Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
Back in April Patterico caught Michael Hiltzik using sock puppets to defend himself. He's back with a post implying that Glenn Greenwald has sock puppets called Ellison, Sam Mathews, Wilson, Ryan and Thomas Ellers who all post from the same IP address and defend Greenwald. Patterico believes that this will bring "this douchebag down". Not so fast.
Greenwald has responded by stating that he only posts under his own name and implying that his partner had left the comments defending him. This seems likely to be true, since the writing style of Ellison and co is different from Greenwald's and Greenwald is forthright in defending himself with comments under his own name.
Greenwald's partner's use of multiple pseudonyms does not seem to be sock puppetry either. It would only be sock puppetry if Ellison, say, backed up Sam Mathews, but each pseudonym seems to have been used on a different blog.
Update:Patterico offers more evidence :
Greenwald (and nobody else) used one IP address to make five comments on my site on July 13. He (and nobody else) used the same one to make 2 comments on Villainous Company. "Ryan" used that IP address to post 3 comments at Riehl World View. And "Ellison" posted a comment using that IP address at Ace's. And "Thomas Ellers" posted numerous comments using that IP address at Q&O.
Greenwald (and nobody else) used a second IP address to post 3 comments on my site on July 12. He used the same IP address to post as himself at Confederate Yankee. And that same IP address was used by "Wilson" at Jeff Goldstein's site.
Greenwald's defense makes things interesting. But there are at least two separate IP addresses that were shared by him and his sycophants. That makes it trickier for him to explain.
This isn't even slightly hard to explain. Ryan, Ellison and Ellers posted on July 13 or later. Wilson posted on July 12. The two IP addresses are dynamic ones from the same ISP in Rio. All that happened was that the IP address for Greenwald's household changed on July 13, as sometimes happens with dynamic IP addresses.
Greenwald's partner defended him using several different pseudonyms (not sock puppets). This is not going bring Greenwald down, no matter how much Patterico wishes.
More Update Patterico has a long post where he tries to make up for the weakness of his argument by including lots of pictures of sockpuppets. Needless to say, despite being well aware of them, Patterico avoids mentioning Greenwald's partner's posts as Ellison and Wilson supporting Greenwald on Greenwald's blog. Tellingly, he does mention that Ellers didn't comment at Greenwald's:
It's the weirdest thing; Ellers has an amazing familiarity with Greenwald's blog and with David S.'s history as a commenter . . . yet if Ellers ever commented on Greenwald's blog, I can't find any evidence of it. I assume that if any of his defenders can, they'll let me know.
Comments
So the best case scenario is that his partner rushes to various blog sites in order to 'take up' for Greenwald and uses pseudonyms in order to try to cover up the fact that many of the comments are identical and parrot what Greenwald says.
Duly noted.
I hate it when my wife does that for me.
Posted by: RW | July 20, 2006 3:50 PM
Oh, and I forgot that it explains that his partner pretended not to know Greenwald and posted that he e-mailed Greenwald in order to get the information that his partner had already been posted in various sites while using another name.
THAT'S part of the 'best case' scenario.
Not that it's a big story or that there's anything unethical on the part of Greenwald, but to say that there's not a good bit of this that's smelly (and, a mixture of funny and sad) would be disengenuous).
Posted by: RW | July 20, 2006 3:54 PM
It is possible for multiple computers to show up with the same IP address. This would happen in the case of a firewall with Native Address Translation (NAT). It's also possible for multiple people to share one computer.
It is possible to post under multiple identities without using them as sock puppets. I may or may not do this myself for reasons I do not wish to discuss.
Posted by: wamba | July 20, 2006 4:00 PM
It's also amusing and instructive to note the subject of the Greenwald post that led Patterico to level these accusations -- Greenwald quoted and called attention to death wishes against US Supreme Court Justices posted and cross-linked by Patterico and his friends.
The 'sock puppetry' accusations, in addition to apparently being baseless, appear in place of any response addressing the substance of Greenwald's claims, along with numerous posts calling Greenwald 'a douche' and 'gay'.
Now that's investigative journalism at its finest!
Posted by: melior (in Austin) | July 20, 2006 7:01 PM
Feh, I use different nyms on different blogs. My SO wouldn't recognize any of them. Our IPs would be exactly the same, as we are behind a NAT.
Oh, hell, we could be flaming each other and never know it.....
Posted by: Graculus | July 20, 2006 11:08 PM
Graculus :
Did you pick your stuff off the floor yet?
