A reblog from my other blog.
# # #
UPDATE: On each of the threads here, where I used the pseudonym, I’ve added the following to the first comment by wuwt.fan.4.6.years:
[When reading comments on this thread by wuwt.fan.4.6.years, keep in mind my post My Temporary Pseudonym wuwt.fan.4.6.years – A Little Deception Went a Long Way.]
For those of you following comments of wuwt.fan.4.6.years on the “Bob Tisdale gets into a spot of hot water” thread at HotWhopper (archived link to most recent version), I have an announcement. I am (was) wuwt.fan.4.6.years. That is, I’ve been using wuwt.fan.4.6.years as a temporary pseudonym. My apologies to those here who think it was underhanded, but as you can see, I was able to comment at HotWhopper for quite some time before Miriam O’Brien finally pulled the plug. It was fun while it lasted, but, to tell the truth, it was extremely awkward commenting back and forth with myself (examples here).
Rest assured that was my last time using a pseudonym. I would much rather blog as me, but there are places where I am not welcome. I just wanted to try it.
Cheers and enjoy your holiday.
More On Miriam O'Brien's HotWhopper 
I just left the following comment on the thread at HotWhopper. Let’s see what she does.
############
Sorry to see you’ve cut me off, Sou. I was so enjoying our little exchanges. But it’s time to tell the truth, as I always do. Captain Flashheart was very observant.
wuwt.fan.4.6.years is, in fact, me, Bob Tisdale. Odd that you and Joe thought I was contradicting myself, when, in reality, I wasn’t.
Y’all have a nice day.
Bob Tisdale
# # #
UPDATE: Miriam O’Brien did post my above comment:
https://archive.today/o/cGTUn/http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/11/bob-tisdale-gets-into-spot-of-hot-water.html?showComment=1417051940583%23c3584295278592734269
LikeLiked by 1 person
You cretin
LikeLike
So when you said “Bob Tisdale says:
November 25, 2014 at 4:49 pm
wuwt.fan.4.6yrs, referring to your first and third comments, one might suspect that Miriam waited to see what Anthony would do before she expressed her displeasure either way.”
You were talking to yourself? That’s obviously dishonest; its sockpuppetry. Using a pseudonym, like “Bob Tisdale” is acceptable (even though implying its not a pseudonym isn’t, really). And even using a different one, serially, might be. But using two to provide a false impression of support is dishonest.
LikeLike
William Connolley, Bob Tisdale is, in reality, my name, so your comment above is just another example of your misunderstandings.
Have a nice day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re evading the point. Let me repeat it, without conceding yours, in terms you’ll be able to understand:
You were talking to yourself? That’s obviously dishonest; its sockpuppetry. Using a pseudonym acceptable. And even using a different one, serially, might be. But using a pseudonym to provide a false impression of support is dishonest.
LikeLike
William Connolley, did you read my post? Apparently, you didn’t understand it. It was very simple. Not only was I above board by admitting my deception, I apologized for it. Get over it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do not think you gained anything by using a sockpuppet. You would have been cut off at the same point. Actually you might have gained something posting under your real name as you would probably have got more serious attention and the whole process would have been quicker and more to the point. A waste of time.
LikeLike
sauerkraut, in the past, I’ve tried to leave comments at HotWhopper using my real name Bob Tisdale, but they have always been deleted in moderation. In fact, I tried once again within the past week. It never made it past moderation. As far as I recall, the last comment I left at HotWhopper…
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/11/bob-tisdale-gets-into-spot-of-hot-water.html?showComment=1417051940583#c3584295278592734269
…was the first one ever approved.
Cheers
LikeLiked by 2 people
As I said, if you had posted under your real name the whole process would have been quicker and to the point.
My observations of HotWhopper is they let people have their say but they get shutdown when they will not try to answer commentators questions or objections and just keep repeating their own same points. But they always get a say.
LikeLike
sauerkraut, and as I said, she normally doesn’t allow my comments, so your observations about other people do not come into play in this case. I’m always courteous and I always answer questions.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Apparently you have only tried to post once under your real name and there appeared to be good reasons for deleting your post. To wit “one of the most disgusting comments …”.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/11/bob-tisdale-gets-into-spot-of-hot-water.html?showComment=1417103892094#c1570519569714088545
LikeLike
sauerkraut, thank you for showing what you’re made of by (1) quoting Sou out of context and making it appear as if “one of the most disgusting comments …” was directed at me, and (2) expressing your opinion that Sou is somehow a credible source of unbiased information.
Take it elsewhere. You’re wasting your time…and mine.
Adios.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am not sure how you make all those accusations when I am just trying to appreciate your claims of being censored. As I provided a link to the full quote anyone can see and make their own judgement.
