I was once a fairly regular commentor at AoA. Much of what they had to say resonated with me, and reading the stories of all of these parents who had experiences similar to mine was both troubling and comforting; troubling in that there were so many like mine, and comforting that there was a place where I could discuss these experiences without snark or ridicule from those who erroneously claim to be science based. Back when my son was having some very serious health and behavior issues, Kim and others over at AoA were very kind and understanding and sent me personal emails of comfort and advice, something for which I have nothing but admiration, respect, and gratitude.
However, several months ago, several of the people over at AoA made some pretty disturbing comments, leaving the address, etc. of the loathesome and disgusting Orac in and attempt to get him fired for his blogging activities. It doesn't matter how much you despise that horrendous little scum-bag, no one deserves that. Not even him. I felt it was my duty to tell them, "Hey, this is wrong." I even wrote about it in an earlier post (Sorry, I would link, but I have discovered that Blogger and IE9 are not very friendly...I will likely edit this post later).
Then, today, I read JB Handley's post about Sullivan/Bonnie Offit.
For the longest time, I had the utmost respect for JB. I admired his tenacity and the way he never held anything back. I loved the humor in his posts, and laughed heartily as he gave certain egomaniacal douchebags the ridicule they deserved. But this article today?
I begin to wonder if JB's detractors may be correct in some respects. The article today claims that Sullivan is Bonnie Offit. Reading this article left me feeling quite depressed, especially seeing such paranoia and jumping at shadows as I saw there. It saddened me to see this from someone I once had a great deal of respect for.
To me, this is nothing but a smear campaign against Sullivan. While Sullivan and I have only had a few exchanges, they were always respectful and informative, and I feel this was a bit undeserved.
So, AoA, it's time to step back from the baseless accusations. I still consider many of you friends, but I cannot condone what you've done today. I'm sorry, but you've lost a reader.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I was wondering if you would post about this. I don't feel as strongly as you about it, but it did leave a nasty taste in my mouth.
ReplyDeleteJust doesn't seem to accomplish anything but fireworks, so why bother?
Minority, I have no clue why they would post something like that. Really, it baffles me. And this is not the 1st time they've stepped over the line and done something like this.
ReplyDeleteI'm just not sure I can stomach the rhetoric over there anymore. They're almost becoming as bad as Orac's hate-site to me. Which really depresses me considering that I really respect many of the people over there who are fighting for our children.
It gets to a point where those that see conspiracies in everything and are so paranoid that they think that anyone who disagrees with them are shills become so loud that those individuals who actually have something relevant to say are drowned out.
Hi Craig,
ReplyDeleteI've been following this all day, and I have several conflicting thoughts on the matter. I'm just going to spew them here if you don't mind.
First, I don't think much has changed at AoA. This post is quite consistent with JB IMO. He is full of passion, and he is quite straight up with his opinions and facts. This article isn't a huge deviation from "outing" Gorski or from some of the interesting theories that Jake C posts. I certainly wouldn't post something like this, but JB has his own style. He is very articulate as to what is his opinion, and he also describes his reasoning in great detail. Fundamentally, I see little new here. Is it productive? That's a whole other question for later.
I think it is legitimate to question the authenticity of an influential online persona as he expresses opinion under a certain pretext. JB is publishing an opinion piece and does not misrepresent it as fact. That is not the same thing that Orac does. Orac publishes misinformation, insult, and opinion and represents it as fact -- entertainment disguised as science. He also uses his profession and position to imply a certain authority. He has explicitly included his profession and his own line of work into a good part of the content and arguments he publishes for profit. Given all of these things, I think since he brought his work into the public, he has to be prepared for the public to complain to his work. Again, I would not complain myself, but he has opened the door and can't complain that it's unethical for people to comment to his place of work. He is publically representing his work, and thus has to be careful what he says and does since he isn't doing it anonymously (using a pseudonymn is not anonymous as he openly includes his place of work and alternate personas).
Was his post productive? Yes, in that it clearly got something that was bothering him off his chest. It also stirred up some entertaining reading in a relatively dull news cycle. I take it as face value. It's an opinion, and although there may be some interesting possibilities, I certainly don't agree with the final assessment. He's just publishing well articulated opinion.
