A note about using false names

A particular name was used to comment elsewhere. Made it look like an extant academic was critiquing Spud. The academic themselves has indicated that they’re not happy with this. At least, so they’ve said to me.

Which seems fair enough. So, sport it is, of course it is. But not with the names of current real people perhaps?

14 thoughts on “A note about using false names”

  1. All’s fair in love & war. Although quite why anyone would have amour for an unpleasant, overweight retired accountant in Ely eludes me.

  2. “So, sport it is, of course ”

    And that short phrase provides an explanation of why the left has increased its dominance. To the left it’s not a sport. They do not play by the rules. If you take a cricket to a gun fight you will lose.

  3. @BiS

    “If you take a cricket bat to a gun fight you will lose.”

    Explains why Spud has been losing each battle of wits he fights.

  4. How’s he losing, Andrew? He gets his occasional “political economist tax expert” gigs on media. Gives evidence to government committees. Presumably gets paid for his various “professorships”. The grant money keeps rolling in. I’ve never been sure whether Murphy’s the genuine article of what professes to be or a sophisticated con by someone who’s a lot cleverer than you think he is. But either way he’s making a living out of a complete lack of knowledge or ability. Not bad I’d say.

  5. Random internet name generator for me.

    That this academic knows about the use of his name probably means that Spud went after him in some manner. Perfectly OK when Spud does it, but he’s less keen when people do it to him.

  6. Is there anyone on here that dumb Tim? It sounds like a pro-Murf malicious troll trying to spread the aggro as a countermove. And/or give the git even more publicity.

  7. You’re a little slow, Ecksy. If I didn’t suspect Tim of being an honourable man I’d think he made the offending comment himself. The e-mail’s a masterstoke. In its absence, the offended party would likely never have known his name & reputation had been highjacked. Murphy suffers by association with the commenters on his blog. And if he’s read the thread in question or any of Murphy’s other output, he’s probably thinking he would have made the comment himself. The more Murphy comes to the attention of real economists the wider his repute for being an ignoramus spreads. All publicity is not necessarily good publicity. Ask our tinted royal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *