Well yes Morgan, a moniker is perhaps necessary, as I have recently found out.

Some years ago Tim Lambert (UNSW) and I got into a scrap and decided to publish what he thought was my name on his site and later published my IP address at another site in an act of absolute cancerous-like malice.

I recently found out that members of my family have been stalked; by a stalker who retrieved my details as a consequence of Lambert’s malicious and ill intended actions to hurt me. Someone on the web alerted me to the stalker posting about it at a site and thankfully the offending post was deleted but I managed to keep a copy. The stalker mentioned all sorts of things like what my home looks like and the appearance of one of my kids as he stalked one of them. Apparently he was also standing right out side our home at some stage from across the street!

I wonder if Lambert’s actions fall under the category of what the Professor thinks ought to be illegal under the sock-puppet laws he fondly discusses? Funny but the case the Professor was talking about had context to the plight under which Lambert placed my family.

It’s amazing the lows academia has reached. One seems to delight in vandalizing wiki pages totally ignoring the irony of the sock puppet thread while the other runs a propaganda sheet directed against political opponents which is little more than a hate site.

I think it is telling that Graham Young's response to my comment on his article was not to adress anything I wrote, but simply to abuse me, encouraging his supporter jc2 to do more of the same.

If anyone is interested in Young's conduct in my earlier interactions with Young, please see these posts:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/01/on_line_denial.php
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/01/pathological_denial.php
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/02/superduperpathological_denial.php

Tim, if anyone is interested in my conduct in that argument they should go to the thread itself, not rely on your second-hand beat-ups! The thread, for those who missed it above is http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5382.

While you were criticised for a number of mistakes the one that I pursued was the question as to whether Benny Peiser admitted to being wrong on the Oreskes study. Despite me corresponding with Peiser and his confirming that he did not make that admission, you continued to assert he did. I said that you were being "fundamentally dishonest" which you were, and are.

I only pursued one issue - one where I could find absolute proof - rather than the many others that were there, because I had noted that your argumentative style is to try to confuse debate by introducing new and irrelevant issues and irrelevant references and multiply the propositions to the stage where readers get confused and go away. In this case I restricted it to a question which could only have one answer and for which the proof was unequivocal.

The Oreskes issue was whether there was any peer-reviewed science that questioned that CO2 was the main driver of climate. It was a side-issue, because irrespective of Oreskes' study, there is plenty of peer-reviewed science that does just this. So your citing of Oreskes was another one of those rhetorical diversions from the main question that you revel in.

This is the sort of behaviour you expect from a lobbyist, but you hold yourself out as a scientist.

BTW, you give us an insight into how you operate when you suggest that I encouraged JC2 to "abuse" you. How exactly do you come to that conclusion? I know it's the way you operate, but not the way I do.

Tim Lambert (UNSW)

This is interesting; Lambert is now making himself appear the victim, blaming Graham for his newfound victim status. The continual linking to himself routine, as some authority is out of a Sienfeld comedy skit and the angry thug like, bad imitation of George Costanza is hilarious.

The only person who’s ever, ever encouraged me to talk about Lambert’s (UNSW) online behavior is Lambert. I don’t need encouragement from Graham or anyone else, as Lambert’s thuggery and abusive tactics are more than reasonable motivation.

I presented the case that Lambert’s actions made members of my family innocent victims of his thug like behavior.

If Lambert wants to talk about “encouraging” people to attack others I would suggest we all go over to his site and examine the countless posts and the comments sections, as it’s Ozblogdom’s prime example for that sort of activity.

Viewing the site will remind people that all Lambert does is post threads about other bloggers/ commenters . In fact that’s all his site is about: attacking other people and using the comments from like-minded sycophants to swarm the victim with verbal attacks.

Here’s another example:

Lambert’s attempt to ruin Roger Bate’s reputation was a travesty and in a fair world he ought to be hauled up for academic misconduct for those actions. Here’s Volohk Conspiracy Blogger ripping flesh off him for what he did to Bate.

http://volokh.com/posts/1212258084.shtml#379738

The comments section there is very illuminating, showing that Young was right to describe Lambert as a bully thug.

Ironically it’s the same Website Quiggin used recently to support his case in criminalizing sock puppets so I guess it must be a good reference source☺

Lambert’s hypocrisy and demands for victimhood status knows no limits. The only problem is that attempts to disguise it don’t work any more.

How very odd. I thought this was a discussion about Graham Young's article about the Windschuttle hoax.

However, it seems instead to be a venue for continuing squabbles begun on other blogs - with the apparent blessing of Graham Young - and/or an opportunity for others to attempt to police the pseudonyms of some contributors, albeit with absolutely no reference at all to the subject under discussion.

Bizarre. Neither the article nor the discussion do much to enhance OLO's claim to be a "journal of record" - if indeed it has ever made one.

Morgan

Is this you back in January 30 2007, basically saying the same thing about Graham, handing out a Kleenex to Lambert to wipe away the crocodile tears of victimhood? Talk about a one trick pony.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/01/pathological_denial.php

Some dispassionate observer you are. The pied piper of hysteria and dishonesty has a lot of sycophantic voices, hasn’t he? This Knights of Malta racket Lambert has going with the fraternity and solidarity shtick is really creepy. Have you all gotten the same tattoo at the back of your left ears or something? LOL