I notice you do not refute the claim you have only ever posted once under the name Bob Tisdale.
LikeLike
That’s drawn the nutters out of the woodwork Bob, frothing, screeching, waving their little arms and impotently stamping their tiny feet.
You don’t half have the knack of getting right up the noses of all the right people!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I never read her blog site before but just read that exchange you had with her and Joe….she’s a nasty piece of work!
She reminds me of a schoolyard bully with the way she attacks with sarcasm and misdirection! And she’s a scientist?
LikeLike
@the_real_crab
Nothing particularly nasty there. Considering she did not know she was talking to Bob Tisdale she pretty much wupped his arse and debunked him thoroughly along with the other commentators.
LikeLike
No censorship here then!
LikeLike
bravo, bob! you stumped the chumps!
if you think connolley;s outrage about using a ‘fake’ nick was just another lame pitch for drama, you should see what he had to say about the climate jihadi peter gleick.
these pathetic cretins got no talent.
connolley takes another big (goose) step backwards,
p.s., i’m so cheered you had a follow up. is there more pwnage on your playlist?
LikeLike
the whole fluffer industry that connolley got his kneepads for is about astroturf and bandwagons. this hermetic cult’s dogma is based on faking a consensus.
aren’t 97% of obama’s facebook friends fakes?
you know how you get fakes friends on facebook? you pay for them – you buy them from some ukranians or you set up your own internet ‘calling’ center with software to manage thousands of fake accounts, keep track of the individual profiles and generate posts automagically. the software isn’t free, either. your tax dollars at work.
fakery is their stock in trade. puppets are regarded as a form of wealth.
it’s all fluffing bunnies, tho.
connolley is a house puppet who thinks himself superior to the socks in the field – ain’t that a hoot?
LikeLike
sauerkraut says: “I am not sure how you make all those accusations when I am just trying to appreciate your claims of being censored.”
Please quote me chapter and verse where I have said that I was censored at Hot Whopper, sauerkraut. There’s a difference between being unwelcome, which I am at Hot Whopper, and being censored. Apparently, sauerkraut, you don’t understand the difference.
sauerkraut says: “As I provided a link to the full quote anyone can see and make their own judgement.”
But you well know that only a very small percentage of people follow links, sauerkraut. So your taking Miriam’s complaint out of context was an attempt to mislead the majority of visitors who don’t follow the link.
sauerkraut says: “I notice you do not refute the claim you have only ever posted once under the name Bob Tisdale.”
In an earlier reply to you, I had already stated that I had tried to post comments in the past, where they were simply deleted. Why would I repeat myself, sauerkraut?
Again, take it elsewhere. You’ve outstayed your welcome.
I did say I wouldn’t moderate, but I didn’t say I wouldn’t ban trolls. And right now, sauerkraut, you’re behaving as a troll.
Adios.
LikeLike
OK, you have censored me so this will not appear. Perhaps you will see it. You appear to have done this very fast and have displayed a very thin skin. I do not think you can claim my posts were off topic as we were talking about the use of sock-puppetry to avoid being moderated out. In your case whether it was actually necessary. Also you seem to have read a lot into my posts that was not there.
Actually this issue of censorship/moderation is of genuine interest to me and is a valid question. I have moderated forums before and if it is done in good faith I know how difficult it is to get the balance right. I see comments at WUWT claiming how they are censored at HotWhopper. I see people like Jim Steele (and now you) claiming he is censored in an “unfair” way. In reverse I see people at HotWhopper claim you are moderated out very quickly at WUWT if you go against the stream.
My experience here is that it is a rather harsh regime. Certainly a lot more harsh than HotWhopper.
LikeLike
sauerkraut: BT is clearly doing his best to make you unwelcome, including making entirely unfounded claims that you’re a troll. But I’m glad you’re persisting; as you say, claims of censorship are worth investigating.
FWIW, I now keep a special blog just for spam comments (http://stoat-spam.blogspot.co.uk/) and “spam” comments over to there, with links from the original posting, so you can see who has said what, but it doesn’t disrupt the flow of the main conversation.
As to WUWT: they definitely censor comments. As does BishopHill, and doubtless many others.
I think that the banner BT is using, “The comments are open…there’s no moderation, except for comments with 3 or more links” would be taken by any reasonable person to include not banning people just because he doesn’t like what they say. “I did say I wouldn’t moderate, but I didn’t say I wouldn’t ban trolls” looks like a rather spurious distinction, since BT will apparently feeel free to decide that anyone he doesn’t like is a troll. That’s indistinguishable from censorship.
