Embarrassing Correction: I screwed up. Somehow I pasted the wrong IP into a query. I thought I was checking Brignell’s IP, but it was actually Per’s. Per and “James Brown” are the same person, but his real name is David Bell, not John Brignell. I apologize to John Brignell and to Per/David Bell.
After I criticized John Brignell for an innumerate criticism of the Lancet study in this post, a commenter named Per showed up to defend Brignell and attack me. Those of you familiar with the Mary Rosh story can guess the rest—
it seems that “Per” is a sock puppet operated by John Brignell.
Here are some the highlights from Per’s comments. There’s this:
I don’t know what Brignell did and didn’t consider, ‘cos I am not telepathic.
Professor Brignell, ex of the University of Southampton, has a considerable academic reputation based around measurement science in engineering. It strikes me that his knowledge of statistics and measurement in engineering may well be greatly superior to yours.
At least he didn’t claim to be a former student of Prof Brignell. Per finally got very abusive, telling me:
You are a liar.
I told him that he was no longer allowed to post and he responded:
Hey Tim, if you want to rave on in your blog, and don’t want to be bothered by any of these “facts”, it’s all yours. I won’t darken your doors again. thing is- now- you will always be a liar.
Apparently he just meant that “Per” would not post again, because
Brignell he came back with two new sock puppets identities, “James Brown” (initials JB, get it?) and “M Mouse” posting another 30 comments to my blog with M Mouse abusing Carleton Wu in this thread:
what sort of idiot would fail to understand such basics ? … Have you seen a psychiatrist ?
Which was backed up a few minutes later by “James Brown”:
Wu, how did you get it so wrong! How did you make so many mistakes ? I’ll bet you must be feeling a right little peckerhead by now !
In his comments, Per managed to demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic statistics (see dsquared’s comments especially).
I am quite happy to point out—as a matter of fact—that Mann did not disclose his vested interest in his article when he attacked M&M, and that he therefore writes with an undisclosed, vested interest. I am quite clear that many journals do have a code of ethical practice as regards disclosure of competing interests. You obviously think this standard of behaviour is acceptable, and I am content to leave you with that view.
his my own petard.
Update: See embarrassing correction at top of post.