As for Sullivan, I stopped having discussions at LBRB as he took over the site. I find most of his/her posts pretty poor opinion based pieces. I find his public arguments lacking in rigour. I find his style to be passive agressive and I find very little to like in his posts. With Kev, I strongly disagree, but I have respect for him. None of my exchanges with Sullivan has ever been productive. I doubt he/she is an Offit. The writing is not smart enough. However, I am sure they correspond with the Offit's just like Offit collaborated with Seidel in quoting libelous heresay in his book.
Now for the hard part, when is it reasonable to question the identity of an online person trying to remain anonymous? Your stalker is pretty disgusting and creepy. Is speculating on one's online identity like JB did fair game? How would I feel if someone outed me even if they didn't stalk me? It is certainly not something I would be happy with but it's something that could happen I suppose. The problem with these things is no one will ever know for sure, it's all speculation. Someone did try something at LBRB long ago. Kev cleaned it up, but someone else over there got access to the emails, and it wasn't Kev.
ReplyDeleteAfter thinking about this for a while, I certainly think it is fair game to question the credentials or background story that an anonymous poster goes by. Where to draw the line? Speculating on an actual identity? Perhaps you're risking harassing an innocent person? When does it become acceptable to out the person? I certainly feel that "outing" Gorski is valid, because he doesn't keep his identity secret and uses his position to forward his argument.
After reading all of the comments, I think there are a lot of angry people and some irrational thought all around. I think we need to understand the anger, and have some compassion on all sides. Empathy has left the building I fear.
Part I from above:
ReplyDeleteHi Craig,
I've been following this all day, and I have several conflicting thoughts on the matter. I'm just going to spew them here if you don't mind.
First, I don't think much has changed at AoA. This post is quite consistent with JB IMO. He is full of passion, and he is quite straight up with his opinions and facts. This article isn't a huge deviation from "outing" Gorski or from some of the interesting theories that Jake C posts. I certainly wouldn't post something like this, but JB has his own style. He is very articulate as to what is his opinion, and he also describes his reasoning in great detail. Fundamentally, I see little new here. Is it productive? That's a whole other question for later.
I think it is legitimate to question the authenticity of an influential online persona as he expresses opinion under a certain pretext. JB is publishing an opinion piece and does not misrepresent it as fact. That is not the same thing that Orac does. Orac publishes misinformation, insult, and opinion and represents it as fact -- entertainment disguised as science. He also uses his profession and position to imply a certain authority. He has explicitly included his profession and his own line of work into a good part of the content and arguments he publishes for profit. Given all of these things, I think since he brought his work into the public, he has to be prepared for the public to complain to his work. Again, I would not complain myself, but he has opened the door and can't complain that it's unethical for people to comment to his place of work. He is publically representing his work, and thus has to be careful what he says and does since he isn't doing it anonymously (using a pseudonymn is not anonymous as he openly includes his place of work and alternate personas).
Was his post productive? Yes, in that it clearly got something that was bothering him off his chest. It also stirred up some entertaining reading in a relatively dull news cycle. I take it as face value. It's an opinion, and although there may be some interesting possibilities, I certainly don't agree with the final assessment. He's just publishing well articulated opinion.
As for Sullivan, I stopped having discussions at LBRB as he took over the site. I find most of his/her posts pretty poor opinion based pieces. I find his public arguments lacking in rigour. I find his style to be passive aggressive and I find very little to like in his posts. With Kev, I strongly disagree, but I have respect for him. None of my exchanges with Sullivan has ever been productive. I doubt he/she is an Offit. The writing is not smart enough. However, I am sure they correspond with the Offit's just like Offit collaborated with Seidel in quoting libelous heresay in his book.
Hi Craig,
ReplyDeleteI've been following this all day, and I have several conflicting thoughts on the matter. I'm just going to spew them here if you don't mind.
First, I don't think much has changed at AoA. This post is quite consistent with JB IMO. He is full of passion, and he is quite straight up with his opinions and facts. This article isn't a huge deviation from "outing" Gorski or from some of the interesting theories that Jake C posts. I certainly wouldn't post something like this, but JB has his own style. He is very articulate as to what is his opinion, and he also describes his reasoning in great detail. Fundamentally, I see little new here. Is it productive? That's a whole other question for later.
