Cue Twilight Zone music
Remember Kees? I mean “Kees”? The troll who appeared in February-March 2009 pretending to be a naive observer who had just discovered moral relativism by watching a tv documentary about a South Pacific island where the men (prepare for a shock) ran everything?
Who then revealed himself (by emailing a lot of commenters here to urge them to escape my dictatorship, and using a revealing email address) to be the same as one “Bernie Ranson” who had staged a similar extended charade at Talking Philosophy more than a year earlier, in January 2008?
Remember him? (He claimed to be male, and I think that particular claim is true.)
I’ve been reading some of his comments from those two encounters. They’re very interesting, in a way, though in a more usual way they’re utterly boring. They betray an odd and inexplicable (from a stranger) obsession with me. Obsession and hatred, of course – people don’t do this kind of thing out of friendship. He makes much of my putative lying and hypocrisy, my censorship and dominance, my evasiveness and general shiftiness – all this after days and days, and thousands of words, trying to argue him into reasonableness. All very odd. Remember?
I was reading through his comments because I was reminded of him. I was reminded of him by a newish blog that made its debut a couple of months ago and has made a specialty of (cough) criticizing four bloggers in particular. I’m one of them; the others are far more illustrious than I am. The language and mood of this blog is very reminiscent of “Kees”/”Bernie Ranson” – though it could just be the language and mood that are common to all enterprises of this kind. Then again, I’m not familiar with enterprises of this kind, so I don’t know. It seems very eccentric, because it’s time-consuming without really being rewarding. B&W is time-consuming too, but it’s rewarding. A blog that does almost nothing but shout at four bloggers in increasingly obscene terms seems as unrewarding as it could be.
This blog is anonymous of course. You may have seen another anonymous troll who turned up here on Monday. I was suspicious of it because it had just started a blog two days before it turned up; because the new blog sounded a good deal like the above-mentioned anonymous blog; because this troll seemed peculiarly interested in B&W and me for someone who appeared from nowhere. Within about three days the troll had done quite a few things to confirm my suspicions.
I don’t know that any of this has anything to do with “Kees” and “Bernie Ranson” but I think it might. I think that, for one thing, because I find it hard to believe that there are all that many people who are weirdly obsessed with me. Why would there be? I’m a very small player, after all; why would guy after guy after guy after guy work up a foaming hatred of me? I know of a couple of others (non-anonymous) as it is; I think it’s far more likely that there’s one more rather than two or three or five more. Still – it’s a very busy blogger/troll, I must say. Full marks for industriousness!
Yes, indeed, I remember Kees! He sent an email to me complaining about your editorial style, and suggesting some kind of cooperative effort to somehow take over the blog. Anyway, it was suspiciously conspiratorial, as I recall. Odd guy. I thought that at the time, and you’re surely right. There can’t be too many people around who are obsessed in the same way. It was obvious that S….l, if not the same person, had the same tendencies. But, hey, I don’t think you’re such a small player. Maybe not a big hulking presence like Dawkins or Myers or Coyne, but heavy enough to rattle the cages of a few dwellers in the Twilight Zone. Cue synchroniser, thunder and lighting!
That is hilarious. What, did he think you and he could tie Ophelia up and torture the log-in credentials out of her?
And just what did he think he’d try to accomplish trying to rope you into such a stupid plan? Did he not notice that you (and lots of others) actually like and respect Ophelia? Conspiracy: Ur Doin It Rong.
I remembered Kees and looked at the links to the two B&W threads you posted. Very relieved to see I hadn’t been drawn into the time-wasting on the first one. Then I sobered up when I saw I had made a (pointless) contribution to the second one.
Oh, alright, I went and looked at the new one. Bit of a raving lunatic. With oodles of time on his hands (I write jealously, as I wonder how the hell I’ll ever meet tomorrow morning’s already extended deadline – not like this, that’s for sure). My two cents worth? I don’t think it’s impossible there could be more than one individual thus obsessed. But if there’s only one and he’s still around and he’s that obsessed – then I don’t think he has it in him to stop (between hospitalisations, that is), thus greatly increasing the likelihood that anyone writing like that is the same guy.
Don’t worry about this sort of thing. Johann Hari (Journalist), and many others have many blogs dedicated to personally destroying them.
Example:
http://shoothari.blogspot.com/
OB, you know why he’s obsessed with you: You’re hawt! :)
I didn’t know about the plans to take over part! That’s hilarious. Maybe that’s the plan now, too – soon all of your blogggs iz belonging to us! And nobuddy iz reading them any mawr!
I didn’t know about Johann’s fan, either. I’m well familiar with Aaronovitch Watch though. But then I’m not a Hari or an Aaronovitch.
I am so not hawt!! (The other obsessed blogger never fails to mention his irritation at my refusal to have big tits.)
Close call. I almost commented on its blog (just to be snotty), but then I realized it wants that, and I don’t want it to have that. I hope it gets increasingly frustrated.
Yes. It’s important to torrrrrrrture it by not adding real comments to its mostly fake ones. Mwahahahahahaha.
Honestly though – apart from other qualities, all this is very flattering. I must be terrifically important! [preens]
I had forgotten about Bernie. He is an insistent fellow, who courageously will continue to argue in favor of a bad cause inspite of all the evidence against him and out of some perverse need, enjoys it.
If you take it at face value, you wonder what woodwork all these commenters are coming out of, with comments so convenient for the blogger to quote and so much of the same violent sexual and scatological impulses as he displays. If you assume they are all sock-puppets, it all makes sense. Wouldn’t want to be in his world; a small group of people for whom he cannot control his loathing opposed by himself and a small army of sycophants who don’t exist outside of his impersonations of them.
Quite. Most of the comments there are glaringly implausible – right down to the frequent “I was going to disagree with you but then I read the linked item and oh my you are so right” trope. If I’m right – this tragic elf is typing his fingers down to bloody stumps and it’s getting him nowhere.
It reminds me of that Kliban cartoon. Guy talking to his cats – “And another thing I like about you guys is -” [I forget what]
Another thing I like about you guys is – you’re all real!
I was going to disagree with you but then I looked in the mirror and oh my you are so right.
I’ve decided to ignore the blog we’re all talking about as far as possible. It began with quite an impressive show about how it was going to offer level-headed, fair-minded, civil commentary on the accommodationism debates. Some posts actually seemed to do this for a while, and there’s certainly room for such a blog. Those of us who are in the thick of it all doubtless sometimes say things in anger or exasperation, so none of us are perfect even if our views are essentially right. I don’t claim to be, and I’m happy to receive fair criticism (though not obsessive “ur doing it wrong” criticism that asks me to change my whole personality).
But what we’ve seen increasingly is a blog descending into vindictiveness, name-calling, wild generalisations about “New Atheists”, misrepresentations of others’ arguments, unwarranted accusations of dishonesty, and a general civility level far lower than, say, Ophelia’s or mine. Taking any notice of it really wouldn’t be helping anything.
I did actually add a comment to one of his original posts on ‘fundamenatheism’ pointing out a completely dishonest misrepresentation of something Dawkins said in on one particular page of The God Delusion. Needless to say he didn’t allow my comment to appear and hasn’t corrected his post. He has now gone off the deep-end complaining of censorship (not his own, of course)!
I wouldn’t assume that the regular commenters there are sock-puppets, though. Unfortunately, the world is big enough for groups of people with the same weird mindset – no matter how obscure the subject matter. Look at the bunch who regularly frequent the Colgate Twins’ blog.
I was ignoring it, Russell. But the second one really was a bit much – and it did succeed in driving a wedge between Ben Nelson and me. If it’s going to be whelping, I think it’s worth pointing out just this once that it’s not altogether above board.
However, I don’t link to it, or say its horrid name.
I notice it’s silent today. So is the second one. My, what a coincidence!
No, I don’t assume that they’re sock puppets – but I think they are. Not all of them, but several. The bunch at the Intersection agree, but they don’t sound like clones. At all. They’re unmistakably different people. Several of the ones at this blog just sound like…clones. Convenient clones.
It is truly weird that it’s possible to build a whole blog/”community” of commenters based solely on the idea that some Other bloggers are mean people. And you may be right, Russell, that some of them are not sock puppets. It’s impossible to know. But as Ophelia said, it just strains belief when you read things like, “Well, I did think Jerry/Ophelia/Russell had a good point, but I just don’t think that anymore after you pointed out how shockingly mean they were. Thanks for letting me know!”
I mean, it’s so ham-handed.
*raises hand*
I’m not.
Ha! The ol’ Life of Brian joke. Good one.
Well, my gut is telling me that pretty much the whole bunch are sock puppets. Read through any string of comments as if they were and it’s extremely plausible. The fact that several “real” people have testified to their comments not appearing there makes it pretty clear that the nut in charge wants nothing to appear there that might disturb the orchestrated impression he wants to make and he can only do that properly if he writes all the comments himself. He may have help, as has been suggested elsewhere, but I wouldn’t even be too sure about that. What I’m saying is, a single impression is coming through, even if there seem to be surface disagreements and when I look closely, I don’t see even one comment that militates against that impression (no, of course, I haven’t read everything, but enough to get sick of waiting for a surprise deviation – of the kind, as Ophelia pointed out elsewhere, that inevitably ensue when different real people discuss anything).
I did see several real comments on one thread today, from people I’ve seen around, including here – Dave W, who posted great comments day after day at the Intersection (unless it’s a different Dave W, but I doubt that), and Kirth Gerson. That’s unusual though. Most threads have seemed to be very sock-heavy.
The real person who turns up there a lot, predictably given his interests, is J.J. Ramsey. But JJ, whatever his faults, is then the voice of reason. As for the group who make up the cheer squad, I can’t really tell whether they have distinct styles or personalities – simply because I’d have to read a lot more of their comments to get a sense of them. Life’s too short.
I, too, wasted time by looking a little further and found a few cases where it looked like they’d/he’d let a real person on for a while, merely in order to have the socks kick him around a bit. If you know real people who seem to have commented, though, I’d be wary as to whether it was them or just their names till receiving a personal confirmation. I presume you’ve also read the personal narrative of the commenter who was banned after “they” claimed to have proof that he was multiple sock-puppets. One view of this requires massive conspiracy among people we have good reason to believe are real and trustworthy, whereas the opposing viewpoint can be quite plausible given nothing more than one crazy person with a lot of malice, a lot of time and an internet connection. If there were any truth to the claims about the socks having already led long lives on the net, non-socks would have offered the evidence, but a sock would do just what is being done, keep on saying it’s so and never offering up even a single link that would clinch it and buy credibility. Cut and dried, as far as I’m concerned.
I’ve commented there too, and at first thought they were withholding comments too. Interestingly, if I have the feed of comments going to my gmail, new comments show up in my gmail faster than on their actual blog. So some of those complaints could be that phenomena (anyone else notice this?).
The admin IP has only shown up once at my blog as far as I can see. A friend once said to me only bloggers read other blogs. I always marvel at how many commenters here and at the other 4 targets actually link back to blogs, and how few at the blog in question do. It’s weird. Not saying it means they’re all sock puppets, but it lends a touch more credibility to the idea.
I’m still laughing at the fact that the ‘Shoot Johann Hari’ person is in ‘Sussex Action for Peace’.
So maybe the name should be changed to ‘Shoot Johann Hari But Not in Sussex.’
Meanwhile, all my suspicions turn out to be mistaken; I know this because both new blogs deny everything. I’m stunned! I was so sure they would say it was all true!
Ooh I remember Kees. It’s not often I get to use Bislama in philosophical debates. ;-)
Sigh. I keep hoping the folks over there will clue in and actually, you know, do what they’re claiming to do, instead of continuing to play the junior high school “we don’t like person X this week” game. I agree with Russell that it might be a very good thing for there to be a blog that does what that one purports to be doing — but that also adheres to the same standards they’re advocating in others. Sadly, the last part trumps the first in this case, leaving the community as a whole no better off.
Hope might be relevant if one were dealing with someone merely misguided, rather than deliberately and prankishly malicious. It’s pretty damn obvious nothing in all this gives him a bigger kick than screwing with people’s minds.
Yes. I really think hope in this case is entirely misplaced…because if the blogger there were capable of doing what it seemed at first to be professing to do, it would be incapable of writing the way it has so often written. A reasonable person simply would not allow itself the level of vulgarity that that blogger revels in.
I think it’s pretty obvious by now that it never intended to do what it claimed to be doing and that the show of reasonableness was just that – a show.
The sad thing is that this will likely set up a “boy who cried wolf” scenario — if a blog like the one Russell and I were hoping for does show up at some point, people will be quick to assume it’s just another case of all talk. The burden of proof, as it were, just got shifted upward, making the next person’s job that much harder.
I’m not sure that’s true. It really wouldn’t take much to demonstrate that one is not the mad, repetitive, transparently-talking-to-self mirror-world that that blog is.
It would take so little that it’s surprising it’s not managing it. Even with all the free advice we’re giving – it’s still blithely doing the same risible puppet show.
I was going to write something similar to what Ophelia did, i.e. the existence of one bad troll, with lots of evidence pointing to him being just that, does not increase the likelihood that a different blogger who displays none of those symptoms is also a bad troll.
What I wanted to add, though, was a question, as to whether a real need does exist for a blog devoted to accomodationist issues? Maybe I can put that better by asking (mainly Kirth and Russell, I suppose) if it is possible to describe a voice that is missing in the current “debate” (sorry, but that really did need scare quotes)? Everyone participating is presumably supplying the voice they think is needed most – absolutely nothing facetious is intended by this – so I hope this question doesn’t seem silly.
I can imagine someone like that – another William Sloane Coffin, for instance. But whether there is such a person…well, I haven’t seen one yet.
I think Richard Dawkins hit the nail on the head when he said, “Well, there are really two schools of thought…there’s a great debate going on in what’s called the blogosphere at the moment about the right way for us to proceed…and I think we probably need both. I think there is a role for the “seductive” approach and there’s a role for “this is just bullshit,” and some people respond to one and some people respond to the other.”
Obviously Dawkins is far from an “accomodationist,” as am I, but he and I agree that there are times when a small-scale accommodationist-seeming approach can be tactically sound. A blog focusing on these sorts of tactics, and looking for empirical evidence of success in different scenarios (using some form of objective criteria to be determined), would potentially be of great strategic value. It would also require a significant effort — not only gathering evidence and designing the evaluation systems, but carefully avoiding falling into any of the pitfalls it recommends against.
Agreed, Kirth. More than one approach is helpful. There are atheist blogs that have a “softer” approach without being necessarily accomodationist. I love The Meming of Life, (by the author of Parenting Beyond Belief) for example, which is different in tenor in so many ways. But I also love Pharyngula and Notes and Comment.
Dealing with and refuting religious claims is fascinating and I think, necessary, and in my opinion we are lucky to have so many people who write and think through things as clearly as Ophelia Benson, PZ Myers, Dale McGowan, Russell Blackford, Mike Haubrich, etc. etc. etc.
@Glendon — wanted to thank you for the recommendation — “Meming of Life” is catchy and well-written, and almost makes me regret not having children. I’ll certainly be reading more of it.
Dale McGowan – I forgot about him. He’s a good candidate for Stewart’s question. An excellent candidate.
(For full disclosure, I was a huge fan of Dale and his blog before he asked me to design his blog banner – and thrilled when he did.)
Wo, total corruption! :- )
In that case, it sounds like sheer simple thoughtfulness is the most important thing. Not that you, or a few others often named, lack it. But I can see that where dealing with children is concerned, a thoughtful parent will have to give time to issues over which one wouldn’t agree to waste it for someone claiming to be an adult. But notice that you’re finding it easier to name people who do exist and have (or had) a voice, than actually describe that voice. Perhaps Kirth’s quote from Dawkins comes closest. The fact that Dawkins actually said that is the clearest evidence that he is not the way too many perceive him.
[…] says it’s 23 years old. If that’s true, I doubt that it’s Kees/Bernie Ranson, because that started too long ago – it seems unlikely that someone that young would spend […]
I came across this discussion by chance today. I have got a few things to say to you, Ophelia Benson.
I prefer to use a pseudonym when I visit blogs, websites and internet discussion groups for entertainment, and to use my real name in contexts where my identity is an issue, for example in my work or when I’m dealing with the government or a bank. I’m not terribly careful about it, because it isn’t really important for me in my circumstances, I’m lucky that way.
But it might have been important. It might easily have had serious consequences for me to have my pseudonym linked with my real name. Think of all the different things a person might have said online, believing they were anonymous: about mental illness, or physical illness, about their home life and circumstances, or their political or religious beliefs and activities, and think about the possible consequences if that anonymity was breached.
You should be protecting the anonymity of your visitors, not betraying their confidence.
I am made out in these discussions to be a “nutter”, a “troll”, an “obsessive”. You say I “pretended to be a naive observer who had just discovered moral relativism”.
I’m not mentally ill, not seriously, not that I know of: but I might have been. Would that make me not a person?
I wasn’t pretending to be a naive observer who had just discovered moral relativism, I saw an interesting film which challenged my beliefs and attitudes, and prompted me to challenge yours.
I’m not obsessed with you. I’ve visited this website a few times, and got involved in an argument with you, which I think you fairly obviously lost and where you and your group of sneaks and sycophants behaved badly as exemplified above, and I haven’t thought about you much since. You on the other hand are still talking about me months later. Who is the obsessive one here?
And I’m not a “troll”, I’m a fellow human being who doesn’t agree with you.
Mr Ranson: If it’s important for someone to maintain anonymity, then that someone ought not to abuse that anonymity to bully other people. You abused your anonymity.
However, it soon became clear that the blog mentioned in this post was nothing to do with you, so no, I agree that you’re not obsessed with me. As far as I know you haven’t been back since the Kees episode.
But people who spend a lot of time playing tricks under different names run the risk of being suspected of being other people who do that. That’s your doing, not mine.
You were certainly pretending to be someone other than Bernie Ranson, and using a different tone from the one Bernie Ranson had used.
Thanks for that. I don’t think I need to say much, people can see from this discussion what kind of person you are, what an ugly world you create around you.
All that self-righteous moralising about how other people should live, and look at how you behave when you are in charge. Like an incompetent, deluded secret policeman.
Oh yes? Really? But you’re the one who emailed other commenters on my site to try to persuade them to rebel against me in some way. I think I won’t turn to you for moral advice, thanks.