I’m also interested in whether BT is censored at HW or not. I too had read his earlier stuff as asserting that. Now he’s said almost clearly that he isn’t censored. Just “made unwelcome”. In which case, I don’t understand his excuse for using socks. If he’s unwelcome, then he is unwelcome *as a person*, not as a name. Tricking your way in as a sock when you know you’re unwelcome, but too cowardly to face up to that, is, errm, cowardly.
LikeLike
Thank you William for a rather more objective appraisal of what I was saying. That is compared to Bob Tisdale’s instantly jumping to the wrong conclusions of my motives.
As you say it is interesting to know how much censorship really goes on. And making a judgement on whether censoring someone to keep an orderly forum that actually has worthwhile discussions is an art in itself.
Annoyingly at this point I already find myself self-censoring quite a mild opinion because what I wanted to say would probably trigger the moderator back into action. That does not bode well for the idea of a neutral place where WUWT and HotWhopper can meet and discuss.
LikeLike
Bob, good for you. I think letting the alarmists hear a bit of the truth is a worthy endeavor. I also think that using a pseudonym to bypass the censorship is aboveboard. After all, if she makes remarks about Bob Tisdale on her blog and then is too cowardly to let Bob Tisdale post a comment, then the pseudonym is well justified.
Good on you for doing this.
LikeLike
sauerkraut, your claims in your November 28, 2014 at 10:56 am comment that I am now censoring you look foolish, considering I have not deleted or censored your comments in any way. I am not going to repeat my answers to you, if that is your goal. It seems that only you are interested in repeating yourself.
A question for you, sauerkraut. First the background: Miriam O’Brien uses Google Blogger for HotWhopper. There are a couple of ways to make comments disappear with Google Blogger. The moderator can mark them as spam or delete them. Now the question: Are deleted comments stored by Google Blogger?
LikeLike
Thanks, markstoval.
LikeLike
markstoval > using a pseudonym to bypass the censorship is aboveboard
Its clearly not aboveboard. Its clearly underhanded. Even BT calls it “Deception”.
But… what censorship? You seem to be making the same mistake as others, in trying to parse BTs somewhat hard-to-read utterances. But BT says, just above:
“Please quote me chapter and verse where I have said that I was censored at Hot Whopper, sauerkraut. There’s a difference between being unwelcome, which I am at Hot Whopper, and being censored. Apparently, sauerkraut, you don’t understand the difference.”
When sauerkraut says that BT is being censored, he gets snark back from BT. When you say he’s being censored, you get thanked. Weird or what.
LikeLike
“Are deleted comments stored by Google Blogger?”
I have no idea Bob Tisdale. Even if they are would I be able to check?
Have I ever suggested your comments are not deleted? That is other than quoting what was said on HotWhopper, that claims you have only ever posted twice on HotWhopper as Bob Tisdale. One post remains there. The other was deleted because of reasons that you do not agree with. If you want to claim otherwise then that is fine. I have no way of verifying what you say or what HotWhopper says.
LikeLike
When sauerkraut says that BT is being censored, he gets snark back from BT. When you say he’s being censored, you get thanked. Weird or what.
I had not noticed that William Connolley. Thanks for pointing it out.
I am struggling to see the difference between being “moderated out” and “censored”.
LikeLike
I would never be tempted to post on her website. That expression on her face creeps me out. It looks so very deceptive, like there is a Bates Motel kind of action in your future if she is displeased. LOL.
LikeLiked by 1 person
William Connolley must be recognized as an expert on censorship, considering his vast Wikipedia experience.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Bob: You to excellent work. You shame me with your dilligence and directness. However, I must remind you of something that’s in Wikidictionary, to whit:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wrestle_with_a_pig
I’d recommend you be careful in the give and take with various commentators, as you might be pushing on the Wiki definition above.
Yours, with admirtion:
Max
LikeLike
So BT sockpuppeted himself on his own blog?
LikeLike
It really is fascinating how every obnoxious site, with its usual abusive narrator is always one of the worshipers of the Barbequing Gaia Contortionists. Connolley the Banned and sock-puppet enthusiast are not only irrelevant in their commentary but they are actually justifying [snip] of O’brien. Well done. Fancy living solely to justify the action of a loony, must be a relative or something closer.
LikeLike
Sorry, marigold, I didn’t see your comment hiding in the spam filter. Ask yourself why your comments wind up in the spam filter when most people’s don’t.
LikeLike
William Connolley says: “When sauerkraut says that BT is being censored, he gets snark back from BT. When you say he’s being censored, you get thanked..”
Your assumption is that I was thanking markstoval for a part of his comment about censorship. I admit to not qualifying which part of his comment I was thanking him for, but you’re definitely making an assumption.
LikeLike