There have been a few people who have used
puppets on this blog. Note that a sock puppet differs from a
pseudonym in that sock puppets are used to deceitfully make it appear
that there is more support for you postion than there really is. Here
is a table to help you keep track of the socks that have been used here.
|Real Name||Sock Puppets|
|John Lott||Mary Rosh, Washingtonian, Bob H, Tom H, Sam, Kevin H, Too bad Tim is not very accurate, Gregg|
|David Bell||Per, James Brown, M Mouse|
|Joe Cambria||Dave Curry, S Brid, Pessimist, Pat Davids|
|Steve McIntyre||Nigel Persaud|
I'll let David Bell's sock puppet, "peroxisome" have the last word:
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
I don't think it's quite the crime or the aha that you do unless the person is really weird in how he does it. however it is still kinda strange and borderline dishonest. I do think there might be some times when there are extenuating circumstances. For instance, just changed monikers over time. Or certain boards one uses one's own name and others one uses a moniker because of content or a desire to avoid publicity while expressing views.
For instance, I don't use my regular name any more on boards since discussions of politics and such or being anti-PC are not looked on well in big company where I work. don't do anything that wuold get me fired...but still why draw attention.
That said, using two different names in the same thread is just wierd. How many of your gotcha guys did that? I call that out as cheating for sure.
BTW, did Steve use his sock puppet HERE or on another forum? Might want to correct that.
Oh...and probably good to just directly ask him if he used a sock puppet. you never asked and he never responded definitively. you don't want to get Rove-Rathered.
Also, have you looked to see if any of your crew are raiding the sock drawer. Based on what I know of internet flame wars, no side is likely pure.
Tim, what is the basis in evidence that these people have engaged in deceitful behaviour in the manner you suggest, other than that they have disagreed with you in the past?
Have you done any analysis of the used of pseudonymns by people who agree with you?
tco, they have all used a sock puppet here (as well as on other forums). Bell and Lott have used two or more names in the same thread. See [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/11/lancet5.php#comment-9279) and [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/05/lottcomments.php).
What makes McIntyre's use of Persuad sock puppetry is Persuad's adamant support of McIntyre.
In order to check Lott's massive use of socks I wrote a script that checks for multiple names using the same IP. The table contains all of the sock puppets I found. It's certainly possible that people on my side are using socks as well, but presumably they don't see the need to use them here.
McIntyre and Cambria have admitted using the socks listed above and Lott has fessed up to Mary Rosh. Bell and Lott have not denied using the other ones listed.
If McK did not use the sock here, then your statement is misleading. If he only used it on that sci forum. I think that Lott's socking is infamous. Were you the guy who outed him? You should not assume that your side would have no reason for socking here. This is a reasonably free venue. I'm not saying they do, but they could, in exactly the manner that steve did. Maybe Mann is here? Go for it, Sherlock!
TCO, you could save some bandwidth by attempting to research an accusation before making it. Google is useful; it got me this: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/08/climate-audiot2.php
Too bad about McIntyre, I don't feel a need to take him seriously any more.
And BTW, I'm no one's sock puppet, dammit.
you've lost me. Could you spell it out? I don't know what you're commenting on.
McIntyre admitted using the sock. See [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/08/climate-audiot2.php#comment-9236).
McIntyre used the sock on this blog. [Example](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/07/lords-report.php#comment-8252).
I did not "assume" that "my side" did not sock here. My script searches for all sockery---it did not find any other than the ones listed in the post.
Oh, ok. I don't think he should use the sock. (Does not make his points any less relevant of course.)
"My script searches for all sockery"
Man, he computer of yours must smell!!
Does it pick up dishonesty like the US map you kindly provided showing Ivy Leagues in blue states, but failing to explain that these schools recruit from all over the country?
Were you ignotant of this, or simply dishonest?
I'm sure Tim was well aware that residents of red states are forced to move to blue states if they want a first-rate education.
Joe C is Joe Cambria, in case anyone was wondering.
"I'm sure Tim was well aware that residents of red states are forced to move to blue states if they want a first-rate education".
Well, that could up for debate.
So, you are implying it wasn't ignorance then.
Tim. Lived in Manitoba, and Manitobans pretty much resemble mid-westerners, right? I just wonder if Tim saw evidence of people calling their mothers "sis" there, as he would have his readers believe of Red Staters?
Did Tim specifically refer to Republicans' inordinate fondness for incest? That seems more like the sort of cheap shot I'd make.