I think it is legitimate to question the authenticity of an influential online persona as he expresses opinion under a certain pretext. JB is publishing an opinion piece and does not misrepresent it as fact. That is not the same thing that Orac does. Orac publishes misinformation, insult, and opinion and represents it as fact -- entertainment disguised as science. He also uses his profession and position to imply a certain authority. He has explicitly included his profession and his own line of work into a good part of the content and arguments he publishes for profit. Given all of these things, I think since he brought his work into the public, he has to be prepared for the public to complain to his work. Again, I would not complain myself, but he has opened the door and can't complain that it's unethical for people to comment to his place of work. He is publically representing his work, and thus has to be careful what he says and does since he isn't doing it anonymously (using a pseudonymn is not anonymous as he openly includes his place of work and alternate personas).
Was his post productive? Yes, in that it clearly got something that was bothering him off his chest. It also stirred up some entertaining reading in a relatively dull news cycle. I take it as face value. It's an opinion, and although there may be some interesting possibilities, I certainly don't agree with the final assessment. He's just publishing well articulated opinion.
Sorry, I had posting problems: The first post is part 3, above is part 1/3 and this is part 2/3
ReplyDeleteAs for Sullivan, I stopped having discussions at LBRB as he took over the site. I find most of his/her posts pretty poor opinion based pieces. I find his public arguments lacking in rigour. I find his style to be passive agressive and I find very little to like in his posts. With Kev, I strongly disagree, but I have respect for him. None of my exchanges with Sullivan has ever been productive. I doubt he/she is an Offit. The writing is not smart enough. However, I am sure they correspond with the Offit's just like Offit collaborated with Seidel in quoting libelous heresay in his book.
Speculation is fine, Schwartz. Just as you and I have speculated over the identity of other anonymous bloggers/commentors. I have no problem with that. But JB did not do that. He accused Sullivan of being Bonnie Offit, all based on extremely circumstantial information. He even said he was convinced. This is attacking the person/people, not the idea. This is something that Orac does on a regular basis.
ReplyDeleteI also never accused JB or anyone at AoA of stalking anyone. Stalking is entirely different than speculating on someone's identity. Stalking would entail them following the person from site to site, leaving strange comments about anniversaries and man-crushes, and calling the individual at home from an anonymous number and hanging up when they pick up. I don't see anyone at AoA doing that.
JB owes Sullivan and Bonnie an apology. This is dangerously close to libel, and I wouldn't be surprised in the least if a lawsuit was a result of JB's article.
I don't expect anyone on LBRB's side to sue... it would serve our purposes better to mock AoA for not taking it down.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone has cause for personal offense over this, it's ME: The information on the Rotateq patent which JB uses to argue for Sullivan's membership in Offit's household was, in fact, material I gathered and synthesized myself. I provided the info to AoA even before Sullivan received and passed it on. Olmsted's and Blaxill's reactions at the time seemed to be that we were not in a position to speak for Offit, which makes Handley's current argument very strange.
David,
ReplyDeleteI agree that I don't see Sullivan filing a suit against JB, but I could see Bonnie doing so, especially considering her position as a Pediatrician and wife to someone famous. Personally, I can't really say I would blame her if she did do so.
I don't know that Bonnie Offit would have much of a case. If Paul Offit can get away with saying that Barbara Fisher "lies" in Wired, I think AoA is pretty safe.
ReplyDeleteCraig,
ReplyDelete"This is attacking the person/people, not the idea."
No doubt he's attacking her and I fully agree it's not stalking and I agree you never accused anyone at AoA of that. Yes, Orac attacks people, but I feel he does it on a different level. I certainly admit the approach is similar in this case. I also think it's far from libel as it is clearly articulated as opinion and speculation. Offit's claims never are. They are always represented as fact hence the reason he had to correct his book and had to get corrected several times in public forums. I also think that Sullivan has no case, since he's anonymous. I am pretty sure you can't libel an anonymous person.
David, You don`t have a case, since JB said nothing to or about you. I also think the assumption that everyone at AoA is on the same page is erroneous. There are a multitude of posters and I personally know they don`t all agree with each other on all points.
I really think he`s wrong, but I think he probably knows that. I really think there is something else going on here. Perhaps he`s kicking up dirt, but it could be a warning of some sort as well. Only JB really knows.
It's quite clear AoA's editors and writers are NOT on the same page about this. I have commented on the contrast of Handley's and Blaxill's reactions to the Rotateq data at Jabberwocky. It looks like Jake Crosby has now come down against Handley as far as treating my numbers as cause for suspicion.
