WashPost: "Scholar Invents Fan To Answer His Critics"


PDA






cuchulainn
February 1, 2003, 04:22 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8884-2003Jan31.html

Scholar Invents Fan To Answer His Critics

By Richard Morin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 1, 2003; Page C01

Mary Rosh thinks the world of John R. Lott Jr., the controversial American Enterprise Institute scholar whose book "More Guns, Less Crime" caused such a stir a few years ago.

In postings on Web sites in this country and abroad, Rosh has tirelessly defended Lott against his harshest critics. He is a meticulous researcher, she's repeatedly told those who say otherwise. He's not driven by the ideology of the left or the right. Rosh has even summoned memories of the classes she took from Lott a decade ago to illustrate Lott's probity and academic gifts.

"I have to say that he was the best professor I ever had," Rosh gushed in one Internet posting.

Indeed, Mary Rosh and John Lott agree about nearly everything.

Well they should, because Mary Rosh is John Lott -- or at least that's the pseudonym he's used for three years to defend himself against his critics in online debates, Lott acknowledged this week.

"I probably shouldn't have done it -- I know I shouldn't have done it -- but it's hard to think of any big advantage I got except to be able to comment fictitiously," said Lott, an economist who has held senior research positions at the University of Chicago and Yale.

Moreover, the AEI resident scholar acknowledged on Friday that he permitted his 13-year-old son to write an effusive review of "More Guns, Less Crime" and then post it on the Amazon.com Web site. It was signed "Maryrosh."

His son gave the book five stars -- the highest possible rating.

"If you want to learn about what can stop crime or if you want to learn about many of the myths involving crime that endanger people's lives, this is the book to get," the review stated. "It was very interesting reading and Lott writes very well. He explains things in an understandable commonsense way. I have loaned out my copy a dozen times and while it may have taken some effort to get people started on the book, once they read it no one was disappointed."

Lott denied that he was the author of the review, an assertion made on various Web sites that have been tracking the controversy. He said his son wrote it, with some help from his wife. "They told me they had done it. They showed it to me. I wasn't going to tell them not to do it. Should I have?"

Lott's book, which argues that gun ownership deters crime, has been praised by gun advocates and attacked by those who favor gun control.

Lott also is a lesser player in the now-diminishing debate over the 2000 elections. In a study two years ago, Lott reported that the decision by the major television networks to call the Florida election for Al Gore before the polls had closed everywhere in the state led thousands of Republican-leaning voters in the Florida Panhandle not to vote. Other researchers dispute his findings, which have been embraced by conservatives as well as by critics of exit polling.

Lott said that he frequently has used the name "Mary Rosh" to defend himself in online debates. The name is an amalgam of the first two letters of his four sons' first names. In a posting to the Web site maintained by Tim Lambert, an Australian professor who has relentlessly attacked Lott's guns studies, "Mary Rosh" claims to be a former student of Lott at the University of Pennsylvania, where the economist taught between 1991 and 1995.

"I had him for a PhD level empirical methods class when he taught at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania back in the early 1990s, well before he gained national attention, and I have to say that he was the best professor that I ever had. You wouldn't know that he was a 'right-wing' ideologue from the class. . . . There were a group of us students who would try to take any class that he taught. Lott finally had to tell us that it was best for us to try and take classes from other professors more to be exposed to other ways of teaching graduate material."

When a reporter attempted to read the posting to him over the telephone, Lott stopped him after the first few words. "I'm sure I did that. I shouldn't have done it."

Julian Sanchez, a Cato Institute staffer, is the cybersleuth who tracked Mary Rosh back to John Lott.

Sanchez is a blogger -- someone who maintains a Web site where they report and comment on the news -- who had been tracking the debate between Lott and critics of his gun research. He became suspicious about Rosh after he noticed that several of Rosh's online defenses of Lott seemed to track closely with arguments the scholar himself had made in private e-mails to Sanchez and other bloggers. He tracked Mary Rosh's IP address (the computer code translation of the standard e-mail address) to Pennsylvania.

"I compared that IP with the header of an email Dr. Lott had sent me from his home address. And by yet another astonishing coincidence, it had originated at the very same IP address. Now, what are the odds of that?" he wrote in a posting on his Web site. "Sarcasm aside, we're a little old to be playing dress up, aren't we Dr. Lott?"

Lott said he initially used his own name in online debates with critics. "But you just get into really emotional things with people. You also run into other problems." So he started using the name Mary Rosh. "I should not have done it, there is no doubt. But it was a way to get information into the debate."

Officials at the American Enterprise Institute declined to comment yesterday.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

If you enjoyed reading about "WashPost: "Scholar Invents Fan To Answer His Critics"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Wildalaska
February 1, 2003, 05:20 PM
Just great...his credibility is now destroyed...and he had good things to say too...

