Blog Whodunits

by Charles

I just love a good mystery, and Eric Scheie at Classical Values has almost too much fun (starting here and following up here) tracking down the identity of oft-quoted George Harleigh, said to be a retired political science professor from Southern Illinois University.  Problem is, there is no evidence that the man exists.  The "reporter" who used Mr. Harleigh as a source is Doug Thompson from Capitol Hill Blue.  Interestingly, Thompson has been furiously trying to wipe all references of Harleigh from his website, but there remain caches where Harleigh's name still lives.

Thompson was chumped three years ago by an "intelligence consultant" source (Terrance J. Wilkinson) who allegedly had close ties to the CIA.  As a result, his explosive story on Bush and uranium fizzled.  Looks like Thompson still hasn't learned his lesson.  I have a hazy recollection of Thompson back in the late 1990s when I was reading freerepublic.  He struck me as somewhere on the Buchanan-Raimondo-Rockwell axis (which would be an odd axis), but I could be mistaken.

Today's other mystery involves the five sock puppets (allegedly) who were haunting Glenn Greenwald's two IP addresses.  Ace, Patterico (follow-up here), Dan Riehl and Jeff Goldstein found characters such as Ellison, Wilson, Thomas Ellers, Sam Mathews and Ryan who had not only written from the same IP addresses as Greenwald, but all are remarkably like-minded.  Ellers made multiple appearances at QandO defending Greenwald and attacking his critics.  As Riehl noted, "Ryan" even had an e-mail exchange with Greenwald (sort of like me in the living room e-mailing my son in the playroom perhaps?).  Greenwald denies that it was he who wrote under those synonyms, but left unsaid was whether he was aware of these pseudonyms operating under his roof.  [Update:  Actually, he did say refer to "those in the same household" and that "others have left comments", so I take it that he did know.  So, for sock puppetry not to have occurred, four Americans (judging by the syntax) were in his house in Brazil, each of them making highly similar comments.  The mystery deepens.]  Using my keen powers of deduction, there are several possibilities:

• Greenwald is not being truthful.
• Brazil (where Greenwald happens to live most of the time) has an unusual "party line" IP system, where multiple Internet users can all access the same IP.  Not only that, those Brazil-residing users with English surnames are all big fans of Greenwald and have a thorough working knowledge of his bio.
• The right-of-center bloggers conspiratorially colluded, forging the IP to make it look like sock puppetry was taking place.
• Greenwald lives in a sort of commune and all these commenters really do exist, each having nearly disturbingly similar opinions of both Mr. Greenwald and his detractors.
• His live-in partner was the sock puppet master. 

The mystery is still unsolved, but my best guess is that it was the Partner in the Brazil House with the Keyboard.

Comments

[heet]

I have another theory:

It doesn't matter if GG has used sockpuppets in the past because that issue is clearly an attempt to change the subject away from the idiot filled and venomous right leaning blogs.

I personally don't give a damn about the he-said she-said crosslinking blog posts feigning shock and disgust at the morally bankrupt NYT / Supreme Court. It is all done to drive pageviews. Who. Cares. If anything it reveals the utter hypocrisy of the emotion-driven and self fellating blogs like protein wisdom. What a revelation.

But an attempt to smear GG over using pseudonyms on the internet (oh the humanity!) is completely stupid. It is obviously an attack on him for pushing this non-story. Don't be fooled by the pointless details, look at the big picture on this.

[Charles Bird]

As Patterico has said over and over, it's not the pseudonyms, it's the sock puppetry, the practice of dishonestly creating fictional characters to bolster your side and criticize the other. See John Lott and Mary Rosh.

[hilzoy]

I was pretty mystified by the various attacks on Glenn -- like this one, which as far as I can tell comes up with basically nothing. (So he spends time in Brazil: this is important why? So some of his book comes from his blog: this is non-standard how?) And repelled by the stuff about his sexual orientation. I'm with you on the mystery of the IP addresses, which strikes me as equally unimportant.

Hmm.

[hilzoy]

I should say: it's unimportant if your assumption (partner w/keyboard) is correct, and not that important if it was Greenwald. -- I always thought that part of the joke with Lott was that he was not a particularly good scholar, and it fit in with that that he would have fictitious people springing to his defense. I would not have bothered laughing if, say, Einstein had defended relativity with sock puppets: his work would speak for itself.

I'm not meaning to draw analogies between Greenwald and either of these people, of course.

[dr ngo]

The case against "George Harleigh," and thus Doug Thompson, seems pretty compelling and (if so) disgraceful. How hard would it be - impossible, I suppose - to "unpick" all the untruths that originated with this unjournalist? Yecch. I'd like my utter contempt for GWB to be rooted in reality, not contaminated by the inventions of someone who apparently believes we need to imagine even more evidence against him.

On Greenwald and the alleged sockpuppetry, I'm at this stage more bemused than shocked. Maybe all will become clear later. It does seem as if GG's enemies have tried to throw everything they can against him (gay! Brazil-lover!! LAWYER!!! what will they think of next?), hoping that something would stick, which is not generally a sound strategy for those seeking Truth, rather than Truthiness. But that, alas, is a routine byproduct of the adversarial system of justice/politics/younameit under which we all live, so I won't hang that on you.

And CB - having just called for your ouster from ObWi, it is only fitting that I acknowledge this as an interesting and a civil post, snide only to the point of humor. More like this, without the gratuitous offensiveness of certain previous posts, would cause me to reverse my verdict. (If anyone were paying attention to my opinion.) (Which AFAIK they're not.) So, even if it means little or nothing to you, I say: well done.

[radish]

This is much better. No treason, no shooting, just a plain old flame-war, and with factual assertions. Thank you.

That said, I think the preponderance of evidence is pretty clear (particularly after looking at that QandO thread!) that your partner conjecture is correct. Which makes me wonder how sock puppetry enters into it. I think in order for something to qualify as sock puppetry you have to post in defense of yourself using multiple aliases in a single context, no? This is a non-Glenn-Greenwald person who is using different pseudonyms in different contexts... Whether that's good netiquette is debatable, but I don't think it's sock puppetry.

[Paul]

Ignoring the fact that the various accusers IP-based sleuthing is unverifiable, how does this statement: 

Other than a 9 month period after college when I lived in Europe, I've lived in the United States my entire life. My partner is Brazilian and is a citizen of Brazil. Revealingly, American law prevents the recognition of our relationship as a ground for him to live in the United States, while Brazilian law recognizes same-sex relationships for visa and immigration purposes. As a result, for the past year, I have spent substantial time in Brazil while also having a residence in New York.

square with your claim that Greenwald "spends most of his time" in Brazil?

He doesn't define substantial -- could be 3 months or less -- but "most of" makes me wonder how we writes as prolifically, how his book came together so quickly, and how he managed a book tour. 

I wonder if these budding Hardy Boys are the same ones who defended Michelle Maglalang about how posts were made while she was physically unable to post (ie, on the tv)? The timestamps of posts are verifiable, unlike server log entries, yet it was a big deal when questions were raised about who was posting on Our Lady of the Internment Camps' website. 

[rilkefan]

FWIW I would find it difficult to credit a sockpuppeteer. If it turns out to be Greenwald I'll probably stop reading him; if I were his partner and had posted under multiple names (not socking incidentally I think, but not something I approve of) I would say so stat to protect Glenn's rep. I believe Glenn's denial and can understand why he wouldn't say "that was my better half".

[Anarch]

dr ngo: it is only fitting that I acknowledge this as an interesting and a civil post, snide only to the point of humor. More like this, without the gratuitous offensiveness of certain previous posts, would cause me to reverse my verdict.

rilkefan: FWIW I would find it difficult to credit a sockpuppeteer. If it turns out to be Greenwald I'll probably stop reading him;

Being of an agreeable temperament -- see, Slarti, it's working already! -- I basically agree with all of the above.

[chdb]

Brazil (where Greenwald happens to live most of the time) has an unusual "party line" IP system, where multiple Internet users can all access the same IP. Not only that, those Brazil-residing users with English surnames are all big fans of Greenwald and have a thorough working knowledge of his bio.

Or, as multiple people in Glenn's comments pointed out and you (and the troll class on the thread) cheerfully ignored (your own post on Glenn's comment thread came after three separate people pointed this out), the IP in question is a 16-bit class C router IP, most likely a commercial router owned by Greenwald's ISP in Brazil, and therefore it's entirely possible that tens of thousands of people (if not more) could be tracked back to that IP.

(I also note that thus far one of the supposed sockpuppets posted from a different Brazilian IP. But that's horribly inconvenient to this whole sockpuppet theory.)

In any case, Greenwald has stated firmly that he isn't sockpuppeting, and frankly, why shouldn't we take him at his word? He doesn't need to create an illusion of popularity; he's one of the most influential bloggers on the Web. He has a bestselling nonfiction book on the Times bestseller list, for crissake. He routinely posts in comment threads under his own name, is meticulous about updating his own posts for corrective purposes, and cites to an extent that's almost anal-retentive.

There's no need for him to sockpuppet, his behaviour and conduct indicates someone unlikely to sockpuppet, and he says he doesn't sockpuppet. Furthermore, the "evidence" laughingly provided by the Unusual Gang of Idiots doesn't actually, you know, prove anything. So I say PFAH to your deductive powers, Charles. Pfah and piffle, even.

[The Editors]

Greenwald's really got them flustered, hasn't he? Poor darlings.

[rilkefan]

"(I also note that thus far one of the supposed sockpuppets posted from a different Brazilian IP. But that's horribly inconvenient to this whole sockpuppet theory.)"

I don't see that - compare the Lott story, where several locations were involved.

Of course one should identify emphemeral handles praising Greenwald and list their IPs - if a preponderance come from Brazil, that would be surprising. Of course there's probably a community there with bloggers (or blog commenters) sympathetic to him - that would be a simple explanation for the IP overlap.

"Greenwald's really got them flustered, hasn't he? Poor darlings."

If the poster in question were, uhh, Jeff Goldstein (not vaguely comparable, I know), I can imagine the fun the Jane Hamshers of the left would have with him (though they'd surely be more careful about the alternate explanation).

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

This is waaaaay too inside baseball for me. :)

[stickler]

So let me see if I'm keeping up adequately. Yesterday, Mr. Charles Bird called for the summary execution of Jane Fonda and Noam Chomsky.

Today, Mr. Bird gives vent to rather easily-debunked ravings of the rightwing Nutosphere.

And there he is, on the front page of Obsidian Wings!

I think I know all I need to know about this site. Have a nice weekend.

Don't get caught committing thoughtcrime, sedition, or treason!

[Brian Palmer]

Stickler, if it's so easily debunked, perhasp you could link to an argument against the first story?

As for the second, I'd read Greenwald's account of it, and the comments as of this afternoon. Charles's guess 5 is the one that had jumped out at me as well. I don't personally think it's a big deal -- it's a bit embarrassing, admittedly, but it should not (imo) affect his readership too much. When Greenwald makes an argument, he typically links directly to a post; his identity or even his honesty isn't as relevant. (Contrast this to Lott -- the Mary Rosh incident is very minor; the only way in which it matters at all, although not much, is the charges against Lott are about his honesty).

[Arf]

Well, I'm with stickler. Charles has committed the biggest writing offense of all -- he is consistently boring. Because I like ObWi, I'll just add a filter for his posts in my news reader. I can always peruse Red State if I ever miss him.

[jaywalker]

How is this relevant?

Greenwald's posts are without exception well crafted and well sourced. I would love to read a conservative voice likewise dedicated to civil discourse. Unfortunately, most of them are too juvenile and suffer from power illusion.

I admire Greenwald's stamina in reading all these corked utterings and even engaging them in debate (and trying to help escaping from groupthink).

Again, even if this accusation holds, how does this compare to the routine misdemeanors of his accusers? Do they police their own behaviour as vigorously?

For those calling themselves Christians, consider Luke 6,41-42: "Why do you see the speck of chaff that is in your brother's eye, but don't consider the beam that is in your own eye? Or how can you tell your brother,'Brother, let me remove the speck of chaff that is in your eye,' when you yourself don't see the beam that is in your own eye? You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck of chaff that is in your brother's eye."

[Jesurgislac]

Stop! Stop, will you?! Stop that! Stop it! Now, look! No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle! Do you understand?! Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say 'Jehovah'.

[jaywalker]

Excellent image for the current state of the blogosphere, Jes.

Unfortunately, the demented virtual stonings (or swiftboatings) have real consequences.

[Arthur Jackson]

No, no. Look. This shed business -- it doesn't really matter. The sheds aren't important. A few friends call me Two Sheds and that's all there is to it. I wish you'd ask me about the music. Everybody talks about the sheds. They've got it out of proportion -- I'm a composer. I'm going to get rid of the shed. I'm fed up with it!

[Gloria Pules]

I walked out with Scheie on many occasions and found him a charming and erudite companion. He was wont to introduce one to eminent celebrities, celebrated American singers, members of the aristocracy and other gang leaders, who he had met through his work for charities. He took a warm interest in Boys' Clubs, Sailors' Homes, Choristers' Associations and the Grenadier Guards.

Mind you there was nothing unusual about him. I should say not. Except, that
Scheie was convinced that he was being watched by a giant hedgehog whom he referred to as 'Spiny Glenn'. Normally Spiny Glenn was wont to be about twelve feet from snout to tail, but when Scheie was depressed Glenn could be anything up to eight hundred yards long. When Glenn was about Scheie would go very quiet and start wobbling and his nose would swell up and his teeth would move about and he'd get very violent and claim that he'd laid George W. Bush.

[Slartibartfast]

I see Phil's gotten into the spirit of it. Bravo, Phil!

Me, I don't care. If Greenwald were someone I read and admired, I'd probably care a bit more. If he were someone whose blog were, for instance, read aloud in congress...oh, wait.

No, really. Greenwald's stuff is all very interesting, I'm sure, but he lards it with so very much broad-brush ad hominems of anyone who might harbor any leanings to the right that...well, imagine Charles sprouting some legal scholarship, and you might consider why Greenwald simply rubs me the wrong way. Apologies to both parties for the comparison.

Perhaps a better example would be to imagine Dale Brown writing treatises on law and government, with all the cute and self-congratulatory crap that he slathers on his military-adventure novels. Or did, last time I bothered to pick one up, which was over a decade ago.

I think this is only of interest to the extent that Greenwald's reputation is self-inflated. And, again, neither his reputation nor what he's got to say from its summit are of much import as far as I'm concerned. His sexual orientation is, of course, entirely irrelevant.

Compare and contrast style with that of Katherine, for instance, and you might have an indication of why I'm not his biggest fan.

[Slartibartfast]

What, are you saying Scheie nailed your head to the telly?

Look, this is still funny, but realize that after a couple of more rounds it's going to have gotten rather old and potentially annoying.

[Jesurgislac]

Look, this is still funny, but realize that after a couple of more rounds it's going to have gotten rather old and potentially annoying.

No, really? Gosh.

[Slartibartfast]

Oh, sorry. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine you sought to increase your nuisance value.

[Jesurgislac]

Slarti, to spell it out:

Yes, I know that repeating a joke too often means it stops being funny. Turning every single Charles Bird thread into a Monty Python thread would eventually stop being funny, long before the Monty Python quote mine ran out. (We could, of course, talk about the Beatles. Or John Thullen's done sterling work on HoCB talking about baseball.)

But Bird Dog's brand of right-wing rantage has long since gotten rather old and more than potentially annoying. Yet you defend keeping him around to make Anarch a better person. Clearly (using good Golgafrincham logic) the Monty Python quotes on Charles' threads would make you a better person.

Of course, in my opinion both you and Anarch are fine just as you are.

[Slartibartfast]

Yet you defend keeping him around to make Anarch a better person.

Which was, ironically, a joke. A joke I keep making on one occasion.