Posted by: Mrs Graculus | July 21, 2006 7:41 AM
The "partner" explanation works only if you accept Greenwald's denial as credible. Given his serial mendacity in other areas, I see no particular reason to extend to him the benefit of the doubt.
However, even accepting the denial for the sake of argument, how does the "partner" explanation reflect particularly well on him? It means that he's shacked up with a psycho who's stalking his blog-critics under multiple pseudonyms, and that Greenwald's too much of a dope to realize it despite the facts that (a) Greenwald was provably, contemporaneously, reading and/or commenting in the very same blog comment sections, and (b) that at least one of the psycho's posts quoted directly from emails sent to him by Greenwald.
Either he's a liar or he's a fool. Pick one.
Posted by: BC | July 21, 2006 1:55 PM
Just a quick note to mention that BC is pretty typical of the quality of the "critiques" of Greenwald: accusations without evidence and name calling.
As for the psycho comment, wow, imagine, someone upset enough at people who called their SO a douchebag and a liar to react angrily to those people. BC is right -- that is just so foreign to history of human relations as to be amazing in its unprecedented-ness.
Posted by: kevin | July 21, 2006 2:57 PM
Umm, you don't think Brazilians can spell??
Posted by: Tim Lambert | July 21, 2006 3:53 PM
Yes, it could be his partner but my hunch is that it's not, on the grounds that Glenn would have said so. I admit that I can't prove that.
Posted by: jade | July 21, 2006 4:14 PM
Golly, kevin, I wasn't aware that I needed to list Greenwald's prevarications in excruciating detail in order to note that we have only his word to go on, and so the Greenwald Is Lying Out His Ass Theory is at least as plausible as the Magic Boyfriend Theory (and possibly moreso, if you have reason to believe that Greenwald is something less than a poster child for honesty and integrity).
As far as my description of the boyfriend in question as a "psycho", I stand by that. Being upset or angry on a significant other's behalf is one thing; stalking one's significant other's critics under multiple pseudonyms is another.
Posted by: BC | July 21, 2006 5:18 PM
So, er, what would you call Dan Riehl? A superultraplussocionutcasepsycho?
Posted by: jade | July 21, 2006 5:27 PM
I'd call Dan Riehl a tool, but YMMV.
Posted by: BC | July 21, 2006 5:49 PM
Fair enough BC!
Posted by: jade | July 21, 2006 7:07 PM
1) When accusing someone of lying the burden of proof is on you. 2) You were the one who called Greenwald a serial liar as evidence that he should be assumed to be lying now. So unless you can give some evidence for this, you've exposed yourself as someone throwing pigshit in hopes sojme of it will stick.
Posted by: Gar Lipow | July 21, 2006 9:51 PM
Duly noted
In reality, that should be dully noted for the edification it brings us all.
Sadly, Ricky Lee West is all over blogoland hyping this non-story. But, hey, things are always slow in North Jawjaw.
We hate it when Ricky Lee's wife does that, too.
Posted by: Jadegold | July 21, 2006 10:09 PM
Brazilian's our pour third world types who cannot afford spell Cecher's
Posted by: elspi | July 21, 2006 11:21 PM
Gar Lipow:
(1) This isn't a courtroom or a peer-reviewed scientific journal, [No personal attacks on other commenters, please. Tim] Concepts such as "burden of proof" have precisely zero relevance to the conversation.
(2) I said that given Greenwald's past serial dishonesty, I saw no reason to extend him the benefit of the doubt, which is altogether different from saying that he is, in fact, lying now. To put it another way, I don't see how the Greenwald Is Lying Out His Ass Theory can be dismissed out of hand -- as Tim seems to want to do -- purely on the basis of Greenwald's own self-serving denials. If he were an impeccably honest guy in all other respects, sure, I could see accepting his explanation as dispositive. But he's not, so I don't, especially since circumstantial evidence casting doubt on the plausibility of the Magic Boyfriend Theory continues to mount.
(3) I continue to fail to see the need to actually cite chapter and verse on Greenwald's aforementioned credibility problems in order to make that point. It's a fairly well-established fact that Greenwald is frequently guilty of rhetorical overreach bordering on -- if he's smart enough to know better, which he clearly is -- dissembling. Examples abound, from his ongoing efforts to brand Glenn Reynolds as some sort of deranged extremist to his self-evidently ludicrous claim of a few months back that modern conservatives habitually cast out as apostates and relabel as liberals anybody who questions Leader Bush. Greenwald has also, from time to time, peddled flat-out untruths: his recent accusation that Patterico was a defender of Ann Coulter, for example, which, even after it was pointed out to him that he was wrong, he has refused to acknowledge, much less apologize for. Bottom line, the guy's a hack, and it's not particularly controversial to say so except in the tiny minds of his sycophants.
If you want to insist that Greenwald is an impeccably honest guy, and that his critics have some sort of continuing obligation to document his dishonesty in excruciating detail every time they suggest otherwise, then may you continue to enjoy your volcanic technicolor Kool-Aid enema.
Posted by: BC | July 22, 2006 2:25 PM
BC, coming up with a silly name like "Magic Boyfriend Theory" does not disprove the possibillity that Greenwald's partner made the posts. In what way do you think magic was involved in the posts? Or was this just rhetorical overreach on your part?
I don't dismiss the "Greenwald is lying" purely on the basis of his denials. You have not come up with an example of him lying. At best, you have an example of him making a mistake and not admitting to it. Nor is that the only evidence in favour of the partner theory. The writing style seems to be closer to that used by Greenwald's partner than that used by Greenwald.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | July 22, 2006 2:49 PM
High-quality English spelling and grammar isn't possible from a Brazilian? That really is a despicable comment.
Posted by: mndean | July 22, 2006 3:35 PM
Examples abound, from his ongoing efforts to brand Glenn Reynolds as some sort of deranged extremist
Reynolds routinely links approvingly to absurd posts on other blogs or absurd articles (e.g. Tammy Bruce screaming at Tony Blair for not being sufficiently gung-ho; loony fact-free screeds from loony fans of his, et cetera).
He genuinely seems to believe that the MSM and the Democrats (as well as a number of generals in despair over Iraq) want America to fail and be invaded and what-not because they're all traitors. This can fairly be described as an extremist position. Yes, other conservatives do see it as such.
to his self-evidently ludicrous claim of a few months back that modern conservatives habitually cast out as apostates and relabel as liberals anybody who questions Leader Bush.
Well, you could argue over what "habitually" means, but I have heard many conservatives say things like this long before he said it. This is a difference in opinion over what the climate of feeling is; it certainly isn't "mendacity". You admit yourself that rhetorical overreach isn't the same thing as flat-out lying.
Speaking of which: he said in passing that Patters had not condemned Coulter, when in fact he had condemned her on his blog on a number of occasions, several months ago. Okay, so Greenwald sloppily didn't check. The fact remains that Patters had not condemned Misha or Goldstein for some astonishing remarks they have made, and yet expects "The Left" to do so for anyone on their side -- which means he undeniably has double standards.
Greenwald writes thousands of words a day. Are all the lies on the level of this one?
Posted by: jade | July 22, 2006 3:58 PM
High-quality English spelling and grammar isn't possible from a Brazilian? That really is a despicable comment.
My line of thought was that if he is Brazilian, his first language is probably Portuguese. I was (maybe unjustifiably) hazarding a guess as to what is most likely. I have no idea who he is. For all I know he is actually called Thomas Ellers.
Posted by: jade | July 22, 2006 4:16 PM
How can Greenwald be a serial liar? BC, do you even read his blog? he makes arguments about Executive power a lot of the time, you either buy his arguments or you don't, I don't see where he "lies."
Posted by: Pinko Punko | July 22, 2006 4:38 PM
Tim, "Magic Boyfriend Theory" is shorthand. Remain calm.
If you don't dismiss the "Greenwald Is Lying Out His Ass" theory purely on the basis of his denials, on what basis do you weigh in so conclusively on the side of the Magic Boyfriend Theory? Writing style is pretty thin gruel.
Posted by: BC | July 22, 2006 7:49 PM
If the partner is really out there filing those posts, wouldn't Greenwald know that the email was sent to him from his partner? Wouldn't he recognize his partners posting patterns? Is it really likely that his partner would post like that and not tell him?
Posted by: TCO | July 22, 2006 8:16 PM
jade:
In the first place, you, like Greenwald, dishonestly mischaracterize Reynolds' position vis-a-vis the left and the MSM. Reynolds has expressly and repeatedly stated that he does not believe the left and the media want the terrorists to win; rather, his position is that the left and the media have had their good judgement corrupted by hatred of Bush, to the point of doing things that have the effect of abetting the nation's enemies not out of desire to aid those enemies, but out of desire to harm Bush politically. I'm aware of Djerejian's critique; it (and Andrew Sullivan's -- I'll save you the trouble of linking) is predicated on approximately the same dishonest caricature of Reynolds' views. If you think Reynolds' actual views -- which are readily discoverable by anyone who reads at approximately a ninth-grade level, a category I can only assume Greenwald, Djerejian, Sullivan, and yourself all fall onto -- are "extremist", then I submit to you the substantively-similar leftist critique of Republican "Clinton-haters" during the 1990s, and the landmark precedent of Comes Around v. Goes Around.