WildwhatajerkAlaska:cuss:

Greg L
February 1, 2003, 05:24 PM
Lovely, and coming so closely on the heels of the Arming America fiasco they will probably be lumped together for all time.

WTH was he thinking. :banghead:

Greg

Peetmoss
February 1, 2003, 05:27 PM
What a freaking MORON.

MikeK
February 1, 2003, 06:10 PM
It doesn't destroy the research, but it sure dents his credibility. Bummer.

jmbg29
February 1, 2003, 06:32 PM
The "Fan" plan. Brilliant.:rolleyes: :cuss: :banghead:

Airwolf
February 1, 2003, 07:32 PM
It doesn't destroy the solid work that he's done and that's withstood attack time and time again.

But the masses won't see (or want to see) that. It's all about image, not substance in todays culture.

The messenger is flawed so the message must be also.

Not good people, not good at all.

Blackhawk
February 1, 2003, 07:51 PM
I have loaned out my copy a dozen times and while it may have taken some effort to get people started on the book, once they read it no one was disappointed. Right there, everyone should have known it was ficticious. What are the odds of getting a good book back after loaning it JUST ONE time? :rolleyes:

A sad situation, and more news of a spectacular breakup on this sad day.... :(

Jim March
February 1, 2003, 08:05 PM
It's OK, folks, it wasn't him what done it!

It was his EYEBROWS I tell ya!

:banghead:

Don Gwinn
February 1, 2003, 08:09 PM
:scrutiny:

Just real darn smart, Doctor.

God save me from my friends.

Standing Wolf
February 1, 2003, 10:09 PM
In exactly one short word: dumb!

gun-fucious
February 2, 2003, 12:21 AM
i've been watching this story evolve on Volokh's list for the last two weeks:


From: Usenet News System <news@news.charcoal.com>
Subject: Posting histogram, Author, talk.politics.guns
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Date: 04 Dec 2002 05:50:40 EST
Organization: Useless Stats R Us
X-No-Archive: yes

(Automated posting; see http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/histogram/)
NNTP Server running INN 2.3
cd /home/news/spool/overview/t/p/g
cut -f3 talk.politics.guns.DAT | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | cat -n
Histogram scale: 6.77

Rnk Cnt AvgL Name/Histogram

283 2 231 maryrosh@aol.com (Mary Rosh)

http://216.239.57.100/search?q=cache:kdvdZtyWgWIC:www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/Web/People/karl/histogram/talk.politics.guns.author+%22MaryRosh%40aol.com%22+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=maryrosh@aol.com&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search

Re: Your thoughts on the shootings?
looks at all the multiple victim public shootings
in the US from 1977 to 1999. They find ...
misc.fitness.weights - Oct. 29, 2002 by Mary Rosh - View Thread (322 articles)

Re: Homosexual Gun Loons
Why don't you respond to the questions that I asked
about the empirical work? As with others ...
talk.politics.guns - Oct. 29, 2002 by Mary Rosh - View Thread (120 articles)

Re: John Lott Demolishes Maltz and Targonski's claims about ...
Funny that no one who jumped on the Maltz paper earlier
has a response to what Lott ...
talk.politics.guns - Aug. 3, 2002 by Mary Rosh - View Thread (2 articles)

REPOST: Re: Blacks and Whites in Sports--Is there a ...
... 0.123!uunet!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!uncanceller From: maryrosh@aol.com
(Mary Rosh) Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights Subject ...
misc.fitness.weights - Dec. 31, 2001 by Mary Rosh - View Thread (59 articles)

Re: Good Article by John Lott about women arming & ...
What you claim is wrong. To just keep on repeating a variant
that "Lott is either dishonest ...
talk.politics.guns - Aug. 16, 2002 by Mary Rosh - View Thread (109 articles)

Re: Title change.
You write "I wouldn't 'do' anything to John Lott
besides reject him for publication, which ...
talk.politics.guns - Nov. 6, 2002 by Mary Rosh - View Thread (37 articles)

Re: Great new research on guns, safety and crime
On 4 Aug 2002 19:15:17 -0700, maryrosh@aol.com (Mary Rosh) wrote: cut Why is
it that all these other academics who published in the Journal of Law and ...
talk.politics.guns - Aug. 6, 2002 by Mary Rosh - View Thread (60 articles)

Re: Do more guns cause less crime?
"The main argument of a recent book by John Lott is
summarized in the title: More Guns, Less ...
rec.outdoors.rv-travel - Jan. 8, 2002 by Mary Rosh - View Thread (49 articles)

Re: John Lott-
clayton@claytoncramer.com (Clayton E. Cramer) wrote
in message news:<6a4c48bf.0301171234.1c963800 ...
sci.econ - Jan. 19, 2003 by Mary Rosh - View Thread (42 articles)

Re: GUN CONTROL FAILING IN EUROPE
if lott were truly independent, he'd be writing in peer
reviewed journals instead of propaganda ...
misc.survivalism - Jan. 2, 2003 by Mary Rosh - View Thread (487 articles)

Travis McGee
February 2, 2003, 12:27 AM
WHAT in the HELL was he thinking???

Calamity Jane
February 2, 2003, 01:16 AM
ACK!!

http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/cwm/cwm/eek2.gif

and heavy, protracted, weary

******sigh******

:(

gun-fucious
February 2, 2003, 01:19 AM
he obviously did not know his posts could be back tracked to his static IP address

heck, he could of easily spoofed his origin

heres some online debate on the story:

http://reason.com/hitandrun/000580.shtml

heres the real story:
Tim Lambert was asking some hard questions about Lotts survey
Mary Rosh started defending Lott:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/maryrosh.html

heres the origin of the back trace:
http://www.juliansanchez.com/2003_01_01_notesarch.html#90216211

Zundfolge
February 2, 2003, 01:52 AM
Whats sad is if Lott would have posted regularly on TFL or here he would have been able to recruit plenty of us to defend him publicly in forums and such without pulling such a stupid stupid stunt.
:banghead:

Thanks for selling us up the river John :fire:

aikidoka-mks
February 2, 2003, 02:08 AM
sigh - people commit the fallacy of attacking the man in debates plenty now instead of dealing with the presented facts and arguments. It doesnt help when we give them ammunition.

Maybe it was the eyebrows.

Mark

Justin
February 2, 2003, 02:24 AM
You know, despite the loudmouthed rantings of Brady, MMM, Tom Diaz, and other anti-rights activists, they just can't seem to be able to match our own worst enemy:

us.

:banghead:

Ryder
February 2, 2003, 03:35 AM
I don't see a problem with debating under a ficticious handle. Plenty of authors use false names. Many people post anonymously for good reason. He is entitled to have a private life as much as any of us and he is cetainly entitled to defend his work. If he wants to debate the issue using a false handle that is ok with me. It is and should remain to be a legitimate option.

Imagine the chaos of him trying to debate this controvertial topic in a public forum. There would just be too many people "gunning for him". We know how emotional and caustic the antis are when there are no facts to support those rediculous threories of theirs. You just don't know who is reading this stuff. It can be anybody and everybody. Radicals are very real and are not above using terrorist tactics to win arguments.

Look at the Michael Moore message board. He owns it but I don't see him interacting on it at all. Plenty of personal attacks generated there. Trying to accomplish any kind of logical discussion is a foregone conclusion, it won't happen. Maybe Mr. Lott prefers to stay low key? I won't blame him for that. I sure don't ever want to be any kind of celebrity.

I find it very strange indeed however that he would praise himself. That's much more deceptive than simply using a cover handle and probably has damaged his reputation if not his future credibility. It wouldn't suprise me to find out that he was feeling the need to camoflage himself better for some reason but he could have, should have, resisted that.

geekWithA.45
February 2, 2003, 04:50 PM
Debating under pseudonym lies somewhere between acceptable and forgiveable, but fabricating data is niether.

Be sure to point that out to anyone who tries to compare Lott to Bellesiles, as they inevitably will.

jimpeel
February 2, 2003, 05:00 PM
I guess he just didn't know to go to the library and use their computers. (sigh):banghead:

El Tejon
February 2, 2003, 05:08 PM
Yeah, what's the big idea of using a fake name online?

ElI'msogoshdarntacticalIhavetouseafakenameTejon

Zundfolge
February 2, 2003, 05:19 PM
Debating under pseudonym lies somewhere between acceptable and forgiveable, but fabricating data is niether.

Be sure to point that out to anyone who tries to compare Lott to Bellesiles, as they inevitably will.

Redirection is a favorite tactic of liberals and antis.

Lott has just rendered his data unusable in a debate because if we bring up his figures then the debate shifts from gun control to John Lott's credibility.

From a logical standpoint, you are correct ... there is no comparison between Lott and Bellesilies, but logic doesn't matter to most people (especially liberals and antis).



this is a dark day for RKBA :(

Greg L
February 2, 2003, 05:32 PM
http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/lol.gif

Ouch, score one for the tile crawlers.

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/jump_clap.gif

Greg

Leatherneck
February 3, 2003, 10:18 AM
I, too, don't see any problem with Lott's use of a pseudnym; after all, isn't that what many do right here? Commonplace. Praising himself may be a bit over the top, but that's hardly a crime these days. I imagine he was frequently running into the hyper-emotional but factless ninnies we all find so frustrating. I'll defend him anywhere I can.

TC
TFL Survivor

Guntalk
February 3, 2003, 11:09 AM
When you pretend to be someone you are not, you are not telling the truth. (Actors and authors writing under pen names are exceptions.)

In other words, to some extent, you are telling a lie.

Anytime you do something you don't want people to know about, perhaps it's a good idea to not do it.

In this case, I'm afraid, he has handed the gun grabbers all the ammo they need to discredit him. No, it doesn't really reflect on his work, but it does reflect on him.

Very unfortunate.

braindead0
February 3, 2003, 12:15 PM
For such a smart man, he sure has made a mess here. I think he could have done this with impunity had he never made an outright lie (claiming to have taken his classes, etc).. If he had just dodged those issues, and stuck to the debate/facts perhaps this wouldn't have been such a big thing.

Bartholomew Roberts
February 3, 2003, 12:33 PM
You guys should read some of the debates on Usenet... Lott was not only inventing a fabricated history to praise his own work under a pseudonym, the arguments made under the pseudonym were occasionally very poor.

He did however offer solid enough work that there is now several people investigating his thesis. These reports can be used in lieu of Lott if you wish to avoid a credibility discussion:

http://www.guncite.com/lott_more_papers.html

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html

dave
February 3, 2003, 02:01 PM
What's the problem here? Sure, the guy did something stupid. Very stupid. But his work is still good. His facts are still just that, facts. He did good research and that's what we should focus on, the research.

If, when debating an anti, the topic strays to the author's antics simply stear it back toward the topic. Remind them that other authors have been discredited because their work was a lie, not for what they did afterward.

Above all, do not defend Lott. Tell the truth. Say that what he did was stupid, because it was. Then return to the topic at hand. Ask them what there is "about his work" that is a lie. Don't let things turn into a debate about Lott, keep them focused on his work.

OF
February 5, 2003, 11:47 PM
Indeed a dark day for RKBA. What was he thinking!?

I'm stunned.

- Gabe

mack
February 6, 2003, 01:01 PM
As far as has been determined there is not a problem with his work at all. Therefore, I think it is somewhat silly to suggest that the sky is falling and Lott's work is now useless. Yes, Lott did a dumb thing in an online debate, so what. That is all it was, why should we oblige the antis by throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

All this handringing and the sky is falling tone simply makes more out of the issue than it appears to be. Talk about Lott hurting himself - what some suggest or imply here is that Lott's work be thrown under the bus - talk about shooting oneself in the foot - why the heck should we do that. The liberal socialists have a habit of always trying to attack those they disagree with personally, especially when they can't debate the facts. If they try to discredit Lott's work by attacking Lott personally - then simply point that out and ask why they aren't comfortable debating his work.

Viking6
February 6, 2003, 02:38 PM
just another brick in the wall. As someone once said "you can't unring a bell!", right or wrong, he is now probably ineffective.

Right, Mr. Hat?!

publius
February 7, 2003, 08:05 AM
This is not just about Lott's personal reputation, nor is it just about his creation of a fictitious advocate. Creating Mary strikes me as pathetic, unnecessary, and spineless, but not a big deal in the end. Michelle Malkin calls it "beyond creepy."

http://www.WorldNetDaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30873

Whatever. My problem with Lott now is his "the dog ate my research" story. I laughed when Bellesiles told that story because I didn't believe it for an instant. It's not so funny now, for the same reason. Incorrectly citing Gary Kleck is another problem. These aren't questions about his tactics or about Mary. It's about his data and how careful he is with the facts.

Lott says he's trying to replicate the lost experiment. Even if it confirms the lost one, I'll be more skeptical this time, and I'm someone who has repeatedly cited Lott's work. I want to believe him, but I just can't. Entire research projects don't disappear without a trace in a computer crash, even if you're stupid enough to fail to back up such a large amount of important work.

Bahadur
February 7, 2003, 12:40 PM
What's the problem here? Sure, the guy did something stupid. Very stupid. But his work is still good. His facts are still just that, facts. He did good research and that's what we should focus on, the research.Well, let's look at the issue at the following levels, shall we?

1. PR. At the public relations level, there is NO separation between the man and his work. If the man is tarnished, so is the work.

2. The Work - the Research. While every source has to be meticulously documented, research at Lott's level still relies on some degree of trust that the researcher is conscientious about what he presents and documents. If the credibility of the author is shaken, that trust is no longer there and the work is discredited. At the minimum, the researcher cannot function effectively due to the extraordinary efforts it will now take to document and support his research.

3. The Principle. The theoretical principle of research is integrity, to truth. The idea of extending knowledge is about discovering more truth about the world. If the researcher is unprincipled and is prone to lying and other actions that are "beyond creepy," we run into the "does the ends justify the means" problem. Besides, do we, as a movement, be associated with someone who lies and is "beyond creepy"? For me, the answer would be a resounding "No."

If you enjoyed reading about "WashPost: "Scholar Invents Fan To Answer His Critics"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!