I suppose I'm going to have to resort to emoticons. That might get annoying, but think of how edifying it will be to your character.

[Jesurgislac]

Slarti: I suppose I'm going to have to resort to emoticons. That might get annoying, but think of how edifying it will be to your character.

It looks like I need to use emoticons more often, too.

:-D

[cleek]

i promise to give a crap about Greenwald's sock puppetry as soon as Goldstein makes his final d!ck slap threat.

[Slartibartfast]

No, I think you've edified my character quite enough.

8p

[fil]

why not see the monty python thread-jack as a sort of filibuster by the back-benchers?

A particularly odious minister has been censured by a majority of the members, but insists on rising to speak, even when it is manifestly unwelcome.

I don't see a filibuster as an unreasonable response.

[CaseyL]

I suppose it hardly needs to be pointed out that Greenwald's popularity, influence and success are precisely the reasons WIngnut Blogistan is flogging this non-story for all it's worth.

[Blue Neponset]

Greenwald really has Righty Blogostan's panties in a bunch. I find it funny that Lefty bloggers can rip apart Charles Bird's arguments without having to resort to personal attacks, but Righty bloggers (including Charles) have to resort to looking up Greenwald's IP addresses, law licences and resume in order to answer his arguments. Why do you suppose that is Charles?

[will]

Greenwald's posts are almost always excellent. He provides cites with links. His reasoning is excellent. His writing is persuasive.

That is why I chose to read his site consistently.

I could care less if he was an uneducated felon in prison if his writing is excellent, well-sourced, and persuasive.

I also do not care who claps for him or who criticizes him if his writing is excellent, well-sourced, and persuasive.

I have also never found myself wondering what his law school grades were or where he lives or what his sexual orientation was.

Perhaps some people are just more persuaded when they know what kind of sex someone is having or where they live.

[togolosh]

...the IP in question is a 16-bit class C router IP, most likely a commercial router owned by Greenwald's ISP in Brazil...

This seems like a particularly relevant piece of information, which pretty much destroys the IP coincidences' evidentiary value.

A lot of this IP tracing BS has more than a whiff of CSI-wannabe to it. It is strongly reminiscent of script kiddies and Kewl Warez Dudes from the early days of the internet, the kind of strutting and posturing teenagers who milk their limited skills to pose as 1337 #@kz0r2, not realizing that no hacker worth her bandwidth would waste time on that kind of silly BS.

[cleek]

Greenwald's posts are almost always excellent. He provides cites with links. His reasoning is excellent. His writing is persuasive.

exactly. and that's why BD spent most of his post discussing those very points! right?

[John Thullen]

I'm not tired of the Monty Python yet.

But if this keeps up, my niche at Obsidian Wings will have been infringed upon and I may need to resort to being rational, sober, and, dare I say, erudite. And think of the linking, I beseech all of you! And then Gary Farber will not be asked to vacate his apartment every time his landlord hears him throwing his keyboard against the wall and yelling "I've told Thullen umpteen times about the HTML guide!" And then Sebastian will be compelled to don the funny nose and eyebrows.

Everyone return to their originally-assigned roles.

As one who grew up in a family who to this day at, say, Thanksgiving dinners, can ask each other to please pass the salt in a tone of voice that really says "I'm going to cut out your spleen with the butter knife," let me just say that I have no problem with Charles posting here, nor do I have any problem with Phil letting him have it, nor do I have a problem with Tacitus doing his thing from time to time. Nor do I have a problem with folks stalking off in a huff. And then coming back for one more word.

Like my mother, who would on occasion pick up her fully loaded plate and utensils and with great dignity vacate her seat at the dinner table and like Miss Havisham, sweep out of the dining room and retire to her bathroom, slamming the door behind her, to eat in peace.

Even though she started it.

As John Lennon said: "I think women should be obscene and not heard".

Not that I believe that. I think women and men should be obscene and as vocally opiniated as they please.

[kenB]

ask each other to please pass the salt in a tone of voice that really says "I'm going to cut out your spleen with the butter knife,"

This is marvelous, mind if I steal it? (The rest of your comment is marvelous as well, of course, just not quite as likely to find immediate practical application in my own life).

[Christmas]

So Glenn Greenwald's partner made various comments under different names. WOOOOOOOOO! How scandalous! Now I just can't trust anything Greenwald says anymore. I mean, his arguments are still cogent and compelling, but - dear god! - his boyfriend has violated blog netiquette, which calls everything he's written into question. I also hear Glenn's mom writes in all caps! DUNH-DUNH-DUNNNNNH!

[Kirk Spencer]

Option six: the IP isn't his IP, but is instead the IP of the ISP who serves him and other customers by using a NAT.

I administer a network of some 200 computers. They are all NAT'd - Network Address Translated - and so from outside all appear to have the same IP address. There are several smaller ISPs here in the US who use this technique as well as it saves money - buy one or two or so addresses on the net, but serve hundreds of customers.

When listing options, it's silly to ignore the ones that are in normal play.

[Slartibartfast]

Thullen's obviously got his Lennonism and Marxism all switcheroo.

[John Thullen]

Sure.

[John Thullen]

McCartney: "When in doubt, steal."

[Xrlq]

It doesn't matter if GG has used sockpuppets in the past because that issue is clearly an attempt to change the subject away from the idiot filled and venomous right leaning blogs.

GG denies having used sockpuppets. Does it matter whether he's telling the truth, or is lying just another right vs. left issue nowadays?

