…and this is a 
No comment
Category: Personal
Posted on: August 21, 2007 8:27 PM, by PZ Myers
On the advice of counsel, I'm not going to say a word, yet.
However, I've been getting lots of email and seeing lots of articles on the web; I've been getting offers of pro bono lawyering and to set up donations for a defense fund. Thanks to everyone! I haven't been replying to most of those offers because, on the advice of counsel, yadda yadda, but I appreciate them all. If the need develops I may take advantage of them, but until then, I just crouch, gnawing on the muzzle, mad eyes rolling, doing my best to be a good little doggie.
But really, thanks, thanks, thanks — and now we just sit back and wait. Let the pros do their job.
Comments
Fume, snarl, gnash.
Posted by: Ophelia Benson | August 21, 2007 8:30 PM
I would suggest Gould's family countersue unless he ceases and desists.
Posted by: Carlie | August 21, 2007 8:36 PM
There are so many things wrong with this suit, it is hard to know where to start. It is a SLAPP suit.
These sorts of frivolous lawsuits can and do boomerang pretty fast. This could fall under the torts of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, abuse of the legal system, violations of the various new Terrorism statutes, and felony violation of the civil rights acts of the 1960s, to whit, section 241 attempting to deprive someone of their civil rights.
Loser pays court costs. Federal court has jurisdiction unless Pivar lives in Minnesota. On the WC this would almost certainly fall under a SLAPP suit law. FWIW, judges hate these sorts of frivolous lawsuits. They tend to be very smart people and they are also very busy, trying several cases at once.
If you show up in court, in most cases the plaintiff somehow forgets. Document your points extensively at the very start, go for a summary judgement.
Good luck. Good thing dueling was made illegal or PZ might be facing a challenge here.
Posted by: raven | August 21, 2007 8:46 PM
This guys deserves to be spanked until he grows up a bit (not that I'm saying corporal punishment is good for kiddies, just childish adults.) For fucks sake, he published a book pretending to be scientific, and was critiqued to that standard. He failed to meet the standard. It's not PZ's faults he's an ignoramous.
Posted by: Brian | August 21, 2007 8:46 PM
PZ, for what it's worth, support (legal, financial, moral) from the UK is yours for the asking. As this is a bogus claim, we won't be launching a sponsored biologist walk for the defence fund in Glasgow just yet, but please be assured that we are all with you.
Posted by: stmarnock | August 21, 2007 8:47 PM
Sounds like a crackpot to me.
(so sue me too, Pivar..)
Posted by: Lilith | August 21, 2007 8:48 PM
No good deed goes unpunished! Free PZ!!!
Posted by: Humble Woodcutter | August 21, 2007 8:49 PM
Two words to ask your attorney about- "Rule 11"
It permits sanctions against the plaintiff, HIS ATTORNEY, and HIS ATTORNEY'S LAW FIRM.
Posted by: dhonig | August 21, 2007 8:49 PM
In the meantime, let's kick back and watch Dawkins TV.
He takes on Deepak Chopra at 18:50. Well worth watching — I was wanting to throttle Chopra through my monitor.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 21, 2007 8:49 PM
They should throw the book at Pivar. Specifically, Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. It's gotta be a good 2 kg or more...
Posted by: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. | August 21, 2007 8:49 PM
PZ, for what it's worth, support (legal, financial, moral) from the UK is yours for the asking. As this is a bogus claim, we won't be launching a sponsored biologist walk for the defence fund in Glasgow just yet, but please be assured that we are all with you.
Posted by: stmarnock | August 21, 2007 8:50 PM
Duel? Spanked?
Damn me, the fellow needs to be horse-whipped on the steps of his club.
Posted by: Don | August 21, 2007 8:51 PM
IANAL, but: yep. Classic frivolous suit. This asshole will end up paying SEED's and PZ's legal fees.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 21, 2007 8:58 PM
I've heard of paper tigers, and papercuts do hurt...
But, Dr Pivar doesn't have that luxury. He's unleashed the legal equivalent of a balloon animal elephant, and the only thing poor Professor Myers is a barbecue fork.
