His anonymity, of course. For the pseudonym to be effective, it has to be plausible.
To correct an erroneous statement of what Lott thinks. Poster says “Lott is a rabid right winger”; “Mary” responds “I had a class with him and he is not a rabid right winger.”
Dewey, this gets to the heart of it, it seems: why on earth would it be necessary for him to talk about what he (as Lott) thinks, in his anonymous persona, rather than simply making the best arguments he can make?
If he can’t win arguments as “Mary Rosh” without playing the appeal-to-authority card, with the authority being his RL self, maybe that’s just a hint that his arguments aren’t all that good.
IOW, there was no reason for him to create a sock who knew anything about him that the general public didn’t know.
If “Mary Rosh” had simply been a vehicle for Lott to make his own arguments under another name in a forum where he didn’t want to be present under his own name, there would have been nothing wrong with that at all, IMHO. But creating an alternate persona to make up stuff about what a bend-over-backwards-to-be-fair guy he was, when his reputation hinges on his reputed objectivity, is just plain over the line. He in effect lied about his main credential with respect to his influence on the public debate.
Listen carefully.
you’ve just accused ‘most posters’ in this thread of lying.
Back that fucking shit up right now.
or retract this.
Inadequate answer, and false on the face of it. Anonymity is not dependent upon lying about his identity. For example, I have anonymity here and I don’t have to lie about it; nor do I have to make up a back story to support it. Try again!
But he is a rabid right winger. Denying it is merely further evidence of fraudulent intent. 
For my real response, see RTFirefly’s excellent analysis above. There is no need whatsoever to tell anybody what Lott “thinks” if he can’t be bothered to do so himself. Creating a fictitious persona to assure people of Lott’s honesty, objectivity, and all-around sexiness is unadulterated horseshit.
Look, I debate here as RTFirefly. What’s implausible about that? I don’t pretend to know anyone special; I just jump in and give it my best shot, win some, lose some. If Lott had done that, then no big deal.
That gets down to the fundamental nature of sockdom, doesn’t it? That’s exactly why socks are frowned upon. If someone says to me, “You’re just saying that because you’re a lefty,” I’m going to say, “So what - can you refute my arguments?” What I’m not going to do is create a sock to say, “I’ve known RT for years off the boards, and he’s very much a centrist.”
If I felt there was a point to my doing that, I would have lost sight of what debate is all about. My sock would be about puffery, not debate - and that’s exactly what “Mary Rosh” was all about - it was a dishonest attempt on Lott’s part to inflate his reputation as an unbiased thinker. The very act of trying to do that further calls that into question.
For starter, I haven’t accused anyone of lying. At most, I’ve implicitly said they haven’t thought through the ramifications of their stated standard. As noted, the critical point most posters are making is that it is dishonest for a scholar to use a pseudonym to bolster his own reputation. See, e.g.:
minty: “So then in your mind, Dewey, there’s no ethical difference between posting anonymously and falsely claiming to be somebody else for the sake of boosting one’s real-life reputation?”
Avalonian: “Seriously, you don’t see a problem with someone posting in praise/support of someone else, a supposed academic scholar, when they are in fact one and the same person and lying about that fact?”
minty, again: “Anonymity is not the issue. The issue us falsely claiming to be somebody else for the sake of boosting the poster’s real life reputation.”
grendel72: “If you want to be anonymous, don’t fucking talk about yourself. That shouldn’t be hard to figure out.”
grendel72, again: “That doesn’t change the fact that TALKING ABOUT YOURSELF under those circumstances is dishonest and honestly pretty pathetic.”
And as I pointed out, almost any participation by Lott would amount to a bolstering of his reputation.
My shit is therefore backed up. QED.
I haven’t accused anyone of lying. Frankly, I’d ask for an apology if I thought I had a chance of getting one.
No, but you might say “I support non-lefty positions X, Y and Z, ergo your characterization of me as a lefty is incorrect.” If someone says Lott is a right-wing zealot, Lott cannot make a similar response (“I support leftist positions X, Y and Z”) and still preserve his anonymity without using the pseudonyn. And that pseudonym needs a plausible basis for knowing that Lott holds non-conservative positions X, Y and Z.
I respect that you may not care if people call you an extremist. Fine. Others prefer to respond when those accusations are made, and I daresay that if a relatively famous person would like to make such a response while still retaining his anonymity, I don’t think it’s such a big friggin’ deal.
You claimed that people in this thread would still be on Lotts case even if he’d only posted using a psuedname, dispite the fact that damn near all of us have said, no, we wouldn’t be bothered by that.
You’ve further claimed that in reality, we’re not just calling him to task over the mechanisms of the posting (the claims that “mary” knows stuff 'cause she knows him personally vs. that she is him), even though that’s exactly what we’re posting about.
So, either we’re lying about what we’re really upset about, or you are able to ascertain what is really in our own heads even if we don’t. So, are you clarvoyant or claiming that we’re dishonest about our objections?
An apology? <snicker> Well shit-for-brains, when an apology or retraction was requested from youinitially…you said
IOW, you wouldn’t retract because “I would still be making my claim” even if the only issue was that of posting under a pseudonym.
I (among others) flat out denied that, thus removing the only reason you stated for “point stands”.
So exactly why haven’t you retracted your statement again? Wait…don’t tell me, you’ll have a new reason not mentioned in that previous explanation to not retract.
:rolleyes:
The reason for the lack of retraction is that he is either too stupid to understand that the OP’s BassettGina comment was in fact to parody the very ego bosting that Lott is guilty of, or is too intilectually dishonest to admit that he is using a strawman argument.
