see also:
“I saw something nasty in the woodshed…..”

Fumento’s claim was indeed reckless, since he had no evidence at all for it.

You raised the issue of anonymity when you claimed that I had outed you when you had already outed yourself. And you haven’t just posted your name at Esmay’s: you posted it on your own blog. You’re not anonymous — you are just trying to play the victim.

When I’ve accused someone of using a sock puppet, I’ve had good evidence: matching IP addresses and matching writing styles.

Matching an IP address to itself is no evidence of anything at all. So what if Jim Purtilo’s IP address matches that of Jim Purtilo? Of course it does! But if you were even trying to get at the truth, you wouldn’t have held this match out as evidence that Purtilo equals Lott. As for your bit about “matching writing styles,” that would be hocus-pocus crap even if done correctly. All you did do was compare a few words and phrases here and there.

You just repeated a reckless claim by Fumento, who also had no evidence at all.

You are in no position to lecture anybody about recklessness, but FWIW, Fumento’s claim was not reckless; it was a statement of opinion that I simply misunderstood.

As for broadcasting my real name all over the universe, rather than leaving it alone in the few fora for which it was intended (e.g., a discussion on Dean’s World concerning a new requirement that his commenters use their real names), all I can say is thanks for once again committing the very act you previously denied having committed earlier in this thread. Also noteworthy is the fact that then, as now, you did so in a context where there was nothing remotely newsworthy to gain from it. You simply did it to be a dick.

And spare us your pretence at being anonymous. Here is a direct quote from you.

I could post under my real name, but what good would that do? I like to think that my handle means something to a fair chunk of your readers, who at least occasionally browse my blog, but my real name (Jeff Bishop) means nothing to them. Google it, and you’ll find thousands upon thousands of irrelevant hits – and the few relevant ones will be years out of date. Google “Xrlq,” and you’ll find out more about me than anyone in his right mind would ever want to know.

xlrq [sic] falsely accused me of using sock puppets and even admitted that the charge was made with a reckless disregard for the truth.

Irony aside – since when does Tim Lambert have a problem with falsely accusing people of using sock puppets? – this statement is either a lie or an interesting admission on Lambert’s part. I did not make any statements with a reckless disregard for the truth. What I did in this case was to take the word of someone not known to lie over someone known to lie. Unfortunately, I also misunderstood the non-liar’s comment, which ultimately led to the misunderstanding.

The closest I came to “admit[-ting] the charge was made with a reckless disregard for the truth” was when I acknowledged to Uncle that the accusation depended on two levels of hearsay, and therefore was not as reliable as I would normally require before posting it. I also noted that if I was wrong, “the worst possible outcome is for Lambert to get a taste of his own medicine.” It’s nice to see Lambert admitting that “Lambert’s own medicine” translates into “reckless disregard for the truth.”

And look at his previous comment, “threaten people”?, “out anonymous bloggers”?. He’s making it up.

Another bald-faced lie from Lambert, but who’s counting. If Lambert’s too thick to see anything threatening about his relentless stalking campaigns, he needs therapy. As for outing anonymous bloggers, I don’t believe I have “made up” any of the instances in which Lambert has done that to me. No, I won’t link to them and enable him further. I know he did it, Lambert knows he did it, Uncle knows he did it, and I’ll just about everyone else who’s commented to this thread knows about it, too.

I will grant you, though, that taking Fumento’s word based on Fumento taking someone else’s word adds a second level of hearsay into the mix, which would normally concern me greatly. In this case, it doesn’t bother me at all, as the worst possible outcome is for Lambert to get a taste of his own medicine.

And look at his previous comment, “threaten people”?, “out anonymous bloggers”?. He’s making it up.

Heh. Well, Tim, I’ve never seen him say anything that wasn’t at least objectively arguable about your veracity and reliability. Seems that “anything” might a vast overstatement.

If you seemed a more reasonable fellow, I might ask why, of all the people in this part of the internet, as it were, there’s only 1 who is always there when “sockpuppet!” is called? But, since you don’t strike me as being that sort of fellow, I think that’s not a worthwhile topic.

But you might want to apologise to X, there, for your broad and overreaching accusation.

xlrq has been a big fan of John Lott’s for many years. He’ll do or say anything to attack me.

Poor widdle Timmy only tries to threaten people, out anonymous bloggers, and smear a real person as a “sock puppet,” and now some big meanies turn around and attack him! Don’t it just break your heart?

The point I made earlier still stands. If AEI truly felt his research was indefensible and an Albatross around their credibility, they’d distance themselves from him.

The fact they have shown him the door yet still allow him to use their computers and letterhead suggests that they might not have liked him personally but don’t really have a problem with his research.

Interesting. The link to his AEI webpage is still active. Either his discharge just happened, or AEI’s tech support is pretty poor. Or perhaps AEI doesn’t really mind him still using their name and letterhead, which means they still agree with his research. Here’s the links:

http://www.johnlott.org/
http://www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.38/scholar.asp

Plus his e-mail is still at aei.org. Funny how you can get fired and still be able to use the company’s computers.