Taking my name in vain

Looks like you have a name stealer like Skeptico did a few months ago.

Wonder what the likelihood is that it's one of the annoying trolls that pops up here?
I don't wanna make any accusations but it sure wouldn't surprise me, either.

Looks like PZ has been googling hiw own name.

That comment's almost cranky enough to be you, but completely lacking in any humor. Shouldn't that have given it away?

Plus, no cephalopods.

Well, this sort of thing is unfortunately going to happen until the blogosphere finally understands that identities have to be verifiable -- and preferably one per person, so not only can one person not pretend to be another, but one person can't pretend to be multiple people.

Of course, this doesn't change the fact that names aren't unique. I've recently discovered that a local musician is named "Jonathan Badger" (he's the one who has www.jonathanbadger.com) -- and it appears to be both of our real names.

Blasphemyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!

Quit whining -- at least he spelled your name right ;-).

No, I can't google for my own name. Try it -- it just goes on and on and on.

The author of that blog wrote to me asking what's up, which is a good idea.

What's weird is when you click your name on the other site, it took me right back to your homepage. PZ, you have to know you've become an internet science icon, the nutcases and posers will hover around like moths to a flame.

What's weird is when you click your name on the other site, it took me right back to your homepage.

Nothing weird about it at all. He wouldn't be a very convincing imposter if he linked to his *own* web page, would it?

My niece had her identity stolen last year for a literal joy-ride, but it looks like the damage won't be long term (one hopes). I've had my own problems in that respect. PZ's doppelganger may have some minor nuisance value, like a gnat, but fortunately he doesn't seem to have the chops to pull off a convincing impersonation.

So, the next Skeptics' Carnival will be hosted by the pseudo-PZ, just like the one narrated by the pseudo-Skeptico a while back? (Well, actually, it was done by an impostor of the pseudo-Skeptico, so I guess this one will have to be by a (pseudo)^2-PZ.)

Nothing weird about it at all. He wouldn't be a very convincing imposter if he linked to his *own* web page, would it?

Jonathan, guess this falls into the "learn something new every day". I didn't know you could just link someone else's name or page, would seem very unethical.

Jonathan, guess this falls into the "learn something new every day". I didn't know you could just link someone else's name or page, would seem very unethical.

It is, but being unethical doesn't make something impossible. For that matter, you can also send e-mails out and make them appear to come from whatever address you like. (Won't fool someone who can read headers, but will fool 90% of the rest of the folks on the net.) This is not *ethical*, but it is *possible*.

Speaking of taking your name in vain, PZ, I think Dembski's [url=http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1381#comments]latest post[/url] details a (prank?) accusation against a professor and "prominent anti-id proponent" that sounds suspiciously like you. I don't suppose you recall anything about flunking a young Galileo who happened to prove ID via a simple computer model in one of your undergraduate classes, eh?

"For that matter, you can also send e-mails out and make them appear to come from whatever address you like. (Won't fool someone who can read headers, but will fool 90% of the rest of the folks on the net.)"

Really? How do you do that?

And how do you read headers?

(Yes, I'm in that 90%.)

Wonder what the likelihood is that it's one of the annoying trolls that pops up here?
I don't wanna make any accusations but it sure wouldn't surprise me, either.

Oh, please be my guest and accuse away. You [not necessarily YOU "you," craig] accuse people of being trolls, of being racist, of being homophobic, of hating atheists, of trying to force you to follow their religion, of trying to take over the schools and even the whole country, of being "demented fuckwits," of hating freedoms of speech and religion, etc. ad nauseum. What's stopping you now? Come on. Someone step up to the plate and toss out an accusation. Or are you afraid of being proven wrong?

I will say this: it was not me and I am willing to prove it if anyone thinks otherwise.

It's just one of those bullshit annoyances, part of the deal with "nobody knows you're a dog".

On the other hand... PZ, do you have a public PGP key available?

Wow, Jason, defensive much? Actually, I believe it wasn't you. For all the things I have against you, this much is certain: you write with correct grammar, punctuation, and syntax for the most part (it's "ad nauseam," by the way), while the person impersonating PZ doesn't know the difference between "were" and "we're."

Hey look, someone said "troll" and Jason popped his head up. How 'bout that.

And how do you read headers?

Google (or search engine of your choice) is your friend. Type in reading email headers and you get this.

Maybe it was you, blacked out from drinking twenty shots of Wild Turkey. No, wait, there'd still be cephalopods. Prob'ly radical fundamentalist ID-spouting cephalopods, at that. "What do you MEAN, I'm descended from a clam?"...

Hey look, someone said "troll" and Jason popped his head up. How 'bout that.

Hey, look! I used the word "the" and you popped your head up. How about that? Imagine someone popping their head up when a commonly used word shows up. What are the odds of that?

It's like leaving a can of food out for the cat.

Hey Jinx! Do you believe, word for word, in the literal accuracy of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments?

Hey look, someone said "troll" and Jason popped his head up. How 'bout that.

How do we know? It could be an impostor. Notice how he didn't say anything about "painting with a broad brush"?

sigh -

Jason, if you don't want to be called a troll then stop acting like one. Informed debate is a good thing, tossing out jaded talking points and seeing what sticks (or what gets a rise) is not.

Honestly, I did think we were all adults here, or am I mistaken?

Oh, and after 20 shots of Wild Turkey, Prof Myers would propably be convinced HE was the cephalopod. ;-) or at least feel like one as he tried to type. LOL

Speaking of taking your name in vain, PZ, I think Dembski's latest post details a (prank?) accusation against a professor and "prominent anti-id proponent" that sounds suspiciously like you. I don't suppose you recall anything about flunking a young Galileo who happened to prove ID via a simple computer model in one of your undergraduate classes, eh?

Nah, not me. That anecdote is something of a strike against Dembski, though: would you believe it if someone claimed to have produced, as an undergraduate, a computer simulation that demolished evolution? It's cute that Dembski trotted it out anyway to feed his sycophants who believe there is a conspiracy against ID, unbelievable as it is.

Jason, if you don't want to be called a troll then stop acting like one.

My personal take is Jason IS a troll, KNOWS he's a troll, and LIKES being a troll. It's why he's here. And yelling at people for calling him a troll is just part of his comedy routine.

Really? How do you do that?

You probably have done it alreadys wituout realizing it. If you use a traditional e-mail client (Outlook, Evolution, etc.) with at-hom internet access. When you enter your e-mail address to set up your mail program, you're entering the address that will show up in the "From:" field of e-mails that you send. If you mis-enter the address (or type in something completely fake), your e-mails will most likely get sent anyway. People will, of course, find it rather difficult to REPLY to those e-mails.

This is actually *useful*. If you have more than one e-mail address, you can send out e-mails "from" any of them without completely reconfiguring your e-mail program every time. These days, though, spammers and other bad folks misuse that functionality in a primitive attempt to hide their tracks.

That should, of course, be
"You probably have done it already wituout realizing it, if you use a traditional e-mail client (Outlook, Evolution, etc.) with at-home internet access."

That will teach me to use preview.

Thanks, QrazyQat and Rick @ shrimp and grits. One day I will be a tech-savvy person, I swear.

Jason:

"Hey, look! I used the word "the" and you popped your head up. "

How hard would it have been to avoid this very Jasonesque (and full of shit) mode of reply? Not very. You could have just answered that you're aware that people have been calling you a troll a lot, so it's normal that you felt targetted by the 'it might be one of the annoying trolls' comments.

But no, that would have been too reasonable.

And not annoying enough, in a very trollish sort of way. Which, I suppose, is the point of you being here.