In either case, it seems useless to continue debating with an idiot and/or liar.
No. It is dishonest for a scholar to claim that he is somebody else to bolster his real-life reputation.
Posting anonymously is not a problem. Sock puppetry is a problem. Sock puppetry to tell the world what a swell, upstanding guy the puppetmaster is in real life is a big problem for a scholar.
Quite so. At that point, he has four options, three of which are honest and ethical, and one of which is dishonest and unethical.
[list=1]
[li]Don’t respond. Ethical.[/li][li]Refer to Lott’s published statements as counter-evidence of being a right-wing zealot. Ethical.[/li][li]Break anonymity. Ethical.[/li][li]Lie. Unethical.[/li][/list=1]YMOV.
Lott has two legit choices: he can either let “Mary Rosh” combat the perception of Lott as a wingnut by using strictly what’s in the public record, or Lott can, under his own name, share examples of his deviation from the Tom DeLay party line.
There are all sorts of variations on this. Lott could, for instance, choose to give personal info, and his stands on issues other than gun control, in a blog or a personal website. Then “Mary Rosh” would legitimately be able to cite his words.
But your claim that, by our standards, simply arguing the pro-gun case as “Mary Rosh” constitutes an illegitimate bolstering of Lott, is BS. The difference is between the legitimacy of the positions that Lott is simply one of many proponents of (even if he’s a particularly visible proponent), and what’s true about John Lott the person. That’s a pretty big difference.
On preview, I see that minty has said the same things, only much more concisely.
And now you’re pretending to be a man?
These two statements are identical. Using a pseudonym is the same thing as “claiming to be someone else.”
Obviously, Lott’s published works – which to the best of my knowledge are pretty much confined to criminology – are not going to provide counter-evidence of a general charge of right-wing zealotry. They only provide insight into one particular issue, namely gun control. For Lott to respond, he’d need to reveal his inner thoughts (or, I suppose, instantaneously publish opinion pieces on a broad spectrum of subjects); to remain anonymous, he’d need to do it via an alter ego with a plausible back story. Effectively, you’re saying that Lott’s only option to retain anonymity is to “don’t respond.”
Well, again I return to my example. I don’t see a tremendous amount of difference between saying “Professor Lott’s research has conclusively answered this particular argument” and saying “Professor Lott is a really good scholar.” The latter is pretty much implicit in the former. Citing to Lott’s work in support of one’s positions is effectively an endorsement of Lott’s work. *
FTR, until told otherwise, I assumed “BassettGina” was a significant other of beagledave, in the same way my wife might use my account and sign her post “Mrs. Undhow.” Not an unreasonable assumption in my view, but if that makes me “stupid,” then so be it.
Anyway, upon review I rather wish I hadn’t made the apology comment – on reflection, I can see where the poster I was responding to was coming from. I still maintain that I wasn’t suggesting anyone was lying, and the apology comment was bourne of ruffled feathers – I bristle when accused of calling people liars, because that’s just not something I do. I do try to refrain from personal attacks when discussing an issue, even in the Pit, and I think my posting history bears that out.
I’m happy to see that some in this thread – RT and minty in particular – share that credo. It’s a pity that others don’t. There is a fair amount of difference between calling an argument “BS” (as RT does) and calling your opponent “an idiot and/or liar.” I leave it as an exercise to the reader as to which approach they find more credible.
And, FTR, my position is still “not a big friggin’ deal.”
No, it is not. Samuel Clemens wasn’t pretending to be somebody else when he published as Mark Twain. When I jump on the boards as minty green, I am not pretending to be somebody other than myself. We post anonymously because it does not draw attention to our real life selves, but we do not pretend to be anyone other than our real life selves. See the distinction?
Thought experiment time. Would it be ethical for you and I to drum up business for our real life law practices by creating sock puppets to testify that “[minty] and [Dewey] are the best lawyers around! They handled my case perfectly, and I got a big cash settlement! A+++!!!”? Please, please tell me your answer is no, that would not be ethical.
If so, please explain why it is any more ethical for John Lott to boost his professional prestige by praising himself via a sock puppet?
P.S.–Lott has a large body of published work, much of it on subjects other than guns. He is also a darling of the conservative media, and does plenty of print and broadcast media. His statements are available on a wide variety of subjects. If Lott can’t rebut charges of right-wing zealotry through his public statements, he should not do so by means of sock puppetry.
“. . . , and does plenty of print and broadcast interviews.” Oops.
Please tell me you can see a difference between drumming up actual clients with actual legal problems who will be paying actual money for our actual services, and some guy dicking around on Usenet. Real people could potentially be hurt by the former.
Part of my indifference is that back in the day I spent a fair share of time dicking around on Usenet myself. Much of what goes on there is the equivelant of monkeys flinging their feces at each other. The inmates really do run the asylum. I’m inclined to give someone a wide berth in how they choose to participate, particularly if it’s someone of relative fame.
The real question is why someone of Lott’s caliber would want to spend any amount of time dicking around with the Usenet monkeys. It’s like finding out Stephen Jay Gould participated on the Left Behind messageboard.
I’m amazed that you think there is no harm for a scholar to fraudulently boost his reputation. A scholar’s reputation is little different from a lawyer’s reputation, after all. Our livelihoods both depend on it. The remuneration might be a little more direct in the case of lawyers, but the principle of self-interest isn’t all that different.
And again with the “It’s only Usenet” defense? Feh again, I say. Those were apparently quite serious discussions that “Mary” was participating in. Given that context, I find it just as reprehensible for Lott to have done so there as it is when some sock puppet does so here on the SDMB.