Deltoid Tim
Tim Lambert is back to his usual antics. As usual, it’s wacky reverse-conspiracy crap about sock puppets. Only this time, the real sock puppet got caught with his pants down. The only question is whether a certain non-sock puppet might come to regret her eagerness to believe the sock puppet’s wacky theories about other people being sock puppets.
UPDATE: Uncle thinks I’m wrong because … well, just because.
UPDATE x2: John Fleck does debunk one of Fumento’s theories, namely that he himself is a sock puppet of Lambert’s. Not likely, unless Lambert has found a way to hack into the Albuquerque Journal web site.
December 6th, 2005 at 12:01 am
Less obtuse, please. Are you saying John Lott *didn’t* pose as a woman on the Internet? I thought that was well established. Am I wrong?
December 6th, 2005 at 12:19 am
Lott did indeed use an email account with the name “Mary Rosh” at one point, but promptly admitted to that when called on it by Julian Sanchez. That had nothing to do with any of the various and sundry sock puppets Lambert has invented since - nor with the ones he has more recently invented for Michael Fumento, and Lord knows who else.
December 6th, 2005 at 12:27 am
Yeah, I sort of recall some long complicated thread at his blog about that. Mainly what I got out of it was Xrlq no likee Tim, and Tim no likee Xrlq. And something about IP addresses or something.
December 6th, 2005 at 5:26 am
ONly problem with fumento’s rebuttal is that I have also verified the same IP address coming from the same source.
December 6th, 2005 at 6:06 am
[...] Xrlq thinks Fumento is right. [...]
December 6th, 2005 at 6:38 am
The same source as what? Have you personally established the IP address to be Fumento’s, or did you simply take Lambert’s word that it was his? And if the latter, what makes you think Fumento is the sock puppet, as opposed to Lambert (or, for that matter, a third party jerking both of their chains)?
December 6th, 2005 at 8:06 am
I have now personally established it. See blog.
It is possible that it is lambert or a third party but I find it highly unlikely.
December 6th, 2005 at 8:42 am
That screen shot doesn’t “establish” anything, Uncle, except that Lambert is either (1) telling the truth, or (2) not stupid enough to give you access to his account before editing his entries to make them say what they need to say. Have you ever edited a MySQL database manually? It’s not that hard to do, even for those of us who aren’t C.S. professors.
December 6th, 2005 at 8:50 am
Until you mentioned it, I did not know I could do that.
December 6th, 2005 at 6:47 pm
No, that’s not just because. As I said, there are three possibilities:
Fumento is a liar.
Lambert is a liar.
I am a liar.
I know that I am not a liar. And, in this case, if Lambert were lying, it would take a great deal of effort to keep up with IPs/sock puppets/ad infinitum
December 6th, 2005 at 7:24 pm
Like I said, just because. I have no reason to suspect you of lying, but that’s irrelevant anyway. The sock puppet Tracy Spenser hasn’t posted to your blog, only Fumento in his (presumably) true identity has. Thus, the only relevant possiblities are that either Fumento or Lambert is lying. [Or maybe that a third person is out there jerking everyone's chain. Though if it is a third party, it would seem unlikely he'd use both identities on Lambert's blog, and only the Michael Fumento one on yours.]
Lambert has a known history of making dubious allegations about sock puppets. Fumento doesn’t. End of story.
December 6th, 2005 at 7:34 pm
Not buying it because the IP at my site matches the IP fumento used to change the wikipedia entry, which he admitted to.
And, as lambert asks, why has fumento not denied it?
Sure, there’s no ‘criminal justice’ hard proof but it seems more likely than not the case to me.
December 6th, 2005 at 8:03 pm
You still have yet to explain what a match between (a guy claiming to be) Michael Fumento posting at your site under his own name and Michael Fumento (or at least someone with posting privileges at fumento.com) is supposed to prove. It’s pretty decent evidence that Michael Fumento actually posted the innocuous comment that appeared on your site, and that he actually edited away Lambert’s crap on Wikipedia (as his site acknowledges he did), but it’s no evidence whatsoever of anything else.