With respect to Greenwald's claims about conservatives' cultish devotion to Bush, James Taranto, among others, demolished them back in February. Greenwald's own links didn't reveal a single example of a conservative relabelling as a liberal -- one of Greenwald's key accusations -- another who deviated from the party line. Far from identifying a culture of groupthink on the right, his "supporting evidence" showed only that conservatives criticize, sometimes vigorously, other conservatives with whom they have substantive disagreements (oh the horror). Greenwald is a smart guy. Presumably he read his own links before making wild claims. Yet he made those claims anyway. You can call it what you want; I call it, at best, a reckless misrepresentation of fact within the definition of the term "mendacity".
Speaking of which, it would be nice if you stopped lying about Patterico, who has most certainly not demanded that the Left condemn each and every one of its idiots. In point of fact he's said he thinks the Condemnation Game is rather pointless and dumb. With respect to Greenwald's accusations about Patterico vis-a-vis Coulter, using the search function on Patterico's blog for the term "Coulter" turned up two pages of posts that are almost uniformly criticism. So Greenwald either ran such a search and knew what he was saying was false, or didn't bother to do ten seconds worth of rudimentary checking and thus knew that he had no idea whether what he was saying was true or false. So we have another misrepresentation of fact, at least reckless if not intentional, within the definition of the term "mendacity".
I'm not sure how big Greenwald's lies have to be before they demonstrate that he's not precisely Captain Integrity, and that we therefore might reasonably look askance at his denials of the allegations of sockpuppetry. Care to provide me with a metric?
Posted by: BC | July 22, 2006 8:42 PM
If the partner is posing as different people to hide his identity, he would have to fib about e-mailing Glenn as well. FWIW, I have in the past occasionally left comments on friends' blogs, defending them, without identifying myself or telling them what I have done. There isn't anything particularly outlandish about G's version. But who the hell knows (or cares at this stage).
Posted by: jade | July 22, 2006 8:55 PM
What is "the partner's name"? Has he/she come forward to admit to this and corrobarate Glenwald's claim? Has Glenwald given her name (seems appropriate given the behavior)?
Posted by: TCO | July 22, 2006 9:31 PM
Reynolds has expressly and repeatedly stated that he does not believe the left and the media want the terrorists to win; rather, his position is that the left and the media have had their good judgement corrupted by hatred of Bush, to the point of doing things that have the effect of abetting the nation's enemies not out of desire to aid those enemies, but out of desire to harm Bush politically.
Yes, I'm quite aware of Reynolds' patented, passive-aggressive, focus-group-tested style of weaselling. His words say one thing, his amazing links say another. Link to Hugh Hewitt's huffing, fill your own column with sweet reason. Because the Left has had its judgment so affected by its Bush-hatred that it ended up being right all along.
Greenwald's own links didn't reveal a single example of a conservative relabelling as a liberal -- one of Greenwald's key accusations -- another who deviated from the party line
Taranto is not exactly an oracle. I'm sorry. The Republican Party keeps its more prominent members in line pretty well, but the rank and file and the proud citizens of Blogtopia aren't fooled:
Voinovich is a liberal. Bob Barr is a liberal. John McCain is a liberal. And again. John Sununu is a liberal. Chuck Hagel is a liberal.
Speaking of which, it would be nice if you stopped lying about Patterico, who has most certainly not demanded that the Left condemn each and every one of its idiots. In point of fact he's said he thinks the Condemnation Game is rather pointless and dumb.
Oh really? Is he going to stop lying about the SadlyNo T-shirts? I suppose the Condemnation Game is so pointless and dumb he can't help but plunge right in repeatedly?
Posted by: jade | July 22, 2006 10:17 PM
No, TCO, Greenwald seems unaccountably to be too preoccupied with some kind of court case to resolve this burning issue.
Posted by: jade | July 22, 2006 10:21 PM
BC: So Sullivan and Djerejian are liars but the right doesn't cast out those who disagree with the party line. OK. The trouble with calling a disagreement on a matter of opinion a "lie" is that you making it hard to distinguish that from when someone makes a statement that he knows to be false. A "lie" isn't just something you disagree with, and it isn't just a false statement -- you must believe that statement to be false when you make it. You don't have anything like that from Greenwald. So Greenwald's denial is significant.
So even though there is no magic involved, "Magic Boyfriend" is "shorthand", rather than, say, a lie? Is that correct?