[hilzoy]

xrlq: does it matter? It depends for what purpose. I would think less of Glenn if he had lied. I would not stop reading him, however, because when I read his posts, I'm not taking what he says on faith. He links to what he writes about, and I read his links whenever the argument turns on them.

That said, nothing I've seen so far makes me think that he has lied.

[OCSteve]

It matters because as Dan Riehl persuasively argues, “Greenwald's image was manufactured by the ideologically driven liberal money machine behind his book's publication”

And:

“There is evidence below of a larger effort to prop up both the book and his image as part of an orchestrated campaign to elevate his visibility and status and ensure that his anti-Bush punditry was picked up on by the MSM at a critical time.”

In short his PR image is that of a political centrist and a working lawyer in NY. He is being groomed as a pundit. He is being cited as a Constitutional Law expert.

Dan makes a pretty convincing case that in reality he lives out of the country most of the time, may have exaggerated his work experience (or at least let misconceptions stand), has no obvious qualifications as an expert on constitutional law, and is far from centrist.

The book is primarily to give him credibility beyond the blogosphere, to get him on TV and in front of the media. His persona has been manufactured and polished by liberal activists with money. Of course the right side of the ‘sphere is going to use this occasion to challenge his credibility.

I administer a network of some 200 computers. They are all NAT'd - Network Address Translated - and so from outside all appear to have the same IP address.

True – but then we still have to believe that there are a half dozen Brazilians, all using the same ISP, and all big GG fans willing to rise to his defense using the same phrases and writing style all in perfect English.

[Blue Neponset]

Of course the right side of the ‘sphere is going to use this occasion to challenge his credibility.

Because they can't challenge his arguments. Typical.

[Christmas]

"Brazilians... in perfect English"

The "bad English" thing keeps coming up, and it really leaves me baffled. Have these people never actually met someone from a foreign country? Are they unaware of the fact that there are many, many, many foreign nationals who speak English with far greater fluency than the average American?

[parva]

jeezus--

You mean Greenwald is only a lawyer with experience on first amendment cases, but he isn't a recognized authority on Constitutional interpretation?

That's appalling.

Next we're going to find out that George Will doesn't really have a PhD in Economics.

Or that Bill O'Reilly is not widely cited by military historians.

Or that Rush Limbaugh doesn't actually have a degree in pharmacology. (Well...practical experience is something, I suppose).

Look: actually *knowing* anything has never, ever, been considered to be a prerequisite for being a right-wing pundit. Indeed, to judge by the utter morons and ignoramuses who emerge, it seems to be a disqualification.

So don't tell me that you have a problem with Greenwald writing on Con Law, where he only knows quite a lot, but perhaps not as much as Marty Lederman.

Because the general comparison between what right-wing pundits know about *anything* they talk about, and what Greenwald knows about the subjects he talks about, is--jeezus, I don't even know what to--

wait: it's like comparing what Chris Muir knows about Kant to what hilzoy knows. Okay?

[hilzoy]

OCSteve: I read Riehl's piece, and I couldn't find any argument for this claim: "Greenwald's image was manufactured by the ideologically driven liberal money machine behind his book's publication." (Unless it just means something like: the people who put it out also put out press releases.)

Glenn Greenwald's image comes from his blog, not from the 'liberal money machine'. Likewise, the blog seems to have driven the book's success -- last time I checked, it had received very little in the way of reviews, advance publicity, etc., and what MSM publicity it got was of the 'heavens, how did this book get to be no. 1 on the Amazon chart when no one we know was paying attention to it?' variety. (I.e., treating the book as a curiosity, not a book.)

Since I couldn't see why Riehl thought that (a) the image he referred to existed; (b) that it had been "crafted" by anyone, or (c) that it mattered, I wasn't sure what the point of saying things like: hey, he spends a lot of time in Brazil! was supposed to be.

[cleek]

It matters because as Dan Riehl persuasively argues, “Greenwald's image was manufactured by the ideologically driven liberal money machine behind his book's publication”

i'm not going to bother looking up the Latin name for this logical fallacy.

“There is evidence below of a larger effort to prop up both the book and his image as part of an orchestrated campaign to elevate his visibility and status and ensure that his anti-Bush punditry was picked up on by the MSM at a critical time.”

...or this one. or any of the others.

do you have anything that's actually about what he writes, or is everything some kind of ad hominem variation attacking Glenn himself ?

but then we still have to believe that there are a half dozen Brazilians, all using the same ISP, and all big GG fans willing to rise to his defense using the same phrases and writing style all in perfect English

and this relates to what he writes, how ?

[sock]

uh--for those of us who didn't grow up on usenet.

What's a sock puppet?

In particular, am I sock puppeting every time I don't sign my own name?

Or only if I don't sign my name and refer to myself in the third person?

(Does it matter whether I refer to myself in the third person to attack myself or defend myself? Is one of those more sock-puppetty than the other?)

Or only if I sign one name to some really stupid arguments so that I can sign another name to a devastating take-down of them? (But then isn't that more straw-man-ing?)

Since I don't really understand what it takes to be guilty of sock puppetry, I don't really know how heinous to think it is.

[KCinDC]

He doesn't define substantial -- could be 3 months or less -- but "most of" makes me wonder how we writes as prolifically, how his book came together so quickly, and how he managed a book tour.