He has, in the entry that you linked to. The real question is, why did Lambert have the chutzpah to claim Fumento never denied it, in a comment thread linking to the very post in which he did. Or maybe I should ask instead why you were gullible enough to fall for it?
December 7th, 2005 at 1:31 am
Why does Tim Lambert always suspect people of being sock puppets? I mean, it might occur to me occasionally that someone is a sock puppet but never seriously and certainly never seriously-enough that I would bother to compare IP addresses.
Yet this suspicion appears to occur to Tim Lambert as a very high probability. He seems to think the world is filled with evil conservative authors who play sock puppet on the internet. Sort of like I assume the world is people filled with people who speed up when I threaten to pass them.
Why is that?
Well, in my case, it’s because I have a bad habit of speeding up when someone is passing me. Since I do it, I assume that’s what other people are doing.
But to get back to the topic: why would Tim Lambert be constantly assuming that other people are sock puppets? Any ideas?
December 7th, 2005 at 1:51 pm
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/ethical_academic/
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/mr_popularity/
Now, I can’t say as to Fumento’s honesty - seems to be an ass. But Xrlq is correct that Lambert himself has his own history that calls his judgment into question.
Might just be a case of 2 people meant for each other.
December 7th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
According to SayUncle: “And, in this case, if Lambert were lying, it would take a great deal of effort to keep up with IPs/sock puppets/ad infinitum.” That’s just my point, thank you. The man goes through an incredible amount of effort to attack individuals and keep attacking them in pit bull fashion. This is not healthy behavior. He built a whole mirror site to go after Tim Blair and he put together a “screen shot” attaching my IP address to some (apparently) fictitious Tracy Spenser that looks awfully convincing until you realize it’s really just a form of photoshopping. In fact, his pal John Fleck at inkstain.net LITERALLY photoshopped me, putting my face inside a sock. Or does SayUncle believe that’s accurate, too? Attacking opinions is one thing, but Lambert (with Fleck) seems to believe he’s not up to the task so he attacks people instead. He deserves the opprobrium of bloggers, whatever their politics.
December 7th, 2005 at 4:22 pm
I should point out that my reference to John Fleck as Lambert’s sockpuppet has nothing to do with IP addresses, but rather that Fleck will post things that might look a bit foolish on his site but extremely foolish on Lambert’s. Fleck can jump up and down and insist he’s his own man, but the connection between these two is much more powerful than any alleged evidence linking my IP address with anyone else’s. The point is getting your comments posted under someone else’s name, whether on other websites as John Lott did, getting a buddy to post them on his website, or using such fake names as “Kevin Donahue” and “Robert Johnson” as Tim Lambert has done on his own website. (See my post at: http://www.fumento.com/weblog/archives/2005/12/tim_lamberts_ve.html)
Even here, I’m not sure what Lambert’s obsession with false names is. I’d rather see true statements from made-up names (guys like Thomas Paine or Poor Richard, for example) than false statements from guy with real names. But Lambert crosses back and forth between truth and reality so often I’m not sure he can tell which is which, so he obsesses over individuals, over names, and other people’s websites. Not healthy at all.
December 8th, 2005 at 6:00 am
It was not a photoshop. Lambert gave me read access to his blogging software and I queried Tracy Spenser. I took a screen shot. As Xrlq pointed out and I agreed, it is possible that Lambert changed the IP through his MySQL db. Again, that gets back to the amount of effort involved in an attempt to discredit you.
That’s just fucking stupid.
And Donahue’s (sic) and Johnson’s IPs originate in Ireland and NY, respectively.
As I said, it’s possible that Lambert is engaging in a complex conspiracy involving sockpuppetry, computer tinkering, and a host of other things to discredit you. I just find that unlikely.
December 8th, 2005 at 7:10 am
Hmmm… Earlier, you said: “It is possible that it is lambert or a third party but I find it highly unlikely.”
Now: “I just find that unlikely.”