Posted by: Tim Lambert | July 22, 2006 10:53 PM
Greenwald's partner posted under pseudonyms, so it would be bad form for me to give out his real name. I doubt that a statement from Greenwald's partner would persuade the Greenwald haters of anything.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | July 22, 2006 10:59 PM
I think it's absolutely essential. And it's outrageous to sheild someone that has already been lying like that. (The "email" and all.) Tim, I'm not asking you to produce this person. That is up to GG. But if he is going to come up with this story, he needs to substantiate it. It sure smells shaggy dog...
Posted by: TCO | July 22, 2006 11:48 PM
Let me ask you. Putting aside "possibilities", what's your betting odds that GG did (or approved or knew of) the socking?
Posted by: TCO | July 22, 2006 11:49 PM
TCO, did you read my post? Posting under more than one pseudonym is not the same as sock puppetry. And I don't think it is a crime if your partner posts a comment on your blog.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | July 23, 2006 4:12 AM
Greenwald: Plagiarist or Puppetmaster?
Take your pick:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/187248.php
Also: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/187283.php http://ace.mu.nu/archives/187312.php
Posted by: mike | July 23, 2006 4:52 AM
Are you kidding me mike? Someone posting from a different IP in Brazil makes the exceedingly obvious point that Sullivan agrees with Greenwald. If Greenwald makes the same point it must be plagiarism or sock puppetry? Is this a joke?
But thanks for point ing me to Ace, because he has about ten posts offering various ludicrous arguments that Greenwald used socks. I think some serious mocking is in order.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | July 23, 2006 10:01 AM
Maybe your right Lambert.
Maybe it was all just a coincidence.
The poster, who made his point before Greenwald, and who uses nearly identical language and style and just happens to be yet another highly competent English speaker from the same city in Brazil.
Can I get some odds on that, please Lambert?
Mocking is definitely in order. But not of Ace, but rather of people such as yourself who, in spite of a scientific background, refuse to apply Occam's razor to come up with the obvious conclusion.
Greenwald is a liar.
Posted by: mike | July 23, 2006 3:09 PM
Oh really? If something is in dispute, who has the burden proof is always important, especially if what is in dispute is an accusation against somebody. Of course this only applies to arguments based on reason, rather than ones based on mud flinging.
Posted by: Gar Lipow | July 23, 2006 3:14 PM
"Death wishes against US Supreme Court Justices posted and cross-linked by Patterico and his friends."
Surely, "Patterico" Patrick Frey's boss should be made aware of this? I don't know what the code of conduct is for a Deputy District Attorney, but public conduct upholding the rule of law must be somewhere on the list...
Posted by: agum | July 23, 2006 3:36 PM
I'll give Wikipedia's definition of Sockpuppet rather than Lambert's unique definition:
Sockpuppet (sometimes known also as a mule, or a glove puppet) is an additional account created by an existing member of an Internet community pretending to be a separate person. This is done so as to manufacture the illusion of support in a vote or argument or to act without social effect on one's "main" account stay away from the issue. This behaviour is often seen as dishonest by online communities and as a result these individuals are often labeled as trolls.
It comes down to intent and function. Glenn Greenwald intended to mislead others into believing that
So if you accept the argument that Greenwald is indeed using the monikers that have been mentioned, this sounds like sockpuppetry to me. He used different identities to defend himself dishonestly pretending to be somebody other than Glenn Greenwald.
Then, of course, he lied about doing it and offered up a lame and incredible explanation....
Unless you still buy the idea that it was just (a) his boyfriend in several instances and (b) in another instance he just happened to make the same point as some poster who writes in an identical style and who's comments he had read a day earlier and unbelievably, remarkably, amazingly, that poster was a competent English speaker from the same city in Brazil.
But then, we would have to call you Lambert, wouldn't we?
Posted by: mike | July 23, 2006 3:51 PM
I apologize for the copying and pasting in my last post. A portion was deleted. I'm sure everyone can figure it out, though.
Posted by: mike | July 23, 2006 3:52 PM
mike, "nearly identical language"? I don't think so. Apart from the quotes from Sullivan, nearly every word is different.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | July 23, 2006 4:37 PM
Oh, come on Lambert. I don't think you're a dummy and I don't think you buy Greenwald's story either. The only point I raised that you challenged was whether or not the poster in question used exactly the same words as Greenwald's post a day later. Fine, he used a substantial amount of synonymous language. Happy now?
Call it sockpuppetry plain and simple; call it de facto sock puppetry; call it self-aggrandizement under pseudonyms; whatever it was, it was mildly dishonest. No, I don't think it is going to bring him down either, but lying about it afterwards doesn't help his case.