I don't understand why it matters how much of Greenwald's time is spent in the US and how much in Brazil, and I certainly don't understand how being in Brazil would in any way impede his writing, publishing a book, or planning a book tour. There's this thing called the Internet that makes it possible for people to communicate with geography being pretty irrelevant, especially when there's not a big time zone difference.

[will]

KCinDC:

What are you stupid or something?

Everyone knows that you have to be on United States soil and having sex with women to have any valid opinion about anything related to being a red, white, and blue United States citizen!

I've heard that the conservative-controled Congress is rushing to pass vital legislation requiring all writers to disclose the physical location where they wrote their piece.

[Jesurgislac]

From the Encyclopedia Dramatica sock puppet entry:

A Troll, typically a 'friend' or alternate incarnation of a Not-Bob. A sock puppet is an account created by one side taking part in a flame war. The sock puppet account then repeats the arguments made by one side for the appearance of "popular support".

From wikipedia:

Sockpuppet (sometimes known also as a mule, or a glove puppet) is an additional account created by an existing member of an Internet community. This account allows them to pose as a completely different user, sometimes to manufacture the illusion of support in a vote or argument. Other reasons include a desire to support or vote on an issue coupled with a desire to have one's "main" account stay away from the issue. This behaviour is sometimes seen as being dishonest by online communities and as a result these individuals are often labeled as trolls. This is often done on sites like eBay in order to bid on one's own auctions, although eBay forbids the practice. Although the "sock puppet" concept has been applied to the use of different sender names for the same e-mail account on different computers the use of such alternate IDs to identify a particular computer may not always be for the purpose of deception.

In particular, am I sock puppeting every time I don't sign my own name?
If it turned out that Macallan was actually the same person as Tacitus, Macallan would be a sock puppet. If it turns out that they are two different people but their legal names are not, in fact, Tacitus or Macallan, they are not sock puppets.

[Ugh]

Everyone knows that you have to be on United States soil and having sex with women to have any valid opinion about anything related to being a red, white, and blue United States citizen!

That's woman and you have to be married to her, and "you" have to be male.

[Eats, Shoots, and Leaves]

Christmas: Are they unaware of the fact that there are many, many, many foreign nationals who speak English with far greater fluency than the average American?

*waves*

[cleek]

What's a sock puppet?

it's when you secretly invent an online identity then use that identify to praise your real self, to make it look like you have real support.

[Slartibartfast]

It's when you take a sock, sew on buttons for eyes...

[sock]

cleek--

whew.

since I have never expressed any praise for my real self, nor made any attempt to make it look as though I have real support, I am innocent of sock-puppetry.

you can't imagine what a relief this is. It means I still retain credibility in the eyes of the wingnuts arrayed against Greenwald.

I was so worried that I wouldn't meet their exacting standards of ethical on-line conduct.

[Gromit]

So, why don't these blogs just ban GG's IP address from their comments sections, if they are convinced someone there has violated the blogs' express or implied posting rules? That's their prerogative, and that would be the appropriate response to such behavior. Problem solved!

Why all the melodrama? What else am I missing?

[KCinDC]

Ugh, are you saying Michelle Malkin, Anne Coulter, Peggy Noonan, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh fail to meet the official right-wing standards for punditry?

[Anono]

It's really touching to see several commenters speculating on the likelihood that there might be completely unrelated Brazilian Greenwald-supporters leaving similar comments on blogs that Greenwald reads, due to how IP addresses are assigned. But even Greenwald himself doesn't stoop to alleging this such an extremely improbable event -- his post admits that "others" in his "household" made the posts in question. The only question is whether THAT explanation was true, or whether it was actually Greenwald himself.

[will]

Sock, we will need to know whether you are having vigorous heterosexual sex and that you spend all of your time in the United States.

We also need to make sure that you are not corrupted with any actual thought.

[will]

"his post admits that "others" in his "household" made the posts in question. The only question is whether THAT explanation was true, or whether it was actually Greenwald himself."

I would think that many chickenhawk right wing bloggers might be sensitive to this issue as their mommies and daddies or siblings might use their computers as well.

[Matt Weiner]

In short his PR image is that of a political centrist and a working lawyer in NY.

As Greenwald points out, his blog says "For the past 10 years, I was a litigator in NYC specializing in First Amendment challenges, civil rights cases, and corporate and securities fraud matters." (Emphasis added.) That is: Used to be a working lawyer, isn't any more. It has said this for as long as I've been reading it.

[sock]

but but but

If I claim it was "vigorous", I'm afraid that would count as praising myself!

Can I ask Mrs. Sock Puppet to answer that question instead?

Dear? Would you mind stepping up to the keyboard?

Oh for ----'s sake. Did you ever try to get it on with an empty tube of threadbare cotton? Let's just say--his elastic's shot. He sags down to the ankles. If that's vigorous, then--

Thank you, dear, I think that's quite enough!

But I do spend all my time here in the States!

[Doctor Science]

Truly sophisticated sock puppetry involves creating both supporter and opponent puppets. I know of cases where puppeteers were running 6-8 puppets with distinct, Turing-test-passing personalities, and up to *hundreds* of puppets who basically stood in the backround and said "Yay!" or "Boo!" And these were in situations where no-one was being paid to do anything.

I have yet to see the "Glenn Greenwald practices puppetry!" case laid out in sufficient detail and clarity that I can judge what's going on, who might be the puppeteer(s), and why. I would be surprised if the comments section of his blog isn't infested with puppets serving various masters, and just because they agree with him doesn't mean he's running them.