These are very scientific deductions on your part. Problem is, you’ve shown yourself to be a Lambert defender in general, not just on this issue. You’re as impartial as a defense lawyer. It’s already been established that Lambert WILL jump through high hoops to discredit other people. You can’t change that; it’s public record. All you can do is say THIS TIME SayUncle believes (or says he believes) he’s not. I think somebody less partial would “find that unlikely.”
Meanwhile, since I made my first post on Lambert’s Vendetta.com my site has been swamped with vile fake trackbacks for non-existent pornographic URLs. None before that posting; about 40 a day now. Coincidence? I find it unlikely. The world is filled with leftist bloggers; can’t you find a sane one to defend?
December 8th, 2005 at 7:22 am
Uncle’s not a leftist, Michael, far from it. He does seem to have a Lambert-shaped blind spot, however. And as I’ve explained earlier, the “hoops” Lambert would have had to jump through to forge the IP address on Spenser’s comments are not all that high. The last time I had to edit my WP database manually, it took me about 15 mins. to figure out how. Lambert’s a CS prof, and one who has poked fun at me for my lack of technical expertise, to boot, so I have little doubt he could have done it in his sleep.
December 8th, 2005 at 7:31 am
I have? You mean like here where I was unconvinced about Lott’s use of multiple personalities? The reason I find your case different is the IP of the comment you left at my site matched the wikipedia IP and the one lambert posted. Or perhapsthis one where I say tim is wrong about the impact of Lott’s work? Or perhaps you mean here, where we disagree on English law? Or perhaps you mean here, where we disagree on Kellerman’s study.
Welcome to blogging. I get that in an hour.
December 8th, 2005 at 9:00 am
You’ve repeated that many times, but not once explained why you think it is significant that Michael Fumento’s IP matches Michael Fumento’s. Of course it does! The real question is whether or not it matches the sock puppet’s IP address. And on that, you’ve simply taken Lambert at his word.
December 8th, 2005 at 9:18 am
And yet you take the word of fumento, who takes the word of a commentor at a blog that Tim is doing this too?
December 8th, 2005 at 10:45 am
Indeed I do. Here’s why: Lambert has a known history of not only of lying about right wing figures generally, but specifically of the very lie he’s telling about Fumento now. The guy is such a pathological liar, he even tells lies that are easily disproven, such as denying that Fumento ever denied his allegations, in a comment thread to the every entry in which Fumento did in fact deny these allegations Lambert denies he denied. Similarly, if you follow his latest trackback to your “just because” thread, you’ll see he’s lying about me, too, claiming I based my “Fleck may be a sock puppet” comment on other comments that did not exist at the time, and conveniently leaving out the subsequent comment in which I conceded that Fleck clearly was not a sock puppet. How many times does the same little boy get to cry wolf before the villagers will stop listening to him?
Fumento, by contrast, has no known history of sock puppetry, nor of dishonesty in any other form. This is why your facile “once a prick, always a prick” maxim does not work. There are a lot of very different character traits that cause people to identify others by that name. I won’t call Fumento a prick myself, but I don’t necessarily fault you for using that word, either, at least when describing this exchange which I do believe he should have handled better than he did. However, to the extent he was a “prick” in that exchange, it was because he was arrogant, condescending and unnecessarily blunt. All of these traits are a good way to get called a prick, but none of them demonstrate a propensity toward dishonesty. In fact, the unnecessary bluntness suggests exactly the opposite, namely that Fumento may be too brutally honest for his own good.
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.
December 8th, 2005 at 11:09 am
Xlrq is right; SayUncle just keeps matching my IP address to me and saying it proves the use of sockpuppets or something or other. No, most people’s IP addresses tend to be the same day in and day out. This is quite bizarre. As for the “welcome to blogging” explanation; I don’t buy it. As I made clear, I was getting NONE of these until I made my post on Lambert. Again, let’s do another backflip for Lambert. Well, sorry but I don’t think the good Lord put me on earth to convince SayUncle of that which he cannot be convinced — presumably because he already knows. I work for a living. Fact is, I rarely blog at all. I write books, articles, and a weekly column. My current column is on the methods being developed to develop a vaccine for H5N1 avian flu. That’s called being constructive, something Lambert will never understand. I don’t mess with other peoples’ blog sites and I think that to the extent I spend my precious time writing about sockpuppets and other nonsense I’m not writing on important issues and I look as obsessive as Lambert. So if it helps you to sleep at night thinking I use sockpuppets, go for it. Signing off.
December 8th, 2005 at 2:50 pm
Xrlq, just because one person is acting prickish it’s not a reason to assume they can’t also be right.
I said no such thing. I said that it makes lambert’s explanation more believable to me.
Over this incident, you received quite a few more in bound links and it’s reasonable that the spam would follow.
December 8th, 2005 at 3:30 pm
True, but Lambert isn’t just prickish, he’s dishonest. And he isn’t just dishonest in general, he’s dishonest about this issue specifically. Thus, it makes little sense to take his word over anyone else’s.
How so? All it proves is that Lambert knows what Michael Fumento’s IP address is. Which is hardly surprising, assuming he has commented on his blog at least once in non-sock puppet form.
December 8th, 2005 at 4:43 pm
How so? Lambert says IP# is editing Wikipedia. Lambert says same IP# number is Tracy Spenser and Fumento. Fumento leaves a comment at my blog with the aforementioned IP#. Lambert gives me access to WP to verify the IP#. Not much of a logical leap, really. IT ain’t rocket surgery.
As i said, Lambert could be lying.
December 8th, 2005 at 5:17 pm
So does Fumento. Thus, a match between that IP address and the one that appeared on your blog proves nothing, except maybe that Michael Fumento and Michael Fumento are the same person. It doesn’t do a thing to corroborate any of Lambert’s kooky sock puppet theories.
As he has, repeatedly, including at least twice in this very discussion (your thread that is). Yet, for some odd reason you seem inclined to take his word over that of a well-known researcher who may have pissed you off in other ways, but who has shown no tendency toward fabricating anything. Bizarre.
December 8th, 2005 at 7:40 pm
Fumento says: “Attacking opinions is one thing, but Lambert (with Fleck) seems to believe he’s not up to the task so he attacks people instead.”
Fumento also says: “But if you cleaned up your act, you might just find that somebody somewhere, even with a circulation of ten, would occassionally print you. Alas, you will not. You are a lost cause.”
You will note that in that response to me, Fumento was not up to the task of actually defending his work, with which I had taken issue. He attacked people instead.
In fact, my initial discussion of this issue involved substantive criticism. Fumento’s response, I repeat, was not to address that substantive criticism (he still hasn’t) but tell me I was stupid and insignificant - “to attack people instead.” That’s why I couldn’t help but be struck by the irony of his comment in this thread that I quote above.
As I mentioned on my blog, it’s a bit of a conundrum, because Fumento is capable of fine work, some of which I find persuasive.
P.S. It wasn’t photoshopped. Nora actually made a sock puppet. She’s been pretty amused by this whole affair.
December 8th, 2005 at 8:21 pm
Of course I haven’t lied about anything in this discussion or any other online discussion. To my knowledge, Fumento has not denied posting as Tracy Spenser. If Xlrq wants to claim that he did deny it, he needs to provide an actual quote instead of falsely accusing me of lying.
Fumento, on the other hand, has a history of dishonesty and accusing other people of lying based on nothing more than his fantasies. He has repeatedly claimed that the 100,000 Lancet estimate of excess deaths in Iraq included Falluja when the study clealy stated that it did not. Xlrq has read my recent post but apparently the quote from Nick Gillespie about how Fumento falsely accused him of lying mysteriously escaped his attention. Weird.
As for the IP address thing, SayUncle’s matching of Fumento’s IP address with the Wiki editing, did in fact prove that Fumento was editing Wikipedia. Fumento only admitted doing it after SayUncle had the proof.
December 8th, 2005 at 9:48 pm
That’s a great idea, Tim, but here’s a better one: how about you read the friggin’ entry yourself?! It’s all there.
Did Fumento ever deny having done so? Feel free to link to any evidence that he did - with the caveat that any link containing the string “timlambert.org” does not constitute evidence.