The worst part about being anonymous bloggers is that people will lie, distort, and do anything to try and out you. So far, we’ve weathered the accusations and conspiracies, because they’ve been mostly harmless to anyone. Now, though, it has come to our attention that Greg Laden has tried to implicate a real individual (that is most certainly not us) as being responsible for this blog. This is nothing short of disgusting, even though Laden admits that his evidence for this accusation is “weak.” Despite this, he’s wrongfully accused a person that has a reputation, a job, and no ties to this blog, with no regard for consequences or even if his accusation is right. He has brought real people into the fold in a completely cavalier fashion, and thus taken this to a level it should never go to, and a level we’d decided would be the breaking point when this witchhunt began.
Because of this, we don’t want to become part of something that could end up being serious if Laden and friends continue to take things to extremes, wrongfully accusing any individual they can tie flimsy associational links with of actions, words, etc. that are not theirs, all in the hopes of finally hitting the right target (noticing the tendency of these people to run with unsubstantiable claims as truth so far in the last few weeks, we don’t find this below them). Which is why we need to say that we are not a ‘we.’ We is I. My name is William (friends call me Will – and no, you’re not getting a last name. I’m not becoming another Andrew Rosenberg beyond what I already have), and I will be an upcoming (summer) graduate with a B.A. degree from UA (the Univ. of AL). Greg has at least correctly honed in on my location, which again I was fine with until he started randomly choosing people from the university webpage to accuse in the hopes of dragging me out. I’m really an atheist, I’m 23, and I’m from a small suburb located just to the west of Atlanta, GA, to which I will return to hopefully start a career following classes next month. I’m not from the midwest or northeast as I have claimed here and in comments.
As for sock puppetry: yes, I am responsible for several of the commenters (sock puppets) on this blog, namely “Patricia,” “Polly-O!,” and “Brandon”…and yes, the situation yesterday was a slip-up by me which I embarrassingly tried to hide. Any other commenters are not me (including “Julie.” I wrote some responses to her disgusting comment about Ophelia, but I wasn’t her), despite what others have claimed, and I’m also not responsible for “Kees” or whoever it was that Ophelia has accused me of, nor am I responsible for the other blog (The Signal in the Noise) that Ophelia has accused me of as well. That one, I’m afraid, is someone else…who I don’t know. You’ll have to start another “find out who this is and ruin their life so they’ll stop saying things you don’t agree with” campaign to figure that one out, which I’m sure you will. I’m not going to try and rationalize my actions or what I’ve done here, but I will say that outside of the dishonesty in commenting, I stand by the convictions made in my posts. I grew up an atheist in an atheist family, which is something of a badge of honor here in the south, and I’m distressed by the disregard for reason I see in many of the people in the blogosphere who claim to be representing reason but instead don’t reflect it at all. I didn’t weather a childhood of being marginalized by those with faith just to be marginalized by those who I share nonbelief with just because I don’t want to act and talk like them when dealing with believers. I’ve grown tired of being called a “traitor,” an “appeaser,” a waste and a fraud all because I don’t want to yell at people with all the hate I can muster and just blithely let this hate go unquestioned when I see fellow nonbelievers speaking it.  Maybe this blog was a reaction to that, maybe not. I don’t quite know myself.
With that, this will be the last entry here, at least for a while. I’ll mull things over and decide after a few weeks if I want to continue blogging not-anonymously or not. I most likely won’t since I’ve made a fool of myself, and with enough internet searching based on what little information I’ve already given, it’s only a matter of time before someone digs up my last name and personal information and plasters photos of me and my school record all over the place, like they’ve done in recent weeks with others. I’m all but assured this will happen if I continue to express my opinion with this information out there. To Greg and friends: I apologize for the dishonesty in commenting, and any perceived dishonesty in my posts I apologize for, but again that at least was not intentional. It was my interpretation and opinions of others’ posts, and I may have gotten some wrong. If I did, I’m sorry. I really think you mean how I interpret what you and others have to say.  And lastly, congratulations. If you were aiming to shut up and silence an individual trying to express his opinion by digging deep for personal information and not caring what collateral damage you leave along the way in the form of incorrect allegations, you’ve succeeded. You’ve flushed me out, and now this “traitor” will go back to keeping his voice quiet and unexpressed, hidden from sight, right where you want it. I hope you give yourself a pat on the back. You’ve not only silenced me, you’ve effectively silenced anyone else who wants to voice their opinion anonymously in the future, because now they know you’ll mount a campaign to try and find out who they are, where they live, and shut them up based on fear that you’ll disseminate this information and try to expose them, all because their opinions don’t match with what you’d like to hear. Job well done.
This is all a huge pity. I guess I can try to understand the reasons for acting as you did, but it is a great pity. You had material that could stand on its own and it’s a shame you didn’t let it do so. It has to be said you’ve lied a few times, but I do hope you eventually come back online, you’re not a bad person despite it all, and you had things of very real worth to say.
YNH/William, all the very best to you, and please do not feel too down, some people do appreciate what you had to say.
YNH/William, all the very best to you, and please do not feel too down, some people do appreciate what you had to say.
Same here. Be a little more honest next time, back off the anger, and you’ll be a great asset to the blogosphere. You really do have some valid things to say, things that people have noticed and agreed with you on. Your ousting will stand as a testament to some of the things you’ve accused choice people of anyway, so why not keep blogging? I’d read.
The reaction you’ve received is proof that you’ve hit a nerve, Will. And from what I’ve read, your earlier posts were on the target. Get back to those roots and you’ll be fine. Keep posting but keep the attacks out.
As for feeling “silenced” in your convictions for not being full of “hate,” don’t be. There are many of us who share your convictions and agree with much of what you have to say. My comments here certainly weren’t dishonest. Atheists are getting falsely painted as a caricature of what we really are by a small but loud group of extremists. We need more voices like yours, but we need them calm. That’s where you failed.
Dave is right, though. What’s happened with your “ousting” is proof positive of many things you’ve said of what these people are willing to do and what lows they’ll sink to in order to keep an opinion alive and sheltered from dissent, things they’ve tried to deny.
As you noted, you expected this – we all did. It’s in our nature to want to know and I think it’s a bit silly to expect people to simply accept your anonymity. Also, the obvious sock-puppetry about which I commented early in your run here, was a bit much and certainly did seem like a dishonest way to stir up controversy.
That said, I hope you realize that you have many, many allies in the community (as comments here show). Now that you’re “out”, why not keep going? What has changed?
“If you were aiming to shut up and silence an individual trying to express his opinion by digging deep for personal information and not caring what collateral damage you leave along the way in the form of incorrect allegations, you’ve succeeded.”
You did it to yourself. If you are going to be commenting on the honesty of others, then you need to try to be honest yourself. There wasn’t a reason for you to go off the rails like this. In a number of posts, you had justified criticisms, and you didn’t need to dress it up with sock puppets, nor did you need to pad out the blog with posts involving strained logic on your part. If you need padding, just show pictures of cats or something.
Now that you’re “out�, why not keep going? What has changed?
What can change is that he’d have a Rosenberg happen. Greg or someone would continue digging for dirt, find out William’s place of residence, family, Facebook, job maybe, and then go after that as a counter to his opinions, just like Andrew Rosenburg.
That might seem far-fetched, but is it really after what’s already been done? Either way, William, make a statement and keep going. Take your break, mature a bit, and come back.
I have only recently started reading your blog and haven’t commented before, but I want to encourage you to keep writing. I think it would be a pity to lose your contribution, as I think you’re contributing something very constructive to the “atheist” slice of the blogosphere. If you could find a way to (slightly) ease off on the rhetoric (which, since you seem quite cognizant of group dynamics and tribalism, would probably heighten the impact of your ideas in your target audience), and if your concerns about your personal life are somehow manageable for you, please consider continuing. Your blog continue to have more opposition than you’ll have support, but the more reflective and less reflexive will be on your side.
Dave, really? You really think this blogger (and his various sock puppet aliases) has a legitimate claim to “victimhood” of any sort? This is someone who attempted to hide behind anonymity (and the “royal we”) in order to carry out a creepy and obsessive personal vendetta against a handful of non-anonymous individuals. Cowardice and obsessive vitriol deserves none of our sympathy or understanding.
Creepy and obsessive, yes, but with some true and lucid points scattered about. This kid is about as much of a victim as he isn’t, if the claims about not having this other blog, not being the troll from another blog he was accused of, and so on are true. False allegations about this blog were almost as numerous as the false allegations made by this blog. I think I was even accused of being a sock puppet once for agreeing with some of the arguments here. It peeves me to know I was being lied to about who I was arguing with, but there’s some truth to what’s been said here. Like I said above, if William can pull back the weird vendettas and immaturity, I’d still read.
Your accusations are outrageous, but typical of your consistently over the top behavior. I have never named an individual as responsible for this blog. It is likely that you misinterpreted a comment that did use human names (because humans have names) linking this blog and it’s contents, plausibly but not strongly, to the U of A. (The U of A link had already been made). I never thought for a moment that the individuals named had anything to do with this blog. That assertion is absurd. Was that a willful misinterpretation? Or was it a mistake made in ignorance or failure to comprehend? Or is it just that you are so upset that you can’t think?
You quite clumsily invested huge effort into discrediting a number of other people on the internet, used dishonest methods to do it, and although some of your posts were well reasoned and well done, you utterly failed to be consistent, thoughtful, and careful in what critiques you decided to make. You consistently called people out for things they did not say, or misinterpreted what they did say, in order to take cheap shots at them. And now you play the victim. Sorry, but you are not the victim. Not even close.
As for my relationship to anonymous bloggers: I know several, and I’ll never reveal their identity either because they have made it clear they don’t want that to happen or for other professional reasons. But I have long maintained that there is nothing to keep a blogger or blog reader from publicly stating information they have about a person who is attacking them or their friends/allies on the blogosphere. There is not a moral, ethical, legal, or other sort of rule or agreement. All we have is badly behaved anonymous bloggers being bullies and making up the rules as they go along.
No, Barbara, He does not have a lot of allies, and he has little to say that is not being said by others. I truly did think this blog had some hope early on. Now we learn, however, that so much of what was said was lies. Barbara, at one point they were three or four people including at least one female! He lied about his number AND gender.
You know, willie, you don’t have to close down your blog. You just have to do what some of us have been telling you to do all along. Be thoughtful. Don’t just write posts that are cheap shots. Don’t be ad hominem (and yes, I get that you don’t think that you have been … and when you realize you HAVE been, you’ll have improved). Don’t be so hypocritical. If you are a reasonable citizen of the blogosphere, people will not want to squish you like a bug. Be a bug, that’s different.
I look forward to your continuing, but improved, blog. I bet you’re glad you got that off your chest.
I can see how you can argue that it wasn’t a true accusation, but if you drop a name, any name, after talking about how certain you are of IPs and location, the conclusion’s going to get made that you’re suggesting that person is behind it. As an academic I can say (as you probably can yourself) that you potentially put a reputation and maybe a job on the line by making the connection, no matter its truth, and you could’ve severed professional relationships as well, knowing how tight the science blogosphere is. I personally wouldn’t go there without being pretty certain, even in the tentative nature you did it. Out of all you’ve been associated with about this blog, that was the one single thing that hasn’t ‘helped.’ Everything else gets a thumbs up from me.
“No, Barbara, He does not have a lot of allies, and he has little to say that is not being said by others.”
That’s a big claim. I see quite a bit that isn’t said by others, IMHO. I hope that you return, Anon, in some capacity.
“What can change is that he’d have a Rosenberg happen. Greg or someone would continue digging for dirt, find out William’s place of residence, family, Facebook, job maybe, and then go after that as a counter to his opinions, just like Andrew Rosenburg. ”
I don’t know who this rosenberg chap is, but no, I wouldnt’. I’m perfectly satisfied with the current situation. No more false credibility. Just bill, blogging about other people’s blogs. Like it should be.
Oh, and the assertion that I’m somehow out to get Bill and would perform some sort of vendetta? Hardly. Rather offensive. You should apologize.
I’m confused, so, um, you were commenting on your own stuff pretending to be other people? Wow… Lolz.
Let’s be honest about what you did here, Greg. You pointed an accusing finger of GROSS intellectual dishonesty (damn serious stuff in academia) at what appears to be a tenured faculty member at a public university, with a qualifier attached to allow yourself to shrink back from the cliff’s edge. It’s the same kind of thing as El Rushbo loosely trying to find ties to portray Obama as a Muslim but saying “it’s just interesting” to provide himself with an out when it turns out he’s not. The intention was still there and it was clearly read by those like myself who saw it. At least own up to that. That was rather misguided if you didn’t have anything concrete to back it up.
To William: Yes, keep blogging. But be honest. Unlike what Greg says, you can even make cheap shots if you want (he and everyone else does, anyway. Why shouldn’t you?). I like what you have to say, but I don’t like being jerked around. Make what you say be what you have to say, honestly, or just don’t say it. You’ll have a reader in me if you can do that.
Saul Olvera-Rubio: No, I did not. I simply did not. William’s accusation is incorrect. And so is yours. Let’s be honest here, Saul, you are full of shit. There was no accusation, and there was no qualifier attached. I did not suggest or say in any way that any individual was the author of this blog. My intention was to draw a connection between individuals mentioned on this blog, on the U of A atheist facebook page, and the geographical region the blog is from (contra the previous lies by William in that regard). And I did that.
What you are taking as a “qualifier”related, and this is obvious if you read the comment in question, to the overall statement. The only way you could possibly interpret this as a suggestion that those individuals are involved in this blog, which is an utterly absurd suggestion, is to willfully mistate or misconstrue what I said in that comment. What is your reason for doing that?
There was no accusation, and there was no qualifier attached. I did not suggest or say in any way that any individual was the author of this blog. My intention was to draw a connection between individuals mentioned on this blog, on the U of A atheist facebook page, and the geographical region the blog is from (contra the previous lies by William in that regard). And I did that.
And to what intent? None? Just to fuck around? Have some fun? Throw some ideas out there? What? There was a connection made after the way I read it, as I’m sure there was in many others’ minds. Your latest comment on Oedipus’s blog (which has appeared since I visited last) suggests that you think something happened at the university over it, which seems to point to the fact that you know exactly what conclusion it led to yourself, or at least that you knew the dangers of it getting taken that way. If it truly wasn’t meant as such, then fine. I’m just glad you clarify it above. I’ll accept that as legitimate.
Oh, and one more thing. For the record, it was Ophelia Benson and oedipusmaximus, two of your victims, who did the legwork, proved the sockpuppetry, etc. Yet somehow I take all the blame, as though I was the ringleader or something. This is incorrect. I point it out for your own good. You really don’t want to get something like that wrong, and your misinterpretation of what quite obviously happened (see their blogs) is yet another example of not quite comprehending. Which doesn’t help. You need to fix that.
I take it that “the dishonesty in commenting” also includes the instances where you, William, edited my comments in order to make me appear silly, self-contradictory, “trollish” or even psychotic. The edits, certainly, were not simply a matter of “interpretation,” but instead were direct and purposeful lies, obviously performed for the sake of winning an argument at any moral cost, even though such victories are necessarily hollow.
And had you been acting with integrity since starting the blog, which would have meant being an honest critic _and_ engaging honestly with your critics, none of this would have happened. In other words, your anonymity would have been safe if you hadn’t been lying from day one (“we” versus “I”). You set yourself up as a target, and now you’re crying “victim!”
If anything, your self-inflicted wounds here will stand as a testament to your own dishonesty, and will undoubtedly be remembered by some theists as an example of how morally bankrupt those damned atheists are. Further, they will use this whole blog as additional evidence that the atheism “movement” is eating its own and thus falling apart. In other words, William, you’ve done little but to help marginalize _yourself_, and all other atheists.
You weren’t helping.
Dave, were your comments really edited? I’m not trying to make excuses or just doubting you for the hell of it, but I remember reading the one about tribalism when it first was posted and when I went back later after the controversy, it appeared much the same. Maybe I didn’t remember?
Dave, at least four of my comments were edited to say stupid things about tribalism which were contrary to my opinion on the subject. For example, after Polly-O! hinted that I might get banned for being a troll, I’d said that I was aware that I’m not a member of “the tribe” (referring to the YNH tribe), but William edited that “the” to read “any” so that as Polly-O!, he could accuse me being inconsistent (and thus a troll, though I’m still shaky on how that logic supposedly works).
Anyway, there is no “the one about tribalism,” there are at least four. If you tell me which one, I can tell you what I originally wrote (or a close approximation – since I thought I was dealing with honest people, I didn’t save copies of my originals).
“That’s a big claim. I see quite a bit that isn’t said by others, IMHO. I hope that you return, Anon, in some capacity.”
The problem, INFORMATION, is that you look a little bit like a sock puppet. You probably are not. But on this blog, anyone supporting William without a credible linkback is suspect, owing to his prior blatant dishonesty. When can we start to trust William again? Maybe he should post for a month with no comenting allowed, or something.
Are we seriously going to start accusing anyone who we don’t already know of being sock puppets again? Do I have to link to my Facebook page or something since I don’t have a blog of my own?
Dave, that is not what I said. What I said is that this blog now has a trust issue. What might have otherwise been a back and forth about an issue is going to be tainted by the suspicion of sock puppetry. That isn’t that hard to understand. Really.
And yes, Dave W’s comments were edited, apparently.
It could be that you just don’t quite grasp the seriousness of this situation. Even in his “I’m sorry I fucked with you” confession, William makes a very incorrect, insupportable, obnoxious and serious accusation against me as the premise of this post.
William lacks a sense of perspective. Let’s not facilitate that.
Greg Laden – I’m not a sock puppet. My logo is that from my blog, Podblack.com and this particular wordpress account ‘Information’ is from my free blog for parents seeking information about Meryl Dorey at http://www.vaccinationfacts.wordpress.com. Perhaps you should calm down a little?
As for trusting ‘William’, I think I’ll make up my own mind after thinking about it some more, thanks.
I know. Please try reading for comprehension next time. Like, the part where I said I didn’t think you are a sock puppet.
CONSPIRACIES! PANIIICCCC!
Lots of love,
Elliot
Sockpuppet, I think you might be a … oh, never mind.
Let’s not play the victim card here. You did it to yourself, you were dishonest, you must have known better. No one is forcing you offline, or silencing you. You have lost any credibility you might have had. I find it hard to believe people are sitting here and defending this. It should be uniformly condemned.
The funniest part, Travis (and by “funniest” I mean “most pathetically hypocritical and unethical”) is that William is running away and hiding and claiming persecution when he had nothing but uniformly negative things to say when other people even hinted at claiming victimhood for less-than satisfactory reasons. This attack confession does little but dig his credibility hole even deeper.
Your sock puppets? Bad bad bad bad bad. BAD. BAD! You just don’t ever do that.
The content of your posts? From just reading a few, I don’t see any more reading into statements or overinterpretations than what happens on blogs any other day. Keep blogging without the sock puppets and you’ll be okay.
Thank you for the incredible damage you have down to your cause.
Here’s what I said the other day to explain your blog to someone on Facebook: ” there’s a blog called “You’re Not Helping” which sets itself up as atheists who point out the irrational arguments and counter-productive argumentative strategies of other atheists. Their main target is PZ Myers of the Pharyngula blog (and his often acerbic commentators).
The You’re Not Helping blog is sometimes astute and has, I think, a worthwhile general mission. Some of their general critiques of tone are very good and they play a valuable role in calling out cases of actually violent rhetoric.
But they are also insufferably self-righteous, petty, and hypocritically combative and obnoxious. They often twist themselves into knots getting really arcane trying to explain the amazingly fine line they think someone has crossed. And they positively hound and harass good bloggers like Greg Laden and Ophelia Benson beyond all rational justification.”
I’ll add to it now that I find it incredibly foolish that you would resort to dishonest tactics with a blog that’s entire shot at success was if you maintained honesty and credibility. I have enjoyed coming here frequently since from the start you had a strong voice, point of view, and self-righteous tone, the nitpicking, the needless potshots, the lack of balance in coverage of posts whereby you went after one bad point and missed the value of 7 others (as I still think you did with FFRF), etc.
There’s nothing wrong with pseudonymous blogging in general. But when you’re making your blog extraordinarily personal, aimed at dragging down other bloggers’ reputations and organizing backlashes against them, I don’t see why those bloggers owe you the protection of your anonymity. You announce yourself as an enemy, you mock their professional records, with astounding shamelessness you claim you’re a woman so you (supposedly) have the right to verbally mistreat a woman with sexist potshots, etc. It’s just not endearing. For someone so worried about tone, you have no sense for diplomacy, no sense for how to earn credibility before attacking people, no sense for how to ingratiate yourself to those you criticize and let them know you understand them but just honestly disagree, no sense for how to pick a fight.
If someone were to write a post about a major blunder I made in tone or to attack a bad argument I made by focusing on that argument itself, I wouldn’t mind. If someone were posting petty dissections of every minor rhetorical flourish or too-loose-bloggy offhanded remark AND self-righteously calling me a hypocrite for this and all the while hiding behind a pseudonym—I’m pretty sure I would have little respect for that person, little concern to protect his or her anonymity, and be quite disinclined to think I have anything to learn from this person.
Maybe you thought it would come off as mealy-mouthed ass-kissing if you came in first making sure you made clear you had genuine gratitude for the atheists who are actually building an important movement and if you contextualized your attacks by expressing appreciation for their ultimate motives and contributions, etc. But it’s just necessary to show that kind of respect if you want to be a critic from within a movement.
A whole lot of us are very grateful to the bloggers you regularly treated contemptuously. They have earned that appreciation. We’re also sincere about self-criticism and criticism of our most prominent representatives—believe it or not, you’re not the only one who cares about practicing reason and not just preaching it. But we, and I’m sure they, really would like some clearer indications you’re really interested in providing substantive advice and not someone who is willing to discount a ton of good being done over petty nitpicking.
I applaud your attack on the violent rhetoric and your contempt for the vicious posturing that accounts for an embarrassing chunk of the Pharyngula comments section. And I agree that PZ ruins a lot of his best posts by adding unnecessary layers of rudeness—not the blunt, uncompromising criticism which is wrongly taken for rudeness by threatened religious people and accommodationists but utterly pointless rudeness in the form of name calling and similar posturing. But for all that PZ provides a wealth of insight and an invaluably clear and uncompromising voice that we simply need and which helps A LOT. We should all aspire to be as effective, principled voices with as wide reach as he has. Showing no gratitude for what he is doing, belittling him as a scientist because he is not presently producing much by way of details about squids but instead (a) being a classroom teacher and (b) providing important arguments to, what? 1 million people a month? shows you are letting your axe to grind cloud your perspective.
There’s nothing wrong with making clear your criticism without contempt. And if you do that, you can even keep your pseudonymity. But self-righteous, hypocritical, injudiciously chosen attacks which show little love or concern for the flourishing of the people you attack, whose movement you claim to belong to, is just bound to lead you right where you are tonight.
And, finally, there is almost no real anonymity on the internet. Whether or not that’s the way it should be, if you plan to make your voice heard here, you’re going to have to write as though you’re certain you will be exposed, because it’s just too likely that you will. That’s part of why I just went ahead and put my name on my blog. And, it’s a good thing. Because writing under your own name you have to be willing to stand behind what you say to another person human being to human being and it tempers your impulse to let your Id get the best of you. It forces you to show some respect to your enemies since they will know who you are.
And if your arguments are good enough, presenting them respectfully and in a context of demonstrable appreciation for the trailblazers and other leaders of your movement, has the potential to be much more effective than the way you chose.
Alright, sorry for another rambling response to one of your posts. I hope you continue blogging. With more respect, with more constructive contributions to the development of an intellectually serious atheism and anti-religionism, and with more carefully selected and diplomatic critiques of other bloggers, your obviously sharp intellect and verbal skills can really take you far I think.
“The problem, INFORMATION, is that you look a little bit like a sock puppet. You probably are not.”
*sniff* *sniff* [wipes tears from eyes]
Hannity and Beck would be so proud . . . so proud.
Keep doing what you’re doing, minus the sockpuppetry.
Seconded. Can the socks. I had a head-nod to just about everything else you had to say.