GG himself does not fit the profile of a puppeteer: he's met too many people in RL, for one thing. If there *is* a puppeteer and that person *is* in Brazil, the chances are that it's GG's partner or a friend of theirs, trying to be helpful.

[Jesurgislac]

It would be interesting, if we hadn't seen it happen so many times before, to see the right-wing wingnut technique of abstracting a few words that can be used to prove a point from a quote, and ignoring the fact that the full quote actually reverses the point the right-wing blogger wants to make. We saw this happen with Eason Jordan, with John Kerry, with Joseph Wilson: it's essentially how conservative Christians read their Bible, ignoring all the stuff about rich people who don't care for the poor going to hell and focussing on a few obscure verses which can be interpreted to mean that God doesn't like gay sex.

This is the full quote from Glenn Greenwald, whose blog isn't on my regular reading list: "Not frequently, I leave comments at blogs which criticize or respond to something I have written. I always, in every single instance, use my own name when doing so. I have never left a single comment at any other blog using any name other than my own, at least not since I began blogging. IP addresses signify the Internet account one uses, not any one individual. Those in the same household have the same IP address. In response to the personal attacks that have been oozing forth these last couple of weeks, others have left comments responding to them and correcting the factual inaccuracies, as have I. In each case when I did, I have used my own name."

Only truly tortured thinking could twist this into an admission. The best I can get out of it is that it's a possible admission that Greenwald's partner also comments on blogs, and would do so from the same IP address. Given the router system in use in Brazil, there could be several thousand people posting from the same IP address, and if Greenwald's partner does not want his screen name "outed", it would be disloyal of Greenwald to do so.

But, given how common truly tortured thinking is in the right-wing blogosphere, I think Greenwald should probably just have ignored the whole screaming mess as unfit for intelligent comment. Which it surely is.

[carib]

Are they unaware of the fact that there are many, many, many foreign nationals who speak English with far greater fluency than the average American?

Believe it or not, there are even native English speakers who live, or spend time , in Brazil!

And some of them even live, or spend time, with OTHER English speakers who live, or spend time , in Brazil!

Guess these right wing bloggers never heard of the phenomenon of "expat community"!

[will]

"Are they unaware of the fact that there are many, many, many foreign nationals who speak English with far greater fluency than the average American?"

They are unaware.

This reminds me of the thought that we know God favors the United States above all others because he wrote the Bible in English.

[hilzoy]

will: that reminds me in turn of the story of a very proper, very arch Proper Bostonian, sometime around the turn of the century, who started studying Hebrew when she was around 90. When asked why, she replied that she was preparing to meet her maker, and wished to be able to address Him in His native tongue.

(I love the sentiment, so let's not point out that the only member of the trinity who could possibly have a native tongue was not a native Hebrew speaker.)

[atheans owl]

The whole "shock" that Greenwald might actually know people in Brazil who are as articulate and can type in "American" English, and that as carib stated, might be part of an "expat" cliche is very disheartening. Or that these people would know his history and qualifications.

It is a very sad state of affairs when the supposed bright lights of the right wing community do not stop and think what they are saying.

Them furrinners...they can't speak American!

As for some of the bright lights, now they've decided that calling GG id GiGi is the height of sophisticaton. Or referring to him as "her". Not to mention the now deleted "fagboy" post. Which I saved on to a word document. (16 pages worth). Yes, more examples of the right wing discussing the issues.

This does feel very Usenet...and just as childish.

[Ugh]

This reminds me of the thought that we know God favors the United States above all others because he wrote the Bible in English.

I love that line, especially the two-fer: as if God wrote it in english; and as if the U.S. invented english.

it's essentially how conservative Christians read their Bible, ignoring all the stuff about rich people who don't care for the poor going to hell and focussing on a few obscure verses which can be interpreted to mean that God doesn't like gay sex.

I recall reading somewhere that the modern "Conservative Christian" movement has all but abandoned the teachings of the new testament, other than belief in Jesus' existence (though not what he said), and has essentially become hellfire and brimstone old testament types. Rang true to me.

[Jay C]

"It matters because as Dan Riehl persuasively argues, “Greenwald's image was manufactured by the ideologically driven liberal money machine behind his book's publication”

Uhh, Steve: are we to take this comment, then, that you somehow disapprove of a blogger (or lawyer, or plain citizen, for that matter) trying to make money by selling their political (or legal) opinions on that "free market" (which of course, includes publishers) so beloved of conservatives?

Or do you think that Glenn Greenwald ought to emulate the example of such altruistic pundits like Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin, who provide their opinions to the public free-of-charge without ANY considerations of making money from, say, selling books?
[/snark]

[hilzoy]

Jay C: I am also still waiting for an explanation of that 'persuasive argument'. I read Riehl's post several times, and I couldn't find it.

[will]

All of this can be summed up by reference to the old lawyer saying:

"When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law.

When both are against you, attack the plaintiff."

[Judge]

If there's any more stock film of women applauding, I'll clear the court.

[Arthur Jackson]

Shorter OCSteve: "The Democrats are stealing all of our most successful ideas, therefore those ideas are now bad ones. Can someone please change all the signs to read 'Eurasia'?"

[Bailiff]

You are hereby charged that on the 28th day of May, 1970, you did willfully, unlawfully, and with malice of forethought, publish an alleged English-Hungarian phrase book with intent to cause a breach of the peace. How do you plead?

[Ugh]

Wingnut foreign policy menu:

GWB: Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and war; egg bacon and war; egg bacon sausage and war; war bacon sausage and war; war egg war war bacon and war; war sausage war war bacon war tomato and war;

Right-wing blogosphere: war war war war war...

GWB: ...war war egg and war; war war war war war war baked beans war war war...

Right-wing blogosphere: War! Lovely war! Lovely war!

GWB: ...or Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and war.

Reasonble people: Have you got anything without war?

GWB: Well, there's war egg sausage and war, that's not got much war in it.

Reasonable people: I don't want ANY war!

...

[mon]

hmm...

filibustering via Monty Python:

sillybustering?

[Slartibartfast]

I suppose this is almost completely irrelevant, but there did exist a civil back-and-forth between Greenwald and Goldstein, once upon a time, in which points made by either party were addressed by their respective opponent.

Then Glenn posted this. Relevant passage:

There will, of course, continue to be those shrill voices whose reverence for George Bush and belief in his infallibility really is the stuff of a creepy personality cult, to the point where they actually believe that when a newspaper reports on illegal behavior by Bush officials, the real outrage is that the newspaper is acting seditiously and the paper and their sources should be punished as criminals. It's the same mentality driving those who still insist that there really were WMDs in Iraq. Tbogg begins the New Year with a thorough examination of this genuinely disturbing/disturbed mentality.

Links not relevant to the conflict omitted because I'm lazy. And emphasis mine.

In response to which Jeff posted this.

And then the donneybrook began. Just to underscore that this was the breaking point, here's Jeff's previous post addressing Greenwald. It was preceded by about a dozen civil exchanges, each of which addressed actual points that Greenwald was making.

[Ugh]

Slarti - I do notice that when Greenwald talks specifically about Bush supporters, as opposed to the administration, he throws in a lot of specifically targeted incendiary rhetoric that could be turned off and still make the same point (I think he defended this at QandO at one point saying he did so to motivate people). When he gets away from the administration's misdeeds, I find him less convincing.

[Slartibartfast]

I think it was after the second or third post of Greenwald's that did that sort of thing, in an escalating fashion, that Jeff just decided he wasn't worth serious treatment.

Dunno if that's the right explanation, but it's pretty clear that there was some withering-away of civil discussion. It wasn't all at once.

[Ugh]

Ah, right-wing blogosphere imitates Monty Python spam comment, recommended diary on redstate right now:

[Slartibartfast]

Umm...you have no recommendations at present?

[Ugh]

Oops, after the colon above should be:

We Better Get Ready to Kill a Few Million People.

[cleek]

that Jeff just decided he wasn't worth serious treatment

no doubt the feeling is mutual

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"I do notice that when Greenwald talks specifically about Bush supporters, as opposed to the administration, he throws in a lot of specifically targeted incendiary rhetoric that could be turned off and still make the same point"

Lesson learned about that by all of us on the "A Way Out in the Israel-Islamist Battle in South Lebanon" post I hope.

[Ugh]

And no, I certainly don't recommend it, just that its recommended by redstate readers.

Jeff just decided he wasn't worth serious treatment.

Does anyone get such treatment from Goldstein?

[Slartibartfast]

Exactly.

[Slartibartfast]

My Exactly above was supposed to be in response to Sebastian.

Greenwald got quite a lot of serious treatment from Goldstein up until the point where he started with the rhetorical willy-pete. I've linked one of them. Would you like links to the rest?

[sig]

sorry--

is anyone here denying that Bush *is* the subject of a creepy personality cult?

And has Goldstein ever been able to masquerade as a reasonable person for *more* than a dozen exchanges before going ballistic?

[Ugh]

Would you like links to the rest?

Nah, I take it back.

[Jesurgislac]

Oh, goodness.

Thank you, Slartibartfast. That first link to Protein Wisdom (again not a blog I read regularly) treated me to this mordantly funny comment from Jeff:

For a democracy to function properly, however, our media is charged—for good reason—with presenting us facts dispassionately and in a their proper context(s) (or at the very least, signalling its biases up front) so that we can draw from those facts our own conclusions and then debate the public policy questions that arise from consideration of all the available information.

I honestly don't think I've read anything so funny since, well, the last Monty Python sketch.

[cleek]

is anyone here denying that Bush *is* the subject of a creepy personality cult?

first rule of Creepy Bush Personality Cult: there is no Creepy Bush Personality Cult.

[Slartibartfast]

is anyone here denying that Bush *is* the subject of a creepy personality cult?

Oh, he might be. What that's got to do with anything relevant is still a little cloudy for me, though.

And has Goldstein ever been able to masquerade as a reasonable person for *more* than a dozen exchanges before going ballistic?

I have no idea; if you're keeping score, please share.

[The Rules of Bush's Creepy Personality Cult]

Rule One: No Poofters! Rule Two, no member of the faculty is to maltreat the Abos in any way at all -- if there's anybody watching. Rule Three: No Poofters!! Rule Four, now this term, I don't want to catch anybody not drinking. Rule Five: No Poofters! Rule Six, there is NO ... Rule Six. Rule Seven: No Poofters!!

[cleek]

What that's got to do with anything relevant is still a little cloudy for me, though.

you bolded it in the passage you quoted. clearly you think it's relevant to something.