Like I said earlier, what are the odds Lambert? The evidence against Greenwald is undeniably strong.
Come on, admit it. I think even you find Greenwald's explanation dubious, but because he is on your side of the aisle politically, you just don't want to 'fess up. You will give him every benefit of the doubt regardless of how much circumstantial evidence accumulates. I suppose that is natural, but I seriously doubt that you would extend the same courtesy to a conservative in Greenwald's shoes.
You know that I know that you know that Greenwald is a liar.
Come on. Admit it.
Posted by: mike | July 23, 2006 8:31 PM
Let me repeat, as it didn't seem to sink in the first time... using different nyms on different blogs is ABSOLUTELY NOT SOCK PUPPETRY.
Gawd, you 'wingers are thick.
Posted by: Graculus | July 24, 2006 12:23 AM
Graculus,
What part of the definition of sock puppetry I provided earlier didn't you understand? The part of attempting to pretend you are somebody else under a handle or the part of defending yourself while pretending to be somebody else?
If you can't admit he has been using sock puppets, that is fine by me. Call it something else. It was dishonest in any event and he has compounded the situation further by denying he did any such thing. I don't give a damn about the semantics, but can you at least admit that he is a liar for later denying he posted under anything but his own name? Or do you want to debate the definition of liar also?
Whatever you want to call it, yet more evidence suggesting Rick Ellensburg (our fluent English-speaking Glenn Greenwald defender from the same South American city as Glenn Greenwald and who happens to write similarly to Glenn Greenwald and made a comment very similar to the comment Glenn Greenwald would make a day before Glenn Greenwald himself made it on a blog that Glenn Greenwald had read the day the comment was posted) may (surprise!) indeed be Glenn Greenwald.
Greenwald was employing the same ISP as Rick Ellensburg within a month of the Rick Ellensburg post:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/187393.php
Just a coincidence, I suppose. A bizarre coincidence....
Posted by: mike | July 24, 2006 12:57 AM
Here is a timeline for everyone, courtesy of Hot Air:
http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/07/21/greenwalds-defense-musical-chairs/
Posted by: mike | July 24, 2006 1:25 AM
Funniest bit from mike's timeline link:
The possibility that the Greenwald household has two computers "strains credibility". Oy.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | July 24, 2006 6:08 AM
Graculus,
What part of the definition of sock puppetry I provided earlier didn't you understand?
What part of "The same IP does not automatically indicate the same person or computer" do you not understand?
Posted by: Graculus | July 24, 2006 7:22 AM
It's a pretty weak case, isn't it.
Posted by: jade | July 24, 2006 7:45 AM
I just want to say that I'm Brazilian, English is my 3rd language, and I speak and write it more competently than most native Brits, Americans and Aussies I know. Brazil has a massive ex-pat population all over the globe, anywhere you go on our little planet you will likely run into a Brazilian without looking very hard. Brazilians can and do learn English, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Chinese, Japanese and countless other languages, especially if they've lived or travelled extensively outside of Brazil. To imply we somehow cannot wrap our brains around one of the most pathetically easy languages to learn in the world is insulting.
Posted by: Elohite | July 24, 2006 8:30 AM
Lambert,
Don't be silly. You can't be that stupid. Hot Air's point wasn't that it was improbable that Greenwald might have multiple computers, but rather that it was unlikely that this explanation for Greenwald's suspected sock puppets was a likely one.
Gracculus,
What part of "The same IP does not automatically indicate the same person or computer" do you not understand?
What part of 'what are the odds' don't you understand?
Still, looking back over the definition of sockpuppet, I can see where you might be confused:
Sockpuppet (sometimes known also as a mule, or a glove puppet) is an additional account created by an existing member of an Internet community pretending to be a separate person. This is done so as to manufacture the illusion of support in a vote or argument or to act without social effect on one's "main" account stay away from the issue. This behaviour is often seen as dishonest by online communities and as a result these individuals are often labeled as trolls.
It is the is's that have you confused, isn't it? I forgot that the moonbats still aren't in agreement on what the definition of is is yet. Sorry about that. I didn't realize that you guys hadn't resolved that issue, in spite of vigorous debate, at the Fifth International (i.e. the last YearlyKos convention).
jade,
It's a pretty weak case, isn't it.
