Comments on: You’re Not Helping blogger William Apologizes Sincerely, Honestly.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:49:53 +0000

Oedipus: Holy crap!

CPP: By now most people who read your comments understand that much of the time you are not being straight. You have an interest in letting the “anonymous blogging is evil” thread died down. But, when this sort of thing bubbles to the surface … http://tinyurl.com/26laor2 … it is easy to realize that this is not just gawking at last week’s train wreck. This is actually important stuff.

By: Oedipus

Oedipus — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:22:42 +0000

Further developments: William admits to being Tom Johnson, the pseudonymous apocryphal biologist twice lauded by Chris Mooney. CPP: Yes, you're right.

By: Comrade PhysioProf

Comrade PhysioProf — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 23:01:17 +0000

This “William” dude is attention-trolling the living shit out of you fucking dumbasses.

By: Oedipus

Oedipus — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 19:25:54 +0000

This just in: Will has admitted to socking up The Intersection. Scandal or fizzle?

By: J. J. Ramsey

J. J. Ramsey — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 22:42:36 +0000

Zach Voch: “So now, I hope he’ll start blogging again.”

To be honest, I don’t. I’ve said before that YNH was often right, and I stand by that, but I didn’t like it when it went off the rails with some of its later nonsense about Susan Jacoby and Russell Blackford, and I really don’t like being deceived by sock puppets. (And special thanks to Hitch and Oedipus for actually citing evidence of sock puppetry instead of FUDding around like some people.)

By: Definitely_Not_Aaron

Definitely_Not_Aaron — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 02:38:29 +0000

I think Aaron makes excellent points.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 02:34:22 +0000

That is probably the most sincere apology I’ve ever read for an incident like this (ie, he didn’t try to justify his actions like many people do). I’m not sure if I agree with deleting the blog though, as it could be seen as trying to destroy the original evidence (though it will clearly live on in other blogs).

As for blogging again in the future I don’t see a direct problem. The only thing you can do on a blog that’s dishonest and hard to detect is sock-puppetry, and people will be watching for that pretty closely from now on. Integrity is still an issue but I don’t trust most of the blogs I read to give accurate accounts anyway 🙂

I’m curious, was he anonymous or did people know his real world identity? That certainly makes a difference in how accountable someone feels while blogging.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 01:17:44 +0000

Oh, it’s not just me then – who can’t get the Buddha.

Well if nobody can then I’m not missing anything.

By: John McKay

John McKay — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 01:09:39 +0000

Hmmm. You seem to have swamped the Buddha. The link just grinds and times out.

By: =^skeptic cat^=

=^skeptic cat^= — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 00:17:09 +0000

That second comment from William in re concocting over-the-top comments goes a long way for me. The readers of secular-leaning science blogs really aren’t violent nor dangerous.

See, I tried to tell him that Greg’s a nice guy and that he had Greg all wrong. Ah well, not important.