ReplyDeleteReally, Handley seems like a "loose cannon" in AoA's circle, without much official responsibility or accountability. It's not clear to me whether he holds or ever has held a formal position in AoA. It seems like even at Gen Rescue, Handley has dropped to something like an "emeritus" position.
I think the Offits have perfectly good grounds for a suit, not so much for Handley's silly speculations but for his very explicit accusations of deception with ulterior motives. On the other hand, if Offit were interested in suing Handley he probably would have done it long before now. As for myself, I only wish it to be known that, in the course of defaming "Sullivan" and Bonnie Offit, Handley also denied me due credit for my work.
Would Bonnie Offit have to reveal her real online identities in the case of a lawsuit?
ReplyDeleteI doubt it, but Sullivan couldn't file suit without identifying himself by his real name (which means JB is not taking a lot of risk).
ReplyDeleteIf this (or something like it) developed into litigation, a major complication would be that Handley's claims are NOT pejorative, in and of themselves, to the general population. After all, MOST people would not react with automatic hostility to someone who is introduced as the spouse of a famous, wealthy doctor. That's the most fundamental flaw in Handley's fantasy: If Bonnie DID blog on issues related to autism, she would NOT need to use a pseudonym (let alone invent a whole persona) to be well-received by many people.
Craig, I read your comments on AoA about this and just now, your blog. While we are on nearly polar opposite sides of the fence on many issues, I can't help but say that I admire the conviction and courage you demonstrated by asserting your opinion.
ReplyDelete"I think the Offits have perfectly good grounds for a suit, not so much for Handley's silly speculations but for his very explicit accusations of deception with ulterior motives."
ReplyDeleteNo, the accusations are quite clearly conditional. He states in his conclusion:
"AoA’ers, please look into this, do your own research, and share it. I believe there is compelling evidence to implicate Bonnie Offit as the blogger known as Sullivan. If true, then Bonnie Offit:"
He also clearly states it's speculation:
"Let me be clear: I have circumstantial evidence that points to Bonnie Offit being Sullivan. I will spell out what I have, and let you be the judge."
That's not libel.
Thanks, ScienceMom.
ReplyDeleteI could not accept what JB did. I understand that he doesn't like the Offits, and I understand why. The same goes for Sullivan; I understand his dislike. But this, to me, was again stepping over the line. They did that with the Thanksgiving cannibals fiasco, and they did it again when they allowed commenters to post information about Orac's place of employment. This, for me, was strike three.
It was really hard for me to tell them what I did, just as it was difficult for me to write this blog post. I still consider many of the people over there my friends, and I always have a hard time telling friends, "Hey, what you did was wrong."
One of the reasons I read your blog, Craig, is your independent thinking. I find dogma on any side tiresome at best and scary at worst. So thank you and keep up the good work and the occasional weird humor.
ReplyDeleteSchwartz,
ReplyDeleteTo be sure, Handley put qualifications in his article, but there are points where he gets more accusatory and confrontational. In any event, the Offits wouldn't have to WIN to make trouble for JB.
I must say, even taken as speculation, JB's post was completely irresponsible. There are sound and accessible methods for recognizing forged or at least "suspicious" documents, but JB did not draw upon any of them. By implicating a specific person as responsible, he took a step that pros in such matters almost always avoid, and without any indication that he even understands the work that would be necessary to prove such an accusation sound.
"In any event, the Offits wouldn't have to WIN to make trouble for JB."
ReplyDeleteLOL, I think he makes his own trouble. I'm beginning to think that's exactly what he intended, nothing more.
Sullivan cleared up any confusion by posting this piece of stupidity: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/vaccines-not-toxic-alternative-chelation-treatments-are
ReplyDeleteCouldn't possibly be either a scientist of a doctor to come out with something that feeble. Well...the other day I saw an article quoting a doctor who said something just as dumb...
http://www.vindy.com/news/2010/nov/22/clinics-draw-50-fewer-for-flu-shots/
quote: But people are not getting the flu vaccine this year in the numbers they
did in 2009 because there is no pandemic or vaccine shortage to raise people’s fears, said Dr. John Venglarcik III, medical director for Mahoning County District Board of Health.
-------------------
They aren't supposed to admit that they are trying to scare people into vaccine compliance :)