WashPost: "Scholar Invents Fan To Answer His Critics"

Status
Not open for further replies.

cuchulainn

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
3,297
Location
Looking for a cow that Queen Meadhbh stole
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
 
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
 
It doesn't destroy the research, but it sure dents his credibility. Bummer.
 
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.
 
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.... :(
 
i've been watching this story evolve on Volokh's list for the last two weeks:


From: Usenet News System <[email protected]>
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 [email protected] (Mary Rosh)

http://216.239.57.100/search?q=cach...uns.author+"[email protected]"+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

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

http://groups.google.com/[email protected]&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: [email protected]
(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, [email protected] (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-
[email protected] (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)
 
ACK!!

eek2.gif


and heavy, protracted, weary

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

:(
 
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:
 
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
 
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:
 
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.
 
Two completely different classes of offense.

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.
 
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 :(
 
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top