Posted by: Stanton | August 21, 2007 9:02 PM
Is this guy serious. 5 million in book sales!!! Yea Right!
Posted by: Loc | August 21, 2007 9:03 PM
This reminds me of the time of Geller kept suing James Randi. He lost every time, but I think it was quite a nuisance to Randi.
Reading part of the suit it seems as if Pivar.
1, used Neil de Grass Tyson's quote inappropriately.
2. PZ pointed this out to Neil
3. Neil asked for his name to be removed from the website promoting the book
So this is part of the major 15 M damage he received from PZ!
The proof of a classic crackpot!
Blake Stacy is doing a good job blogging this.
http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=242
Posted by: sailor | August 21, 2007 9:03 PM
((sigh)) I'd wish you good luck, but it doesn't look like you'll need it. It's rather stupid to think that you'd be sued for speaking your mind... especially if he sent you his book for review.
It's a classic example once again where the dimwits can say whatever they want, but put up an educated opinion and get smacked down for it.
I'm sorry this has happened. I hope you don't change your style because of this jerk.
Posted by: dorid | August 21, 2007 9:11 PM
I couldn't help but notice that the name stamped on the complaint is "Judge Sheindlin"... Sheindlin happens to be Judge Judy's last name... Dear FSM I hope that's not a coincidence! That would be some hilarious television right there.
(Now I will walk away, head bowed in shame, for knowing Judge Judy's last name)
Posted by: kellbelle1020 | August 21, 2007 9:12 PM
I'm with Lilith. Let's do a Spartacus. Pivar is a crackpot. Sue me.
Posted by: Elf Eye | August 21, 2007 9:13 PM
Aww, man, the spelling is off by one letter. Teach me to google my facts AFTER I post! Oops! (I really wanted this to be a Judge Judy episode)
Posted by: kellbelle1020 | August 21, 2007 9:15 PM
Considering that his ideas can be handily refuted by anyone who's ever seen an ultrasound of a developing embryo, let alone the entirety of embryology, I don't think you'll have too much trouble.
When you add that the quote he's upset about was half out-of-context and half fabricated, you should end up with an award for his wasting your time.
Posted by: Sivi Volk | August 21, 2007 9:15 PM
Wow, I need to refresh before posting.
Posted by: Sivi Volk | August 21, 2007 9:16 PM
Wow. I just wasted the last hour reading all about this lunatic and his developing balloon animal theory. This guy is a crackpot.
Posted by: Loc | August 21, 2007 9:23 PM
Well I say Mr. Pivar is a big poopy pants, and he can sue me too. I might sue him for the mental anguish his stupid aspersions on one of my favourite writers (Wonderful Life is all wrong, but a great read) have caused me. I demand $50baschwillion and a PONY!
Posted by: AlanWCan | August 21, 2007 9:25 PM
Blake,
Thanks for the link. At 22:06 I was astonished by RD's restraint. A lesser man would have slapped Chopra repeatedly around the face.
Posted by: don | August 21, 2007 9:27 PM
I am sad to hear about this law suit. I hope that this does not cause you or Seed any hardship.
Posted by: denise | August 21, 2007 9:28 PM
Perfesser! Don't you know that rich crackpots hate to be dissed.
(Money + crank theory) / ego = Lawsuit
If this jackass gets away with it, can The Discovery Institute's goon lawyers be far behind. Mash him like a bug!
I'm just a shoe repair guy, but I've got a C note if you need.
Posted by: Bert Chadick | August 21, 2007 9:30 PM
The first amendement secures our right to ridicule the ridiculous. This suit will get tossed at the first hearing.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 21, 2007 9:34 PM
Maybe you can comment on this . . .
So, how did you get counsel? Is Seed providing it? Are they picking up the whole cost, or do you have to personally chip in? Does your University have some sort of umbrella policy that you can take advantage of? What sort of support are you getting from your University?
One trouble with lawsuits is how damned expensive they can be, to the point where an average citizen is often screwed. They can alleviate that by acting pro se but most people have neither the time nor the ability to do so.
