Turns out Tonyhellerexposed is some guy named Michael LaFlamme.
Or, at least, that's what his email to me says (922.paul@gmail.com). Who knows with this guy -- he isn't known for his accuracy.
Or his decency. Like this dirty and very personal insult against Judith Curry. Inexcusable
If you don't have the courage to post opinions under your real name and you use that anonymity to cowardly insult and degrade people, your opinions aren't worth much. That goes for both the real fake Steve Goddard, and this doubly fake Steve Goddard.
Added 10:30 pm: In a second email, this guy says "Michael LaFlamme" also isn't his real name. So you can see he's nothing but deception all the way down....
If you don't have the courage to post opinions under your real name, your opinions aren't worth much.
ReplyDeleteSince this would apply to me, I'll defend it somewhat. I think you should bear that you - as far as I'm aware - are now primarily a journalist (with a PhD in the hard sciences). Potentially you benefit from the exposure you get from your engagement in this topic. This isn't true for all. Some don't benefit and might rather keep their professional life separate from the rather ridiculous - and often juvenile - online climate debate.
However, you're of course welcome to hold this opinion. You may well have encountered enough examples of anonymous people whose opinions aren't worth much, to simply ignore the opinions of anyone who happens to be anonymous. That doesn't make it true, though, and it's maybe unfortunate that you've cast this as a fact, rather than as an opinion. Given that I am still effectively anonymous, you can ignore all I've said here :-)
To out somebody against his will is really bad style. I thought only WUWT & Co. would do such things.
ReplyDeleteATTP: Fair enough. I should have made it clear that my problem isn't with anonymity per se, but with the anonymity of people like TonyHellerExposed, who use it for ugly and cowardly attacks against Judith Curry or whoever they are hating on that day.
ReplyDeleteThat obviously doesn't include you. Sorry.
Oh, I wasn't expecting any kind of apology. I didn't take it as aimed at me. I also understand - I think - the general idea. I was really just making an argument against generalising. I would argue that it might be better if we simply judged what was said, without considering who said it. I suspect, though, that the norm is more that anonymity is a means of getting away with saying things you wouldn't say otherwise.
ReplyDelete