You're Not Helping blogger William Apologizes Sincerely, Honestly.

I read the apology. It seems to have been sincere.

I would appreciate William naming all of his sockpuppets and clearing things up about Milton C. and etc, but I'm glad he corroborated about Signal (and noted that Signal was falling into the same traps).

So, a big improvement.

Zach, I understand but it is possible that among all the people involved, there will always be a thing that he needs to do to make it perfect. And it can thus go on and on forever. I recommend going the Truth and Reconciliation approach, consider it done and move on.

I'm with Greg on the idea "encourage you to reconsider your statement that you will never blog again."

I blog because I have some things that I want to say, and I'm exercising my right to say them. Don't deny yourself that right, William. Don't deny yourself the ability to comment on what others write. Do be honest in your writing and comments, however, about who and what you are.

I'm confident that Signal is another person. He still is learning too. Older guy, may have a harder time. To be seen.

Believers have it hard. Sometimes they kind of wake up out of a bubble of a culture where religions are never criticized and then they are confronted with the vibrant and trained discussion culture of atheists. And they constantly correct you and tell you you are wrong. And not just about anything, about stuff like how you raised your kids, how you form your judgments etc.

It's harsh. I hope that signal doesn't fall into the bitterness trap. It is indeed understandable how people can head there. Not as an apology, but more of an explanation.

Greg,

He cleared it up. So now, I hope he'll start blogging again.

Also, Signal has done some editing and correction. It is clear that Signal was never a sockpuppet. I saw some of your comments on his blog, Hitch, so thanks for the proactive approach.

Greg, your blog seems to have picked up some malware. Visiting tries to download some nasty ransomware called the "AV Security Suite" which after trojaning threatens you with fake virus claims. After rebooting and visiting a handful of websites each once, I'm pretty sure that the problem is somewhere on your section in scienceblogs.

I'm not seeing that, Josh, in Linux or (shudder) Windows. But I have reported it to the overlords. Thanks.

Joshua, look at this: "My apologies for the link to the malware site in that post, too, and I've removed it for now. "

here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/annoying_libertarians.php

I wonder if that was it?

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.

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

Oh, it's not just me then - who can't get the Buddha.

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

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.

I think Aaron makes excellent points.

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.)

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

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

Further developments: William admits to being Tom Johnson, the pseudonymous apocryphal biologist twice lauded by Chris Mooney.

CPP: Yes, you're right.

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.