It would help if you'd quoted that before asking, because when I wrote

it is here that (I hope and pray) some real blows can be landed against something very deceptive indeed in the real world we also inhabit

I wasn't talking about blog pseudonymity but the real-world CAGW science-policy nexus. So there is nothing here to concern us for this thread.

When was the last time you quoted my exact words when criticising me, by the way? I feel certain our interactions in the last few weeks could have been a lot shorter if you'd made a habit of it. A URL when doing so would also be welcome. I was conscious of the same thing when you responded to something I said on a recent thread, based on an impression you'd gained from a single article in the Daily Telegraph - but you failed to mention this. Fortunately Hilary Ostrov had read the same article and guessed that was where you were coming from. But it would have been far simpler for anyone responding if you've given the reference first, as I, and I think Hilary, undoubtedly would have. One of the better habits of people using real names here, if my judgment of the correlations are right. I wonder why that should be.

P.S. I agree though with the second post about good humour. Phil's Mum was excellent value in the past. All of that is to be encouraged.

No no, it doesn't show prejudice as long as I've accurately described the correlation concerned. I'm stating honestly an impression I've had. I was quite open about the fact that I've not measured it, nor have I seen anyone try to do so.

There's a related phrase that I've been much mindful of since reading Hilary responding to you on that thread: cheap to offer, dear to counter. Look at the difference in word count between the two of you there. And this is massively true of the really serious nym-bats, like AlecM, Zed, willard and BBD. Cheap to offer, dear to counter. That often comes straight from the lack of proper references in the original claim. AlecM is especially slippery in that regard.

These are not the sort of people (I would have thought) you'd be wanting to emulate. But in that thread about William Shawcross, and in not quoting me when criticising me, over many posts, you have been behaving just a little like them.

If one was to exclude the seriously questionable nyms, what would the stats on giving proper references look like, between the two kinds of contributor? I think those using real names would still come out better, against the better class of nym. There are some awesome exceptions of course, such as Jean S and others from the early days on CA. But I raise it because giving exact quotes and precise references is a vital courtesy and concern of the true scholar. If it wasn't, wouldn't the books of Bishop Hill have been easier to write? And wouldn't their value, and their power in winning hearts and minds, be far less?

Firstly I must accept your explanation that I have wrongly interpreted something that you wrote.

Correct. The major point being that if you'd given the full context and the link so I and others could check it (which you still haven't done), this wrong impression would quickly have been avoided.

I don't care that you've publicly given me (and everyone else on Bishop Hill) your name in one post of one thread. In fact, I found that emotionally manipulative at the time and each time you've mentioned it since. I wasn't asking you to do this. If you'd emailed me and made yourself known to me that way I would have respected that. But this I took as grandstanding that would have the effect of stirring up others to oppose me, because it seemed to imply that I wanted them to do the same. I didn't.

A private email wouldn't have had those bad effects and could have led to something much more worthwhile. And a decision to use your real name in your posts on Bishop Hill would also have been welcomed and respected. This was something I wasn't asking for and I wish you hadn't done.

I'm not campaigning against pseudonyms, for only the zillionth time. I think, for what it's worth, that this blog has fewer problems than it did a week ago, because of the decisions of the host. But I also think that the ongoing debate here about pseudonymity and ways to curb its bad effects is very healthy.

It seems to me that you have chosen to dominate 'the opposition' in this thread with the message "This thread has no reason to be here." Have you tumbled to the thought that no thread is worth that effort, from anyone? The (perhaps few) people that used to appreciate this stream of debate before you arrived, including valued nyms like Jiminy Cricket and TheBigYinJames, surely cannot benefit much from the view that it was misconceived to begin with, repeated over and over again?

And when bad nyms do strike in main threads there are thoughts in this one, and in Channelling dogginess and Unpalatable feedback, that can be linked to, so that any messes can be cleaned up quicker and with less disruption. This is all good from where I sit.

I'm glad you think Bishop Hill is going well. As I've said, I think so too, more today than seven days ago.

I'm campaigning for a Bishop Hill culture that would be exactly right for people like Tamsin Edwards and Richard Betts to feel right at home here, leading on to wider breakthroughs in the UK climate scene. I talked about this earlier in the thread. I don't think that's easy and I think sloppy pseudonymity, plus out-and-out bad nyms (OBNs), haven't helped. But look at Tamsin and ThinkingScientist just now (and the link in Tamsin's post - look and learn). Great things can happen here, not least with nyms like that interacting with and critiquing official climate science.

Did the behaviour that put Tamsin off this place all come from nyms? Definitely not. Was it part of a coarsened culture impacted by the downsides of pseudonymity and OBNs? Definitely yes, in my view. Because positive interaction of this kind can have such great effect I think the debate on this thread is vital. But over and out. I have a online hug from Tamsin Edwards to reciprocate and that, just this once, takes precedence!

Hi geronimo, nice to see you on this thread. I've said many times that what I'm talking about doesn't affect all, or even most. I've no memory of you being a concern at all.

Shub, are you saying that the anger levels on BH are always right? And are you saying that using a pseudonym never leads anyone to say things in a angrier way that they would if they were using their real name? I have first-hand testimony making clear the answer to the latter is no. But if the answer was yes then there would be no problem. So is that your position?

Last and not least, are you saying that what Tamsin felt was wholly imaginary? I don't know why she wanted to give me a hug but perhaps she felt that I'd struck a different tone that was constructive. Do you think you have anything to learn from this? And from me in this regard?

Rhetorical questions all, because I may not read the answers for a month or two, just as happened once before on this disastrous, then delightful, then something-else-I-find-difficult-to-name thread. :)

Dung:

Based on my assumptions above, you make a number of errors.

And those assumptions mean that you are in error. Especially the word uncritical. How dare you sir.

I'm off to do other stuff today and expect to give this thread a welcome break. In that sense I take the geronimo's advice with good cheer. And I feel that the threat from really deadly nyms has passed, for a season at least. People rightly thank our host and that's something else of real significance he's achieved.

No anger - you should have realised from the 'sir' it was playful. But note how 'plebgate' has shown how important knowing who has delivered an opinion can be (in this case the 'member of the public' outside Downing Street with his nephew who was so shocked to hear what Andrew Mitchell said but was mysteriously nowhere to be seen on the CCTV and turned out to be a police officer themselves). I'm not saying this applies to every speech act on the net but there are enough examples to help us, if we want to be helped to think clearly about this.

He said bumping it to the top :) I differ with you on one thing only TBYJ - I think we've barely begun. But happily for your New Year's Resolutions you never need to click on this thread again. And I may not find time to add much in the early part of 2013, because of the busy-ness of other things. It was the extraordinary nature of the email 'corroborating' the police log that got me in this case. I'm continually amazed how dumb people become in these areas, just because something's in electronic form - even the Cabinet Secretary, who was asked to investigate by the Prime Minister in this case, apparently. The fuller report from Michael Crick on Channel 4 last night is a wonderful thing, which I'd recommend to all.

Dung, you need to get the Bish to express the view you attribute to him directly to me. He has never done so in the past. I don't accept that my behaviour has changed or that the people that commented on this thread have the views you have attributed to them, or that only those that commented on this thread matter. I'd say that the views of 'everyone of this blog' count and that the vast majority agree with me that pseudonymity is great but that it can be abused.

I am though aware of responding recently to some very tendentious remarks you have recently made on this subject 'on topic pages'. If you are indicating that you are going to stop doing this, I'm delighted to hear it. I will not say more on this here.