No. It is a strong case. The only thing weak is Greenwald's excuse.
elohite,
If somebody was indeed implying that Brazilians are too stupid to learn English, you would have a valid reason to be insulted. That wasn't what I was implying. I was stating that the vast majority of Brazilians do not speak English fluently. An even lower number write in English at the level that Greenwald's puppets do That is a fact. Having a friend who's mother is Brazilian and who has many Brazilian relatives living in the United States who I have encountered, even most Brazilians that had been in the United States for a decade would not be able to write like Greenwald's boyfriend (or sock puppet rather).
Here are a few comments from people familiar with Brazil: http://www.vernonjohns.org/plcooney/brsucess.html http://www.paulabel.org/faq.html
And this is more typical of the way that Brazilians who have a moderate degree of fluency in English tend to write: http://www.shoujoai.com/forum/topic_show.pl?pid=2665
Posted by: mike | July 24, 2006 1:46 PM
I'm going against my better judgment by commenting here at all, but ...
Tim:
Actually, it's a lot "better" (worse) than that. When Patterico confronted him with that lie/misstatement, he didn't just fail to admit the error, he doubled down with another falsehood, which, at this stage, had been pointed out to him as false. Add to that the fact that Patterico was not the only blogger he libeled in that post; his libel of Dean Esmay was far worse. He knows about that one, too, having linked to the same Poor Man post that lists Dean's objections front and center, but did so only to whine about how uncivilized everyone else is.
Then there's my grand fisking, where I fact-checked the entire post to determine how many of his verifiably true vs. false assertions held up. Results: almost none. Any one of these misstatements alone could easily be chalked up to simple carelessness on his part, but I have a hard time believing that anyone can screw up that consistently unless he's making crap up on purpose. At worst, this adds up to a pattern of lying. At best, it adds up to a pattern of never admitting anything. Either way, it makes his denial of the current charge predictable, and not evidence of actual innocence.
Finally, I don't think I need to remind you how reluctant you've been to even consider the possiblity that certain other alleged sock puppets of other individuals could have been family members trying to "help." Goose, gander, etc.
mndean:
Despicable indeed. Right up there with the equally despicable notion that few Americans can pass themselves off as native speakers of Portugues or any other foreign language - even after you control for the fact that most Americans don't speak a foreign language at all, and limit your sampling to the minority who do. Next we'll be hearing from racists who think blacks have darker skin than whites (they usually do, but not always) and the sexists who think that women have bigger breasts than men (they usually do, but not always).
Jade:
If by "several months ago" you mean "several times over the years, and most recently several months ago," you're almost there. If by "months" you mean "weeks" and by "several" you mean "more than two," you're there.
Seems like he's not alone.
No, it doesn't. All it means is that you undeniably are talking out of your butt. If you had bothered to familiarize yourself with Patterico's blog before posting that comment, you'd know that he doesn't expect anybody to condemn anything, and in recent months has been increasinly critical of the few ("few" being English for "virtually all" in in Glennspeak) bloggers who do.
Posted by: Xrlq | July 24, 2006 11:56 PM
Ah, xlrq. Speaking of a pattern of never admitting anything, do you still maintain your claim that Kevin Donoghue is my sock puppet?
Also, Ace has a post "The silence of the Left" demanding condemnation of Greenwald from the Left. Patterico doesn't seem to have criticized this and has endorsed Ace's "Magic boyfriend" silliness.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | July 25, 2006 1:05 AM
Mike, I don't know why you're so attached to that grammatically incoherent Wikipedia definition of "sock puppet," but it still doesn't help your case. There's of course no convincing evidence that Greenwald was making or coordinating these posts himself. And it's a strain to argue that the various separate blogs at which the various separate pseudonyms were used somehow, collectively, constitute "an Internet community," or that the scattered pseudonyms created "the illusion of support."
I'll also point you to the "Examples" section of that Wikipedia page, which argues that Abraham Lincoln's use of pen names "is not an example of sock-puppetry, as he did not write under pen names in praise or support of his own work."
Your logical leap from "the vast majority of Brazilians" to "all Brazilians" is similarly amusing, and you continue to ignore the possibility of an expatriate.
Posted by: Matthew B. | July 25, 2006 1:31 AM
"This seems likely to be true, since the writing style of Ellison and co is different from Greenwald's and Greenwald is forthright in defending himself with comments under his own name."
Hiltzik was forthright in defending himself with comments under his own name. And if you think Thomas Ellers, Rick Ellensburg, Ellison, and Wilson have different writing styles from Greenwald's, you're not paying attention.
Whoever the sock puppet is, he is remarkably like Greenwald himself in obsessiveness, writing style, verbal tics, subject matter, knowledge of the Internet, encyclopedic knowledge of Greenwald's site, commenters, posts, updates, etc.
Is the boyfriend like Greenwald? I don't know and neither do you. Is Greenwald like Greenwald?
For some strange reason 1) Greenwald hasn't come out and said his boyfriend did the comments (Insinuated? yes. Claimed? no.), and 2) Greenwald's boyfriend, so obsessive about his boyfriend's rep, is letting him twist in the wind at this key moment.
Telling.
And with that, as WuzzaDem's sock puppets say, I bid you GOOD DAY, sir!
Posted by: Patterico | July 25, 2006 4:04 AM
Oh yes writing style. Faced with this Ellison quote
Ace says that it doesn't read as "if written by a native speaker of English". To any normal person this would suggest that all the Ellison comments were written by Greenwald's partner. Ace, however, concluded that Greenwald stole the nym "Ellison" for his sock puppetry. So Greenwald was so superdevious that he used that name to disguise his dastardly trick. But not so devious that he thought of throwing in a grammatical error to really disguise it. Right.
Let's go through your list of similarities:
obsessiveness: Greenwald's partner has more comments under his own name supporting Greenwald at Greenwald's site than the alleged sock puppet posts. Why wouldn't he post an occasional comment supporting Greenwald at another site?
writing style: Sorry. See, for example, the comment above.
verbal tics: He reads Greenwald's blog and picked up a couple of expressions from there.
subject matter: if he defends Greenwald then it's going to be on the subjects Greenwald is interested in.
knowledge of the Internet: you've got to be kidding
encyclopedic knowledge of Greenwald's site etc: he reads Greenwald's blog. Duh.
Look, it's possible Greenwald stole the nym of his partner for a bit of sock puppetry. But it's more likely that his partner defended him on other blogs just as he defended him on Greenwald's blog.
As for the lack of further comment from Greenwald or his partner I don't agree that it is telling. If my wife was caught defending me on blogs without saying who she was, it would be embarrassing but I would never criticise her in public for it. In private, however, I would ask her to stop. How do you know something like that hasn't happened here?
Posted by: Tim Lambert | July 25, 2006 7:40 AM
"writing style: Sorry. See, for example, the comment above."
Hey, how's about looking at the writing style of the SOCK PUPPET comments. Wouldn't that be a little more relevant?
This whole thing got started because someone unfamiliar with the IP addresses asked for them to be checked -- because they thought the content and style of the comments was similar to that of Greenwald.
"If my wife was caught defending me on blogs without saying who she was, it would be embarrassing but I would never criticise her in public for it."
If your wife were as obsessive about your reputation as the sock-puppeteer is about Greenwald's, and YOU were getting blamed for HER comments, I'd think SHE, being obsessive about YOUR reputation, would want to stand up and say what she did.
"Look, it's possible Greenwald stole the nym of his partner for a bit of sock puppetry. But it's more likely that his partner defended him on other blogs just as he defended him on Greenwald's blog."
Where on God's Green Earth do you get "more likely"? I show that all of these factors fit Greenwald. You point out that they COULD fit someone else, although we have no idea whether that's true, and the lack of anyone stepping forward suggests it's not. The conclusion is simple that it's MORE LIKELY to be Greenwald than some unknown quantity.
If I see a guy in a Batman suit together with Robin, and he goes around speaking in Batman's voice and punching Penguin and Joker with BIFF! signs going off around his head, and then he hops into the Batmobile and drives into the Bat Cave, I can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt it's Bruce Wayne. Hey, he had a mask on. Maybe Bruce Wayne's biggest fan picked up all of Batman's costumery, way of speaking, actions, etc.
But if we don't know a damned thing about Bruce Wayne's biggest fan, other than that he's staying with Bruce Wayne at times, it would be the height of illogic to conclude that the fellow in the mask and costume was MORE LIKELY the fan, rather than Wayne himself.
You're stretching badly.
Posted by: Patterico | July 25, 2006 9:16 PM
One more data point: although Greenwald regularly charges into comment sections of posts criticizing him, he has stayed serenely above the fray in threads where the suspected sock-puppets are active. People supporting him isn't enough to keep him out; only the excellent defense provided by the sock puppets is sufficient to keep Greenwald from participating.
Posted by: Patterico | July 25, 2006 9:20 PM
Funny when you get caught at something - you tend to lay off till the heat dies down.
I mean really - if it was no big deal, and just Glenny's housemates going to bat for him - you'd think:
a) Ellison would be all over the sphere - pumpin ole Glenny up to magnificient proportions. b) Ryan - Ditto c) Ellers - ditto
Because you see, the "supporters" have no need to hide now that they've been busted. Yet hide they do.