the thing. It’s very galling, all this minimization and oh poor Tomming, from people who didn’t get slimed by him.
However – Jerry Coyne has done a post on the subject, with (at last!) some actual information. This should do a lot to end the vaporous speculation about W/TJ and the truth of Exhibit A.
Also – a crucial sentence in Jerry’s post –
So that takes care of that. No need to out him for the sake of accountability. He’s already being held to account. It’s out of our hands, which is much the best place for it.
The comments have paused. People are reading Jerry’s post. Very good.
Just read Jerry’s post. You do know that these standards are going to be ones you have to abide by yourselves, don’t you?
Yes, Chris Mooney made the mistake of taking what he was told by someone who wasn’t being entirely honest, or maybe totally dishonest, as being more credible than he should have. You willing to have your archives gone through for lapses of a similar journalistic gravity?
Yes of course. I’ve already said as much.
Oh hell. I took the unusual step of closing comments here yesterday, because the thread was so long and there was a new thread on the same basic subject so I wanted to shift the discussion there. But Anthony McCarthy said (@ 166) that he was banned at Pharyngula, and Paul W responded to that. I’ve just read at Pharyngula that McCarthy is not banned at all. So I’ve had to re-open these comments just to put that on the record.
Ophelia, I was laying the record of what that apparently legendary comment spat was really about, at least what I’d said during it. As to why, when I first posted those comments at PZ’s that they didn’t show up, I have no idea. As I’ve told you, I don’t care if he did or didn’t ban me, I was telling someone who was having their comments stuck in moderation at The Intersection to stop whining about it. Apparently those comments were held up far longer at PZ’s, though that sill has nothing to do with the point I was making to “spurge”.
I’m thinking that the new atheists have a widespread practice of skimming instead of reading and an inability to focus on anything but what you want to see.
I’m especially amused at the twists and turns you guys make to defend PZ from a charge of doing something he does, publicly, cruelly and in a pretty up-front manner, he bans people from his blog. Is he still hiding behind the rulings of his posse or is he taking the responsibility for it? Either way it’s still his blog to do with what he wants to.
Anthony, are you an atheist? Are you Christian?
Stu, I am neither.
FWIW, McCarthy is also not banned at Pharyngula, and has never been, as PZ recently reminded us.
Paul W, Anthony McCarthy doesn’t care if he is or if he isn’t, though he is mildly curious as to why those comments didn’t show up when he posted them but seemed to after PZ participated in that discussion noted above. I’m slightly more interested in why someone who does show up on that “Dungeon” list, an atheist who isn’t an admirer of mine but who has seemed to be honest and conscientious whenever I’ve read his comments, is banned by the PZites, as I recall, for “slagging”.
Why is this important enough to you guys that you keep misrepresenting what was said about it?
Paul W, thanks for the heads up, of sorts. I went over to PZ’s playhouse and read the thread that mentioned me. Yeah, that’s the same low level of accuracy and honesty I’ve come to expect from his boy pack. I figure life is too short for me to go there to try to set a record straight, they don’t want the record set straight.