When people bicker it spills into every thread.

Somewhat of an exaggeration. There have been 140 separate Bishop Hill posts since I returned to being a BH vocalist on 12th July and I must have contributed to about half of them. In the second of those Dung chose to join forces with John Hewitt in attacking me, using his usual technique of a false accusation, although the Bish had asked us both early in 2013 not to talk to one other at all and I'd complied absolutely up to that point, as far as I can recall. I got the strong impression that my return was not welcome in that particular quarter.

I'd estimate that in about three of the subsequent 65-70 threads I've been part of we've had a real barney. Easily the most important of those was about whether exploitation of UK shale was already 'dead in the water' because of known machinations of the European Environmental Bureau. In that case Dung was quite wrong to say UK shale is finished. My mistrust of him and of the truthfulness of EU insiders led me to the much more encouraging truth, thanks greatly to Richard North.

So, an exaggeration but also a false assumption that all long-running disputes can only prove negative. I'm glad I challenged the defeatist message issued with such confidence then, despite the normal mockery this evinced and the lack of acknowledgement that I was right afterwards. But I was. I sure don't expect everyone to say that about everything! But in that case it mattered that I was. I should make further notes on that before I go into my autumnal hibernation.

Ah, my likely hibernation from BH. I hadn't mentioned that so far. It's part of why I thought I'd do some tying up of loose ends, including on nymity but certainly not limited to that. The prospects for UK shale and what we need to do to safeguard them is far more important than that.

You can help me Dung. Do you think "we've had a real barney" in more than four main threads since 12th July? I've linked to two of the cases I can remember, with the second easily the most important to my mind.

TBYJ, I note that you never address Dung with any criticisms of him, including his obvious lies about what I have said or believe. So I feel that you are incredibly badly placed to make these extreme judgments of me. I'll simply quote what I said to Barry Woods almost two weeks ago:

It's not pomposity, it's a matter of courage: saying something [nyms needing to be limited in what they say about real people] that is obviously true but that has somehow become taboo to mention, a weakness in the culture of an important place for UK debate. That courage is the quality we admire in Judy Curry in the climate area. Thus I aspire to be in all areas. And there are of course other subjects...

Please note that I only made this point in two threads out of 140 since 12th July, when it had already been raised by others. I want to turn to those other subjects now, before my much anticipated hibernation. Sorry, lapogus, I appreciate you and many other nyms here and my beef I'm quite sure is not and has never been with you. But I must off now. With genuine love.

But that ignores how wrong the guy was on UK shale having already been killed off by the European Environmental Bureau. That kind of confident wrongness can really sap morale and the desire to resist amongst many, perhaps influential but not wholly informed readers. I don't trust the guy one inch. That was one instance I was right not to do so. The continuous lying about me, which you choose to ignore, hardly increases the feelings of warmth. But resistance really isn't hard. I know I am not alone in many of these thoughts.

mikeh: apology hardly needed but accepted, thanks. diogenes: apology meaningless because you didn't quote me. are you sure all your marbles are in place and in proper working order?

Hilary - Dung reopened this thread three days ago, after nine months, with

Richard

Completely against the express wishes of the Bish and completely against the views of almost all the people who commented in this thread; you are once again inserting your views on pseudonyms into threads on the topic pages ...

You may agree with every word he wrote but as it happens I didn't. For one thing it's just in two main threads out of 140 since my return to BH on 12th July that discussion of nymity has broken out recently and in both cases it wasn't started by me. For another Andrew didn't ask for the discussion to be curtailed in either case, as he has in the past. If you could control your need for issue tendentious ad-hominems on this - or if you criticised Dung, rather than me, for reopening the subject - then I wouldn't be adding anything now. But I do reserve the right to defend myself and I do think the discussion for three days has clarified quite a lot - including the fact that Dung and I largely agree. Isn't that grand?

Let me add one thing that may help to explain a difference between myself and others here, that I have always assumed to be true but seems to bother others no end. This is what I wrote to Steve McIntyre at the end of an email about something else in April this year:

I think pretty much every day about internet interaction - have done since my first week on Ward Cunningham's original wiki in January 1999 - and I think you've made a contribution in this area that will be studied in the years to come by people without the slightest interest in climate. You were forced into it (from what I know) but the result is nothing less than groundbreaking.

Others are not as interested in internet interaction as I am, just as I have not been as interested in some details of the energy market. I think this might explain a lot. There's no need to cast aspersions or curtail anyone's freedom, as long as we obey the host when he indicates something has become off-topic in a particular thread.

Steve McIntyre has also p***d people off on Climate Audit, something royal. It doesn't mean there was anything wrong with what he wrote. Would you like to give specific examples of what you mean TBYJ? And if they're nothing to do with nymity why not do so on another discussion rather than this one?

No, I distinctly remember admitting being wrong on CA, for instance last month. But I don't think I'm wrong about nyms needing to be limited in what they say about real people on Bishop Hill. Examples of wrongful intransigence in this particular area are what you need, my friend. And I don't think you've ever actually said - and nor has Dung, amazingly - that you disagree with me that nyms should be limited in the way I've just said.

Dung: You still haven't said if you agree with what I wrote at 10:03. I'm trying to build common ground, as I believe is always the right thing when such rancorous disputes occur, so that everyone can see clearly where the differences lie.

Jiminy: Brilliant contribution thanks. I completely agree that anonymity has a vital place in our system of representative democracy. And I've also said that pseudonymity is great on Bishop Hill. I want us to be far more precise about where the differences lie.