But in this specific instance I'll settle for pointing out that it's just as well smart red-staters move to the blue states during their college years since that's where a disproportionate number of them will be spending their productive careers - on Wall Street or in Hollywood or Silicon Valley or working for Boeing, Micrsoft or Amazon.
But hey someone has to produce the income to pay the taxes to fund the farm subsidies and the other government hand-outs that go disproportionately to the red states.
"Did Tim specifically refer to Republicans' inordinate fondness for incest"
He didn't, Correct. He was merely being disengenuous as you seem to assert.
"smart red-staters move to the blue states during their college years since that's where a disproportionate number of them will be spending their productive careers - on Wall Street......."?
If you think Wall Streeters are smart, I have a bridge you may want to buy. Most are Republican voters. How do I know? I worked for two Wall Street firms that forced people to donate 5% of their bonuses to charities, which included political parties. The portion going to political parties ran 60/40 Republican. As Wall Street is ephemeral, I would bet Wall Streeters workers outside of NYC could run 80/20 conservative.
Ian, I noticed some placed you mentioned you're
Jewish ( hope I am correct) and therefore you may be interested to know that yes, Jewish Republicans even exist in the great state of NY, working on Wall Street no less. Maybe you could say a prayer for these lost souls next time you visit Temple.
What makes you so sure ( outside of Hollywood) the others you mentioned aren't conservative?
Universities, at least good ones, are lively places with little professor and student rats running amidst whatever deadwood lies on the floor. Without getting into too much of the blue/red state stuff, I think it more indicative that in the US, even in the most radical Republican states and/or those dominated by literal biblical interpretations of creation, there are fine universities, and they are, without exception, in liberal enclaves (think Austin TX, West Lafayette IN, etc.). About the only possible exception to this might be Texas A&M, but then you have heard about Aggie jokes. http://halife.com/files/aggie.html
>What makes you so sure ( outside of Hollywood) the others you mentioned aren't conservative?
I am well aware that the majority of Wall Street peope eare Republican - given their incomes and the fact that the Republican Party has effectively declared war on every american earning less than around $50,000 a year it'd be surprising if they weren't.
This makes the fact they overwhelmingly choose to study, live and work in blue states even more striking.
"This makes the fact they overwhelmingly choose to study, live and work in blue states even more striking".
Ever been to Colarado, Florida, even Texas. They are beautiful places to live.
"......the fact that the Republican Party has effectively declared war on every american earning less than around $50,000 a year it'd be surprising if they weren't".
This assertion is silly and only hope you know it is.
I've lived in Texas, and it does have very nice natural scenery, but the weather anywhere in the state is usually bearable only 30% of the time.
The 70% when it's not is because it's either too hot(I have a friend in Austin who terms this time of year "Inferno") or it's too cold.
The same can be said for where I live, the San Joaquin Valley, during the summer, except that a drive of a few hours enables one to get somewhere cooler and has more things to do.
"1 am well aware that the majority of Wall Street peope eare Republican - given their incomes and the fact that the Republican Party has effectively declared war on every american earning less than around $50,000 a year it'd be surprising if they weren't".
And there, slapped on the front page of the paper today is the story that Bill Shorten (Australian Union Leader) is in favour of cutting the top marginal tax rate from 48 cents to 30 cents. This I suppose makes him a blood sucking conservative pig as well, right, similar to Republicans? Or has he just declared war on the Australian worker? Your call here, Ian.
"Ever been to Colarado, Florida, even Texas. They are beautiful places to live."
which yet agree reinforces my point that there msut be soem attraction to the blue states that lures the high-fliers from those states to the those liberal sinks of iniquity.
As for the "declaration of war":
Has Shorten argued for a freezing of the basic wage?
Has he advocated slashing funding for clearing up heavily polluted abandoned sites that "just happen" to be located overwhelmingly in lower income areas?
Does he focus obsessively on the top marginal rate of tax while ignoring the regressive consumption taxes which affect the lower paid much more severely than the rich? (here's a maths problem for you Joe: Two smokers, each smokes a pack a day, each pays around $2 tax per packet. Assuming one is on $20,000 a year and one is on $50,000 a year who is paying the higher effective rate of tax?)
Has he poured billions in tax money into farm subsidies which disproportionately advantage the minority of rich farmers who know how best to game the system?
"which yet agree reinforces my point that there msut be soem attraction to the blue states that lures the high-fliers from those states to the those liberal sinks of iniquity".
Yea Ian! It comes in green, runs in denominations of 1, 5 10, 20 50 and 100 called moolah. Let me tell you, people don't live in NYC because oif the weather.
"Has Shorten argued for a freezing of the basic wage"?
I guess you are talking about the labour reforms. Ian we have a choice of looking like France or ensuring there are plentiful jobs, which places employers at a disadvantage. Unions are parasitic organizations that destroy jobs and business. That's why they are heading to the dsut bin of history. Hopefull, sooner rather than later. And good!
"Two smokers, each smokes a pack a day, each pays around $2 tax per packet. Assuming one is on $20,000 a year and one is on $50,000 a year who is paying the higher effective rate of tax?"
And your suggestion is what. Cigs ought to be means tested for tax? Sin taxes haven't been around under Labour govts? What's you point? IF you want to do away with sin taxes, I agree as I am a smoker as well.
"Has he poured billions in tax money into farm subsidies which disproportionately advantage the minority of rich farmers who know how best to game the system?"
You get no argument from me. Farmers ought to make do on the same terms as the fish and chip shop down the road. And these savings from the farming rorts ought to go back to us as tax cuts. I never saw Labor Govets. doing away with these freebies, so why just kick the conservatives as you imply.
Can I just congratulate you on a truly outstanding job of diverting attention from your rather sad and odd behaviour?
>...the Republican Party has effectively declared war on every american earning less than around $50,000 a year...
Well, I earn about $20k per year and support a family of 4 in Seattle WA. I also vote Republican because I don't plan on being a low-income earner my whole life.
We have so many plans for us poor types in Seattle it makes your head spin. These *plans* cost an amazing amount of money to power the bueraucracy that manages them. The cost of living in Seattle reflects this. I bet the cost of living in Seattle would be more bearable if they dropped all these social programs and the salaries and overhead that go with them.
>This makes the fact they overwhelmingly choose to study, live and work in blue states even more striking.
The blue states happen to occupy the coastal regions which are geographically more desirable to live in, if you can afford it, and only the most affluent can seem to. So why is it that the less affluent, the ones you say are being attacked by the Republicans, are the the GOP's main supporters?
*Blue state* or *Red State* are kinda misnomers anyway. Washington is mostly a Red state by geography. It's mostly high population density Seattle that is Blue, and Seattle's political corruption is becoming legendary.
>Well, I earn about $20k per year and support a family of 4 in Seattle WA. I also vote Republican because I don't plan on being a low-income earner my whole life.
I'm sure the $10,000 or so in debt which every American household will get saddled with as a result of the Iraq War will help those plans immensely.
But hey you get the benefit of those lower oil prices the neo-cons promised everyone would result from invading Iraq.
>I'm sure the $10,000 or so in debt which every American household will get saddled with as a result of the Iraq War will help those plans immensely.
The number of households in the USA in 2003 was 111 million. The total cost of the war [is around $200 billion or so](
http://www.factcheck.org/article253.html). The total cost per household is thus $1800. I don't know what the final figure will be when/if it all ends. Additionally, how much does our military cost us when it is not deployed? How much of the Iraq war cost includes that figure?
Now, how much did the September 11 terrorist attacks cost us? How much would it cost us in the future if we were to not act?
>But hey you get the benefit of those lower oil prices the neo-cons promised everyone would result from invading Iraq.
I don't recall anyone promising me cheaper oil. Blood for oil was conjured up by the left, it seems to me.
I bet the cost of living in Seattle would be more bearable if they dropped all these social programs and the salaries and overhead that go with them.
The cost of living in Sea and elsewhere is set by the land rents and other prices charged by what the market capitalizes. Amenity values are capitalized in Seattle in addition to land rents, as the marginal values are constantly tested by landlords to see how much the market will bear to continue to live in such a beautiful area.
IOW, prices are really high in Seattle because people will continue to pay them to keep living here 'cause it's beautiful.
Er...um...rather, it rains here all the time, so who knows why prices are so high? Yeah, that's right: it rains here all the time.
BTW, if true, congrats on raising a fam in Sea on your salary. No idea how you do it.
Well, I don't actually support them with $20k/year. I have to dip into my savings, and I should break even by the time I'm finished with my PhD. That and $100k in debt.
While Seattle might be a desireable place to live, which, through market forces, drives up the cost of living there, Seattle, like San Fran and others are also affected by legislation that can artificially make [the cost of living higher than it would be otherwise](http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3946).
In any case, I'm leaving as soon as I graduate. My wife likes Washington since it's close to her family back in Canada, so we'll probably move north and a little east where I can get 10 acres and a decent house for $300k or so. The house across the street from mine, a little 3 bdrm in Wedgewood, just sold, not sure for how much, but the asking price was $450k and it wasn't on the market very long. Blarg!
Your linky doesn't show anything about how legislation drives up prices. Your linky just points out a common disconnect that many have - folk need a resource base on which to create an economy and when preserving something one has to consider not only natural forces but socioeconomic ones too.
Fortunately, there are many organizations over there creating microinvestments and microeconomies to augment or replace traditional resource exploitation, but the op-ed piece doesn't mention whether the Sausalitans are part of that.
The disappearance of ecosystem services has a price, too, which may be greater to the natives there than the holding of their land. Sadly, the distorted opinion piece you linked to doesn't explore whether the Sausalitans are or are not ensuring that investment is flowing to the local economy to offset the land holding, nor does it state the reasons for the land purchase, which may have something to do with human population increase and decreasing arable land.
Your linky also points out the results of the typical creation of an 'other' in order to demonize, but I only got my Masters from UW and didn't go as far as you there, so you probably know more about that than I do already...
I think it's pretty clear that the programs that transfer money from one group of people to another raise the cost of living. The people who pay for these programs, not me, starting with business owners and landlords etc. will raise their prices to partially offset the higher taxes.
And it's not as if this is a simple wealth transfer from them to me. The money first has to be routed through a few beurocrats, and lord knows government union employees aren't free. So in the end, my cost of living goes up, and the wealth transfer I get for just being me covers the inceased cost, oh boy! And we get to support a bunch of government paper pushers as an added bonus! It's the gift that keeps on giving.
You made this comment, which at face value seems quite disturbing and needs some explanation.
I did not "assume" that "my side" did not sock here. My script searches for all sockery—it did not find any other than the ones listed in the post".
I do not see how your "code of conduct" was breached on your website. In other words are you actually going to other websites to extract IP information? I ask this because if this is a correct interpretation of your comment it does pose some interesting issues.
In other words the comment ascribed to me, which you inserted on earlier post was on another website. How did you obtain information, parts of which are private in nature? Does "your script" allow you to obtain IP information from other blogs and if so, would you mind elaborating?
Maybe it would help you explain this a little better for all concerned.
And we get to support a bunch of government paper pushers as an added bonus! It's the gift that keeps on giving.
Not in WA you don't. Google I-747, then use Lexis-Nexis to search on how many prominent city staff people are quitting in WA because they can't do their jobs in the resource-limited environment provided by Timmy Eyman's rubes.
And your argument would be better with specifics rather than talking points - go into your E-journals and pull some urban econ journals and get back to me. Regional Science and Urban Economics is a good place to start, and scanning the TOCs in the issues in Vol 35 will show you what you're missing.
>Not in WA you don't. Google I-747, then use Lexis-Nexis to search on how many prominent city staff people are quitting in WA because they can't do their jobs in the resource-limited environment provided by Timmy Eyman's rubes.
Yeah, like I'm going to do that. Why don't you do it? In any case, lots of paper gets pushed in WA, and somebody does it. All that paper can't push itself.
>And your argument would be better with specifics rather than talking points - go into your E-journals and pull some urban econ journals and get back to me. Regional Science and Urban Economics is a good place to start, and scanning the TOCs in the issues in Vol 35 will show you what you're missing.
If you say so. What I do know is that I got probably over $1000 worth of local government bail out for my utilities and WIC, as well as, wait for it, $4550 from my federal tax return. I didn't pay a cent into taxes and yet I got all that money for nothing. Somebody had to pay for it, or was it just conjured up from thin air? Ooooh, boy, those eeeevil Republicans sure are being mean to us poor little guys, why, my tax bail out should have been $50,000! Anything less, and Bush is Hitler!
If someone payed for it, are you telling me they won't pass at least some of that on to everyone else to cover the increased cost? If nobody paid for it, then it was just printed money, which will lead to higher inflation (more dollars in the money supply, no change in number of goods available for purchase). Either way, everyone pays through higher prices. Hooray!
You should look at I-747, because it tells you a lot about taxation, something you - judging from your reply - know little about with respect to how gummint gits it an' whut it does wit it when it got it. You're obviously not in Parrington Hall.
Then get back to me.
BTW1 your levy rates on property taxes are going down, but you are getting the same or more services.
BTW2, I don't vote Repub and I'm not a low-income earner. And as this thread is OT,
Joe C, what is it that is so hard to understand for you? Tim has made a script which collects all IPs for people posting here at Deltoid, and that's how he got the IPs. I guess John Quiggin provided the information about the sock puppetry at his site.