Hi, appreciate your post (and response) on this. Much obliged.
I threw in my nickel's worth as well:
http://biblioblography.blogspot.com/2006/08/when-sock-puppets-attack.ht…
I hope you don't mind (that is, using your name in vain, or my shameless plug).
At the risk of sounding like a luddite (& I'm not: I could do this if my blog was a regular website), how does 1 track an IP address via blogspot?

Reluctant Atheist

If you switch to haloscan you can track and block IP addresses. It's an easy switch from blogger comments. Otherwise, you are SOL with blogger. That's one of the downfalls of free web space.

Surely not a Christian bearing false witness? From there it's a short step to coveting his neighbour's ass, mark my words.

Jason:

I will say this: it was not me and I am willing to prove it if anyone thinks otherwise.

Interesting. Given that you're not the owner of the blog on which the offending material was posted, the only way you could prove it wasn't you is to prove who it was, with that particular who-it-was not being you.

Which means you know who did it. So c'mon, rat 'im out already!

Jason says:

"Oh, please be my guest and accuse away. You [not necessarily YOU "you," craig] accuse people of being trolls, of being racist, of being homophobic, of hating atheists, of trying to force you to follow their religion, of trying to take over the schools and even the whole country, of being "demented fuckwits," of hating freedoms of speech and religion, etc. ad nauseum. What's stopping you now? Come on. Someone step up to the plate and toss out an accusation. Or are you afraid of being proven wrong?

I will say this: it was not me and I am willing to prove it if anyone thinks otherwise."

The person in the Lakeway Hotel thread yesterday was right: You do have a persecution complex. This post of yours is proof.

Jason:
"Interesting. Given that you're not the owner of the blog on which the offending material was posted, the only way you could prove it wasn't you is to prove who it was, with that particular who-it-was not being you.

Which means you know who did it. So c'mon, rat 'im out already!"

I think you're giving me way too much credit, Jason.
I had to re-read that, & it crosses my eyes, it does. I assure you that it wasn't me, & that I don't know who it was. I have suspicions, but w/o proof, it's a moot point.
& I'd be willing to take a polygraph on it. So strap me in, & let's rock 'n roll.

Peter:
"From there it's a short step to coveting his neighbour's ass, mark my words."
Then I'll have to cover it. ;)

Joey:
Thnx for the info, I'll look into. Obliged.

I had to re-read that, & it crosses my eyes, it does. I assure you that it wasn't me, & that I don't know who it was.

But how do you know he doesn't know you know he knows who you don't know you know, you know?

craig:
"But how do you know he doesn't know you know he knows who you don't know you know, you know?"

Well, he/she knows now, if he/she is reading this.
You could make an effort to be more circumlocutory, you know.

"But how do you know he doesn't know you know he knows who you don't know you know, you know?"

Well, he/she knows now, if he/she is reading this.
You could make an effort to be more circumlocutory, you know.

As you know, there are known knowns; there are things you know he/she knows. You also know there are known unknowns; that is to say you know there are some things he/she does not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones you don't know he/she doesn't know.

You could make an effort to be more circumlocutory, you know.

My doctor has me eating oat bran for that.

roystngr:
"As you know, there are known knowns; there are things you know he/she knows. You also know there are known unknowns; that is to say you know there are some things he/she does not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones you don't know he/she doesn't know."
The semantic gymnastics are quite lovely: I seem to read an "ought-is" in there somewhere.
Unfortunately, I failed the telepath course in ESP 101, & thus, cannot peer into the skulls of anyone. So an assumption of commonality is all I have to go on.

craig:
"My doctor has me eating oat bran for that."
LMAO!
Don't confuse 1 tract w/another, I'd say. ;) Just as long as you don't ingest suppositories, I'd guess you'd be all right.

As you know, there are known knowns; there are things you know he/she knows. You also know there are known unknowns; that is to say you know there are some things he/she does not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones you don't know he/she doesn't know.

As much as I hate Donald Rumsfeld, that quotation is a perfectly straightforward (if perhaps poorly-delivered) examination of the concept of metaknowledge.

Rummie's quote on known unknowns is indeed accurate though laughable - and also poetic enough have been sung (CD and sample .MP3's).

As for knowing who knows, I've always been fond of this quote from one of Daniel Dennett's books, discussing orders of conscious intentionality:

And in the film adaptation of Lion in Winter, King Henry and his estranged queen Eleanor of Aquitaine are plotting against each other aa to which of their three sons should inherit the throne. Henry says of Eleanor, 'She knows I want John on the throne and I know she wants Richard. We're very frank about it.'
Which leaves out the third son, Jeff, who is equally frank. Jeff says to Eleanor: 'I know. You know I know. I know you know I know. We know Henry knows and Henry knows we know it. We're a very knowledgeable family.'
After Jeff leaves the scene, Eleanor pithily sums him up, 'He'll sell us all you know. But only if he thinks we think he won't.'

This is a test.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Michael Koppelman wrote this.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFE0XmklClZAAu6DdQRAtVOAJ9lqonfYUeRDgQy86DYL3GDuTORsgCdEQ42
5N8gYuWeDV6NSfxCsDwWZEQ=
=g4FK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Xtians writing disgusting comments with the name of a known atheist or pretending to be an atheist in order to «teach» us what a real atheist should write about is something that we, the bloggers in the only openly Atheist blog in Portugal, are quit used by now.

As is the falacy that the guy proping the fake atheist blog used, Argumentum ad Verecundiam.

As you know, there are known knowns; there are things you know he/she knows. You also know there are known unknowns; that is to say you know there are some things he/she does not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones you don't know he/she doesn't know.

As much as I hate Donald Rumsfeld, that quotation is a perfectly straightforward (if perhaps poorly-delivered) examination of the concept of metaknowledge.

Yeah but he never did answer the reporter's question though.

j:
And how do you read headers?

It varies from email client to email client.

For instance, if you are using Outlook Express in Windows, right-click on the email, select "Properties" and then "Details".

"But how do you know he doesn't know you know he knows who you don't know you know, you know?"

If this other PZ Myers were a clone of our PZ:

"But how do you know you don't know you know you know who you don't know you know, you know?"

This business about the mail headers, spoofed identities and the rest, plus some other things that have come to my attention, have made me realize that we desperately need to integrate better understanding of computing technologies into the curriculum. A modern personal computer is such an incredibly powerful machine I think it is very irresponsible not to teach people how to use it.

palmira:
"As is the falacy that the guy proping the fake atheist blog used, Argumentum ad Verecundiam."

I beg your pardon? Fake atheist blog? Should I get irate at this juncture, or is this an honest mistranslation?

Thanks for the link PZ! Yes, it looks like there are some Christians and nutjobs posing as PZ MYers and as various atheists in a disgusting smear campaign.

At least when we parody christianity, we use disclaimers. And theres no excuse for anyone pretending to be you and posting with your name. Thats just immoral.

These Christians are annoying.

Reluctant Atheist

«I beg your pardon? Fake atheist blog? Should I get irate at this juncture, or is this an honest mistranslation?»

Ooops, I was talking about the other subject, the one on the story about a fake 'atheist' blog . Sorry if I wasn´t clear about it.

But in our blog we are so fed up with both types, xtians signing as one of us to produce offensive comments or posing as atheists to reprimends us for being lousy atheists writing blasphemous stuff...

Basically we only get those from catholics, usually fanatics Opus Dei or Communion and Liberation, it's educational to know that other flavours of xtianity show the same intelectual dishonesty.

palmira:
"Sorry if I wasn´t clear about it."
No, I'm sorry, I sorted it out after I posted. I'd swing by, but I don't speak portugese. I've put an Alta Vista translator on mine, it might help yours as well? A thought only.

"But in our blog we are so fed up with both types, xtians signing as one of us to produce offensive comments or posing as atheists to reprimends us for being lousy atheists writing blasphemous stuff..."
Absolutely amazing, seeing as it violates 1 of their major tenets, isn't it?
If it were to actually work, & 're-convert' someone, would that count on review at the Pearly Gates? After all, a relationship built on deceit is a relationship built on sand, is it not? I don't know the transitive properties, seeing as there is no on high, so to speak.

"Basically we only get those from catholics, usually fanatics Opus Dei or Communion and Liberation, it's educational to know that other flavours of xtianity show the same intelectual dishonesty."
I think the actual term should be morally dishonest.
No doubt the apologists will cry 'False xtian!' ;)

Reluctant Atheist

«Absolutely amazing, seeing as it violates 1 of their major tenets, isn't it?»

Actually for Opus Dei is in absolute agreement with «the way»... I think they don't expect to convert us, the problem is that our blog is one of the most read in Portugal and they are afraid that people will deconvert because of us :-) or at least get «strange» and «dangerous» ideas.

So, they try to demean us. Either saying we are a bunch of «fanatic» atheists that have science as religion :-) (some of us are scientists or science students) don't know a thing about the important things like philosophy and metaphysics (and history) or posing as one of us producing abominable comments in ad hominem falacies. If we are disgusting people then what we write is simply not true :-)

The fake atheists are on the same line. Basically trying to impress on our readers that main stream atheists are nothing like us, we are «fundamentalists» that not even fellow atheists agree with. My guess the same here with the impersonator and the fake atheist.

There are a bunch of catholic blogs only to combat what we write :-) But nobody reads them... and we've been on the top 6 blogs in Portugal for months. There's a website that tracks and lists that and the fanatics are obsessed with the number of readers we have...

And all of us are on the portuguese equivalent of ACLU, an association that basically fights for the separation of state and church and there are some recent developments that they blame on us. A few months ago public schools were required to remove crosses from classes; the state protocol was reviewed and bishops are out (they used to have a proeminent position in all state functions).

Now they are afraid religious education will have, as we say, no place in public schools; we'll talk people into voting yes in the referendum on abortion, forbided except in some cases; gay marriage will be allowed, etc..

So basically is really intelectual dishonesty through moral dishonesty.

I'll talk with our informatic guy to put on a translator.

PS: About the IP thing, one of our detractors used anonymous proxies...

palmira:
I find it fascinating that certain things seem to transcend (can we still use that word? I can, & will) cultural boundaries.

"My guess the same here with the impersonator and the fake atheist."
The duplicity is what bugs me to no end. 'Ends justifies the means' is such a violation of their own principles.
I also find the lack of denunciation from any of the xtians who're reading this (or at my blog) baffling...& rather odd.

"Now they are afraid religious education will have, as we say, no place in public schools; we'll talk people into voting yes in the referendum on abortion, forbided except in some cases; gay marriage will be allowed, etc.."
Yeah, that's familiar turf all right.

"There are a bunch of catholic blogs only to combat what we write :-) But nobody reads them... and we've been on the top 6 blogs in Portugal for months. There's a website that tracks and lists that and the fanatics are obsessed with the number of readers we have..."
Strangers that have far too much interest in me than I'd like them to have makes me a tad nervous.
Such is the behavior of those whose hands have slipped the reins of power, methinks.

"I'll talk with our informatic guy to put on a translator."
That'd be grand. I was wondering if you could drop by my blog, & let me know how well the translator works? If you could, I'd be much obliged, & thanks.

I felt rather distinguished to be numbered among "the ugly" in Dr. X's assessment. I'm quite sure that Prof. X = The Discomfiter = Paul Manata.

palmira:
Sorry for the confusion, installed Haloscan yesterday briefly.
I'd email you, but don't have your email address. If you could try the translator again, I'd be obliged, & thanks.

I haven't been up to anything today. I don't care. I've just been staying at home not getting anything done. Basically not much happening right now. Maybe tomorrow. I guess it doesn't bother me.