Posted by: Ahcuah | August 21, 2007 9:40 PM
Uh-oh! I believe I may have intimated that the crackpot utilised Leary-esque methods in developing his theory, so you may be getting a cell-mate, PZ.
You go ahead and brush up your harmonica skills; I'll look for a recipe for prison pruno.
Posted by: Brownian | August 21, 2007 9:41 PM
If you have to sue a real scientist because you feel bad, then you're probably not cut out to be a real scientist. What would he do if he were subjected to actual peer review? Sue? (By "peer", I don't really mean his peers, but actual scientists).
Posted by: PalMD | August 21, 2007 9:48 PM
PZ:
You are a hero to many of us.
I thought you might appreciate Gene Weingarten's mathematical proof that there is no god, in the Washington Post. (For those who don't know, he is the Post's most excellent humor columnist.) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/images/weingarten/gene_magic2.jpg
Posted by: Peter Metrinko | August 21, 2007 9:48 PM
I can't believe the absurdity of the suit. I hope that guy reads this and decides to reconsider before it gets expensive for either one of you. Poor PZ, what a waste of money to get a lawyer for this thing.
I think he's just doing this to promote his book, a little press across the science communities can't hurt he figures. I noticed the case was mentioned on Scientific American, see it's already working...
$15 million dollars. Have Americans always been this greedy? Watch out guys, he might sue one of us too...
Posted by: Geral | August 21, 2007 9:54 PM
Brownian, I've always liked Steve's take on prison wine (Steve of Steve Don't Eat It fame, of course):
"This wine's nose was a rectum.
Posted by: thalarctos | August 21, 2007 10:02 PM
Thanks Blake for the Dawkins video.
What was that shot of the squirrel about? Dawkins looks suddenly distracted- cut to squirrel running up a tree.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | August 21, 2007 10:02 PM
I think PZ really, really hurt his feelings and made him cry.
Posted by: Unstable Isotope | August 21, 2007 10:05 PM
PZ, if it makes you feel any better, his lawyer is a lightweight. As many people here have suggested, there is a good chance the plaintiff (or his attorney) will have to pay for this whole suit. Experienced attorneys know better.
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/AttorneyDetails?attorneyId=5659096
His lawyer was admitted to the bar in 2005 after not going to law school in the US. That's fine, sometimes young lawyers at big firms are given cases like this for experience, but he has set up his own law firm.
Shark bait.
Posted by: Chris Bell | August 21, 2007 10:16 PM
you do realize, of course, that spartacus's entire army was crucified?
Posted by: arachnophilia | August 21, 2007 10:39 PM
hmm... crank writes book, sees your blog and knows your take on "ID"... Sends you his book, gets bad review, sues.
Sounds fishy to me.
But hey I'll admit to a tad of paranoia now and again. ;)
Give'im what fore!
Posted by: knc3 | August 21, 2007 10:41 PM
"you do realize, of course, that spartacus's entire army was crucified?"
Come on. We're talking about a creationist. He wouldn't crucify a fly for fear of sending the wrong message.
Posted by: Collin | August 21, 2007 10:42 PM
Speaking of crackpots, has anyone heard from Michael Korn, the xian terrorist wannabe with an arrest warrant out on him?
You would think Homeland Security with their multi-billion dollar budget would be able to pick up a wing nut like him in a few hours. Oops, HS was the agency responsible for disaster relief in New Orleans, they had days worth of advance notice, and dropped every ball they touched. Gee, I feel so safe with them in charge of whatever they are supposed to do.
Posted by: raven | August 21, 2007 10:53 PM
Inform Matthew Chapman -- possible sequel to 40 Days and 40 Nights.
Posted by: Ex-drone | August 21, 2007 11:00 PM
I hope this is a case in which the stupid really does burn (the perpetrator of this stupid lawsuit)!
Posted by: JimV | August 21, 2007 11:06 PM
It's all a plot, see... member of evil scientist cabal tries to squelch the truth. Truth sues, government tosses out truth's case. This proves evil scientists and government are in league with each other against truth. Truth is facing an uphill battle. Please send donations to truth. etc.
Posted by: craig | August 21, 2007 11:08 PM
I just wanted to add...Pivar's a complete and utter crackpot. that is all.
Posted by: garth | August 21, 2007 11:10 PM
$15 million dollars.
It's the court system. It's a kind of lottery where you might win, no matter how bogus, so they keep trying.
The circumstances are very different, but there was a case where a US judge awarded an $11 million judgement against an entity that the court had no jurisdiction over and who hadn't been legally served.
Posted by: Graculus | August 21, 2007 11:14 PM
My favourite part of the filed complaint is paragraph 19: "Myers has publicly described himself on his web log as a 'cruel and insensitive person'".
Posted by: Tulse | August 21, 2007 11:24 PM
Does the term "classic crackpot" include ballon animal crackpots...in a legal sense?
Posted by: S. Fisher | August 21, 2007 11:27 PM
If only the judge would fine the plaintiff $15 million for wasting the court's time, and award it to PZ. Then maybe he could give us all a $50-100,000.
Posted by: Albert | August 21, 2007 11:41 PM
Long time listener, first time caller. :)
I first heard about this on Bad Astronomy Blog, and I agree with him: it's pretty likely that Pivar will get more than he bargained for in court.
Down with classic crackpots,
Lee
Posted by: Lee | August 21, 2007 11:46 PM
If this ever gets to the point where you need some cash to defend it (my bet is it will go away before too long), please put up a donate-via-paypal link (if there's any left over I'm sure you can find a suitable charity for it). I have a few dollars I'd like to kick in.
Posted by: Glen | August 22, 2007 12:16 AM
Looks like the classic crackpot is also a major shithead.
Good luck.
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 22, 2007 12:17 AM
Offer to settle for the $15 it took him to mail you his shitty book. And that's being generous.
Posted by: Tom @Thoughtsic.com | August 22, 2007 12:49 AM
The critical question right now is this: does the judge to whose court this case was assigned have a history of granting SUMMARY JUDGMENTS? Some judges spend their entire careets NOT granting them thus if you end up in one of THOSE judges' courts you have to spend the money to go to trial and then get your funds back, assuming the plaintiff is not broke at that point. Hopefully this judge has the cojones to 1 - grant summary judgment after your atty files a motion for it and 2 - award legal fees plus sanctions against the plaintiff.
Posted by: Texas Reader | August 22, 2007 12:50 AM
Let me see, what can I call Pivar without fear of being sued? I know "butt-head astronomer" is safe, but he's not an astronomer. "Butt-head biologist" would appear to be overstating things. "Butt-head developmentalist" doesn't really roll off the tongue either.
I'm gonna go with "butt-head crackpot".
Posted by: Johnny Vector | August 22, 2007 1:00 AM
Whatever you do, counter-sue. Make the bishes pay. If you settle for simply having the suit dropped, consider that a failure. You should get harassment damages out of this.
Posted by: H. Humbert | August 22, 2007 1:04 AM
off topic, but I just noticed that the BBC's "The Atheism Tapes" and the 1987 Horizon program "The Blind Watchmaker" with Richard Dawkins have been posted to alt.binaries.documentaries... which is usually full of creationist BS.
Just made me happy to see that it's not all UFO nuts and the begodded out there, is all.
Posted by: craig | August 22, 2007 1:07 AM
Oh, and one more very silly thing. Check out ¶ 32 (the second one), 35, and 38, in which "Plaintiff repeats and reavers the averments of paragraphs 1 through 31 as if fully set forth herein."
First, if it's really required by the legal profession to re-include all the previous paragraphs in each claim section (unless you say the magic words that make them be re-included without actually re-including them), that in itself is extremely silly.
But even sillier, when I see the word "reavers" there, I can't but imagine Summer Glau kicking the plaintiff in the head. Behind her. Around a pole.
Posted by: Johnny Vector | August 22, 2007 1:16 AM
Uh oh. I opined on several internet forums that "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer" sucked. Will the producers sue me for libel?
Posted by: dave teegarden | August 22, 2007 1:52 AM
Doesn't Mr. Pivar realize that, thanks to PZ, he can make that money back (and then some!) by working children's birthday parties?
Posted by: Kseniya | August 22, 2007 2:10 AM
Pivar is a classical crackpot. Sue me.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | August 22, 2007 2:14 AM
I don't know if you know this or not, but I also happen to be Spartacus.
Posted by: The Disgruntled Chemist | August 22, 2007 3:11 AM
"You would think Homeland Security with their multi-billion dollar budget would be able to pick up a wing nut like him in a few hours."
Umm, no.
Finding a perp who knows people are looking for him isn't as easy as hollywood would have us believe. Some of them are rather crafty, and some of them have friends who will hide them. Look how long it took to catch Eric Rudolph or Warren Jeffs, for example.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 22, 2007 3:26 AM
I am not a lawyer. But I really wish I was your lawyer right now.
I'm pretty sure a good lawyer could parlay this into a future of few bad cases and a lot of good cases.
If this guy's attorney is being stuck with this because his partners are making him take it he should be a very angry young lawyer, or he's just very very dumb.
phat
Posted by: phat | August 22, 2007 3:34 AM
Attorneys here, please remind me, are their criminal sanctions to bringing SLAPP suits?
If so, this whole thing could be even more entertaining than our wildest dreams.
phat
Posted by: phat | August 22, 2007 3:38 AM
Never mind my question. I looked it up. There are, as far as I can gather, no criminal sanctions for a SLAPP suit.
Maybe there should be?
phat
Posted by: phat | August 22, 2007 3:45 AM
Oh, I forgot to mention. This should be easy money for any attorney defending you.
The clock is ticking.
phat
Posted by: phat | August 22, 2007 3:48 AM
PZ, I'm with Glen @ #51. I guess most of us here will be pleased to donate if you need a defence fund, because we're with you, 100%.
Posted by: Richard Harris, FCD | August 22, 2007 4:39 AM
Publicity stunt. Dismissed with prejudice. You and your Trophy Wife can still retire to the Hamptons. Skatje can still wear Abercrombie And Fitch. Kidding, but I'm sorry this nonsense has to take up the time you could have spent blogging and distracting me from work. Even if your opponent has no case, this will suck for you. It is a damn shame that lesser minds can conspire to detract you from your mission of educating the masses.
Posted by: Hepatitis_B_Good | August 22, 2007 5:11 AM
If he needs a defense fund than we're in worse trouble, courtwise, than any of us ever thught.
phat
Posted by: phat | August 22, 2007 5:13 AM
Two nations separated by a common language. Given what it is possible to call someone in this fine language of ours, crackpot is very, very mild. It's the kind of word an aunt uses to a child, or was in the England in which I grew up. Even qualified by 'classical', it's still a no-chili statement. Garth's 'complete and utter - sorry, this arbiter of English insults says it's not a $15, far mes a $15M insult. And words tend to lose what barbs they possess with use and familiarity.
There is only one insult in the English language which can have no frivolous or humourous meaning attached. And it ain't crackpot: it starts with same letter as...Pivar, PZ.
Get over yourself Mr Pivar. Have a thundering good fart (in the bath if you like), get some of the hot air out of you.
Posted by: lunartalks | August 22, 2007 6:20 AM
Your lawyer should have a fun time with this one! There is no libel/slander lawsuit in this. This is covered by "Fair comment and criticism" (which means anything produced for the public can be commented upon and criticized) and the precendent case is "The Cherry Sisters" or "Cherry v. Des Moines Leader." (Here is the Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_Sisters.)
He wrote the book, you did a review. Enough said.
Any good journalist knows this, as would any media lawyer.
Posted by: Grace | August 22, 2007 6:33 AM
Pivar is a classical crackpot. Sue me.
Posted by: blorf | August 22, 2007 6:36 AM
I'm just imagining a google bomb for the word crackpot.
Posted by: craig | August 22, 2007 6:51 AM
Science crackpot, legal crackpot... Pivar reminds me of his own balloon animals, all whiny plastic around some hot air.
Hmm. Could sue baiting repeatedly bomb a justice obsession syndrome sufferer to oblivion?
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | August 22, 2007 7:06 AM
This is the really absurd thing, though - to be Spartacus, everyone shouldn't be saying Pivar is an idiot, they should be saying that his book is a piece of crap. I just re-read the review, and not once did PZ attack Pivar himself, or call him names, or insinuate anything about his personal intelligence. He kept all of his criticisms to the book itself. So the suit has even less to stand on than it seems. He didn't say "Pivar's an idiot who wrote a crappy book", he said "Gee, what a crappy book, and here's exactly why it's crappy".
If that could go through, then I can go back and sue my college English Comp teacher for every B paper I got.
Posted by: Carlie | August 22, 2007 7:18 AM
Wow, PZ has the wildest menagerie of personal enemies! I mean, talk about variety! There are the creationist-museum-curators-turned-tax-felon-types, the fanatic Christian terrorists running from the law, the spoiled-little-rich-kid Christian SciFi writers working at their daddy's paper... and now a leisure-class septuagenarian Manhattan socialite drama queen!
This is a shallow, shallow man, who clearly doesn't grasp the concept that the sun doesn't shine out his withered asshole. Check out this puff piece in the New York Times. "Caught in Amber" indeed. Clearly, a man of his stature is accustomed to different treatment than what his book received from PZ. Stuart Pivar is a deeply vain old coot, who has spent a lifetime desperately trying to culture the affectations of a batty Upper East Side blue blood - and succeeded. After decades of surrounding himself with mewling sycophants, he's managed to develop some remarkably thin skin to criticism, and at the same time convince himself he's something of an unassailable genius in all fields he deigns to pursue. From this Lifecode incident, one can surmise the following:
a) It's easy to convince people in his social bubble that an extrusion engineer who hasn't done a lick of scientific work for decades is still legitimately a "scientist", and should be referred to as "doctor".
b) Manhattan art majors cann't tell the difference between 1950's plastics extrusion engineering and 21st century evolutionary biology.
c) He expects the same level of whim-worshipping from the rest of the world as he gets from his store-bought art friends.
The fun has just started. As this stunt gains more publicity, he will catch a lot of grief from the same scientific community he wanted so badly to impress. For a man in his Winter Years who is so keenly obsessed with image, this was not a smart move.
Posted by: j.t.delaney | August 22, 2007 7:37 AM
I'd have agreed with you closely enough--before Pivar sued. Now that Pivar's filing a lawsuit over what was in essence nothing more than a couple of bad reviews is such a monumentally frivolous and stupid (not to mention vindictive) thing to do that it is unequivocal evidence that Pivar is an idiot and a crank, and I think it's now appropriate to call him one.
Posted by: Orac | August 22, 2007 8:07 AM
"Every time I see an example of something that is better than what I own, I buy it," he said. "Otherwise for the rest of my life I have to live with the knowledge that someplace in the world something is floating around that is better than mine, and that's intolerable."
I know exactly how he feels.
No, wait a second. No I don't.
Posted by: MartinC | August 22, 2007 8:09 AM
Can anyone explain the (undoubtedly twisted) logic behind the assault claim? How can assault occur without physical contact?
Posted by: xebecs | August 22, 2007 8:48 AM
Hell, even I'll back PZ on this one.
Posted by: Raging Braytard | August 22, 2007 8:48 AM
Your minions stand ready to do your bidding, evil master.
Posted by: aiabx | August 22, 2007 8:54 AM
Since this Pivar guy thinks that calling him a crackpot is some big crime, I think some Cafepress goodies are in order. Is he going to sue several dozen people for wearing "Stuart Pivar is a flaming crackpot" hoodies?
We need to break out Photoshop and see what kind of gear we can come up with. Maybe a sweatshirt featuring a picture of Stuart trying to fend off an angry cephalopod with a copy of his silly book. Or maybe some LOLPivar stuff. Like a photoshop picture of Stuart standing next to Gould's grave and a caption saying, "I CAN HAS UR REPUTATION?".
Posted by: Boosterz | August 22, 2007 8:57 AM
The "assault" claim, I think, is only there because the applicable law groups it with the other charges.
Posted by: PZ Myers | August 22, 2007 8:58 AM
PZ,
At least, this should help you become a household name.
Posted by: ancientTechie | August 22, 2007 8:58 AM
Xebecs, I believe you're thinking of battery. Assault (in the US, anyway) is usually defined as the threat of violence, whereas battery is the actual, you know... battering. Either way, it's just weird to include "assault" in the long list of heinous acts committed by PZ when he dared express his informed opinion.
Posted by: Kseniya | August 22, 2007 9:25 AM
Boosterz, the mental image of that lolPivar made me laugh so loud the person in the office next door heard me!
Posted by: Carlie | August 22, 2007 9:27 AM
With some PYGMIES + DWARFS at the bottom pointing at Pivar saying "classic crackpot".
Posted by: blf | August 22, 2007 9:42 AM
Carlie, yeah. :-)
Nice аnalysis by J.T. Ok maybe "nice" is the wrong word... Expect a lawsuit any day now.
(Filter note: I couldn't post this with "analysis" enclosed in the [a] tag - another instance of the spam/porn filter catching embedded badwords (in this case, "anal") in hyperlinks. Once again, the cyrillic alphabet comes to the rescue.)
Posted by: Kseniya | August 22, 2007 9:45 AM
Oops, and I blew the link anyway, LOL. I meant comment #77, above.
Posted by: Kseniyadayada | August 22, 2007 9:46 AM
To let him win would be a Pivartion of justice.
Posted by: lunartalks | August 22, 2007 9:49 AM
There once was a nutball named Pivar
Who got himself into a fever,
Rejecting modern evolution,
He went with the Goethean solution:
In homunculi he's a believer.
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 22, 2007 9:56 AM
You made slashdot, PZ! Now you're definitely going to be a household name in Mom's basements across the country!
Posted by: Doug Dang | August 22, 2007 9:56 AM
While I am presently unemployed, I will certainly donate whatever I can, if it comes to that.
Posted by: Rich | August 22, 2007 10:09 AM
How can assault occur without physical contact?
Assault can take the form of threat-making. For example, pointing a .45 at someone doesn't require physical contact, either, but it's definitely assault (according to my modest criminal record)
I believe you can also commit assault by threatening someone over the Internet. Be careful out there.
mjr.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | August 22, 2007 10:30 AM
Just another voice of support, and encouragement for whatever countersuits/anti-frivolous-suit-actions are appropriate. I couldn't type much more anyway, what with the convulsive giggling fits and all.
Posted by: rrt | August 22, 2007 10:52 AM
I think if people are going to do the Spartacus thing they should do it at their own risk from their own blogs or web sites, and not post anonymous remarks which PZ and Seed could get the blame for hosting.
Posted by: steve_h | August 22, 2007 10:59 AM
There are a few misconceptions, though not terribly important ones, hanging around here. (IAAL, though there are a bunch of other lawyers commenting about this here and elsewhere who have more expertise in this area of the law than I do.)
First, Pivar's suit, at least as it is described in his Complaint, is not based on the fact that P.Z. gave his book two negative reviews. According to the Complaint, the entire suit is based on the fact that P.Z. called Pivar "a classic crackpot." That's it. At least as far as Pivar's claim is concerned, forget the reviews--those three words are the only thing Pivar has brought to the court as P.Z.'s horrendous wrongdoing.
(Of course, it's no mystery what is actually motivating Pivar here, and the judge will probably have little trouble figuring out the relevance of P.Z.'s reviews to the offense Pivar took.)
Second, Pivar's Complaint does not accuse P.Z., or anyone, of assault. The Complaint never mentions assault. The only place "assault" came up was on the website of the New York federal court in which this was filed; that site listed the chapter of the New York statutes in which libel (Pivar's central accusation) is defined. A different section of that same chapter happens to deal with assault, so the title of the chapter, which made its way onto the court's website on the listing for this case, includes "assault." It appears that that listing has confused some people.
That is often an important question, yes, but I'm getting the sense (mainly from lawyers commenting on other blogs--litigators who have lots more experience in defamation law than I do) thatFinally, re Texas Reader: