Dawkins sued for libel

[Seth]

Well, there's not a chance of me accepting any of your advice and there's not a chance you have any way of silencing me either. Whether it is well intended or not, I have a right to say what I like.

Um, there's that fool of a lawyer talking again. Have you really not figured out that you actually DO NOT "have a right to say what [you] like?" Have you actually read the UK's defamation laws?

There is nothing which prevents me from writing about information that is currently in the public domain.

Sure there is, if, in the context in which you use it, you violate UK tort law by defaming someone or using that information to intentionally inflict emotional distress. You need to consult with an actual lawyer sometime so he can pound that fact into your head.

Were there a person willing, they could receive a copy of all of the evidence on file for the case by making an application to the Royal Courts of Justice.

If I gave a flying fuck about the case, I would do so. I don't. I'm merely criticizing your statements in this forum based on the evidence you yourself have provided. You barged in here proclaiming your innocence and victimhood status and expected everyone to just mindlessly agree with you. Well surprise, surprise, you've succumbed to unrealistic expectations and now you're making things worse for yourself by trying to defend your actions by admitting your actions.

I'm merely pointing out one line of legal attack that the Plaintiff's lawyers will certainly pursue in the case. You might want to take advantage and learn something instead of sticking to the false notion that you know everything about everything. If I can whip your ass with my legal acumen, which is not inconsiderable but hardly comprehensive, a good lawyer is going to take your blog and shove it right up your ass in court. Don't say I didn't tell you so.

Considering that my blog exists as a way of expressing my feelings about the case, and not engaging with the evidence, I do not think I am harming my case considering my belief that it is vexatious and frivolous.

There's that fool of a client talking again. Every word you write goes to motive and intent. Don't be a dumbass, STFU about your case.

You are, of course, very welcome here, but I again suggest that you belt up about your case before you blow it completely.

See above.

Ibid.

[vjohn82]

You're funny Seth. Maybe you can help with my case considering that you are a ready made depository of legal knowledge. Why bother taking advice from established libel lawyers in this country, just contact Seth.

No matter that he doesn't live in the country where the libel laws are so complex that Dr. Simon Singh has stated that is is more difficult than particle physics...

Seth has it all worked out

[vjohn82]

Sure there is, if, in the context in which you use it, you violate UK tort law by defaming someone or using that information to intentionally inflict emotional distress. You need to consult with an actual lawyer sometime so he can pound that fact into your head.

Good thing that I know the context was valid then.

If I gave a flying fuck about the case, I would do so. I don't. I'm merely criticizing your statements in this forum based on the evidence you yourself have provided. You barged in here proclaiming your innocence and victimhood status and expected everyone to just mindlessly agree with you. Well surprise, surprise, you've succumbed to unrealistic expectations and now you're making things worse for yourself by trying to defend your actions by admitting your actions.

I know you don't give a flying fuck about the case; you're more interested in attacking me and my blog than understanding the case. Your lack of understanding is what lets you down the most. Many people have looked at the same information you have, religious and non-religious alike, and do not agree with you. That's not an indication of the outcome of this case, and I would not claim it to be either, but it's a good indication for me that you are full of shit.

And I haven't defended my actions to anyone on here; how can I defend something I am not able to reveal. Again, so it goes through your thick skull, the purpose of me being here was to stop speculation about the other defendants who shouldn't, by due process, even be involved in the case.

I'm merely pointing out one line of legal attack that the Plaintiff's lawyers will certainly pursue in the case.

Your lack of knowledge knows no bounds. If you had read my blog, you would know that the claimant is representing himself. It seems to me that either the cost was prohibitive, despite CFAs being available, or no lawyer wanted to touch the case. Either way, you have also missed that the claimant is alleged to have reported the details of the case first and many months before I mentioned anything.

You might want to take advantage and learn something instead of sticking to the false notion that you know everything about everything.

Where have I made that claim? I'm know less and less about more and more every day. I'm honest enough to admit when I'm out of my depth. You pose as a legal know it all when you haven't even grasped the nuances of the case you are arguing about. Even simple details such as accusing me of naming the school the claimant's kids went were attributed to me. If you proposed that in a court of law on behalf of the claimant you would be sacked as counsel because you made it up. When challenged you backtracked and then tried to blame me for someone else writing about it. Incredible stuff really. You really have a marvellous capacity for solid, logical thinking.

There's that fool of a client talking again. Every word you write goes to motive and intent. Don't be a dumbass, STFU about your case.

Or else what? You'll send the thugs around?

Moron.

[apophenia]

Never mind that, there's more than one john in this city lady.

You know, I think you're right. I expect we'll be seeing more johns in the months ahead.

Bahahahahahahahaha.

[Seth]

Sure there is, if, in the context in which you use it, you violate UK tort law by defaming someone or using that information to intentionally inflict emotional distress. You need to consult with an actual lawyer sometime so he can pound that fact into your head.

Good thing that I know the context was valid then.

If I gave a flying fuck about the case, I would do so. I don't. I'm merely criticizing your statements in this forum based on the evidence you yourself have provided. You barged in here proclaiming your innocence and victimhood status and expected everyone to just mindlessly agree with you. Well surprise, surprise, you've succumbed to unrealistic expectations and now you're making things worse for yourself by trying to defend your actions by admitting your actions.

I know you don't give a flying fuck about the case; you're more interested in attacking me and my blog than understanding the case.

I'm only interested in two aspects of your case: First, the idiocy of acting as your own lawyer and arguing your case on line; and your reprehensible, disgusting, cruel, unnecessary, bigoted, prejudiced and dangerous deliberate and intentional attack upon the man's children. There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for mentioning the children. They are completely innocent and your motives are obvious and suspect, as I have noted in detail. You went beyond the pale of civilized on-line conduct there, and you deserve to be slapped down hard for doing it, and I hope you are, and anything I can do to facilitate your being slapped down hard will be to my credit.

This has nothing whatever to do with religion, atheism or anything but your own admitted misbehavior regarding the children, which is something that society should never tolerate for a moment.

Your lack of understanding is what lets you down the most.

If I have a "misunderstanding" it's because you're being cryptic, coy, mendacious and evasive. I'm happy with my understanding based on your own words.

Many people have looked at the same information you have, religious and non-religious alike, and do not agree with you.

Many people are ignorant, unperceptive and fail to understand the REAL wrong that you did in this case. Many people are also anti-religious bigots and zealots who are just as determined as you are to ignore the evil that you did because it happened to be directed at a theist. I really don't care what "many people" think, I care about revealing and analyzing and criticizing the truth, which you yourself have admitted to. The rest is political theater and I don't give a damn about it.

That's not an indication of the outcome of this case, and I would not claim it to be either, but it's a good indication for me that you are full of shit.

I'm not the one being sued for defamation, now am I? That says something important about who's "full of shit" here if you have the wit to understand it. I've never been sued for libel, and I never will be, because I know the limits of the law and I abide by them.

And I haven't defended my actions to anyone on here; how can I defend something I am not able to reveal.

Oh please, from the very beginning of your participation here you've been sucking up to atheists in hope of getting a little sympathy. Your blog exudes self-righteous indignation that you got called on your misbehavior, and your little "thank you" note confirms that the blog is just a narcissistic little vanity blog you put up because you're lonely, scared and alone in your battle against the big evil theist. Give me a fucking break. Nut up and act like a man for once.

Again, so it goes through your thick skull, the purpose of me being here was to stop speculation about the other defendants who shouldn't, by due process, even be involved in the case.

Failed miserably there, didn't you?

I'm merely pointing out one line of legal attack that the Plaintiff's lawyers will certainly pursue in the case.

Your lack of knowledge knows no bounds. If you had read my blog, you would know that the claimant is representing himself.

So? Don't try a "two fools makes a wise man" fallacy here, bucko. He's an idiot too, but that's not really relevant, since he's the injured party, and you're the one who injured him.

It seems to me that either the cost was prohibitive, despite CFAs being available, or no lawyer wanted to touch the case.

You really know NOTHING about lawyers, do you? There is no such thing as a case no lawyer will touch.

Either way, you have also missed that the claimant is alleged to have reported the details of the case first and many months before I mentioned anything.

Who cares? What the hell does that do by way of defending your misbehavior involving his kids or your stupidity in acting as your own lawyer?

You might want to take advantage and learn something instead of sticking to the false notion that you know everything about everything.

Where have I made that claim?

Er, it oozes from every post. But to be specific, here's a little tidbit that constitutes the most serious of your intellectual failings: "Whether it is well intended or not, I have a right to say what I like." Again, here's a clue: No, you don't. Not here in America and certainly not in the UK. Until you understand that, and why it is that you don't have such a right, you're headed for disaster unless you hire a competent attorney to defend you.

I'm know less and less about more and more every day. I'm honest enough to admit when I'm out of my depth.

I see absolutely no evidence of the truth of this statement because you've been out of your depth since you began your little vendetta without knowing it, and now your ignorance is coming back to bite you in the ass, big time. Welcome to reality, it's a bitch.

You pose as a legal know it all when you haven't even grasped the nuances of the case you are arguing about.

I don't know it all, but I know reprehensible tortious behavior when I see it, and you're a classic case.

Even simple details such as accusing me of naming the school the claimant's kids went were attributed to me. If you proposed that in a court of law on behalf of the claimant you would be sacked as counsel because you made it up. When challenged you backtracked and then tried to blame me for someone else writing about it. Incredible stuff really. You really have a marvellous capacity for solid, logical thinking.

I didn't "blame" anyone, I stated a fact, and I retracted and corrected an error and then connected the dots correctly. Without your tortious interference with McGrath and his children, their school would never have been revealed, so you are to blame, quite directly.

There's that fool of a client talking again. Every word you write goes to motive and intent. Don't be a dumbass, STFU about your case.

Or else what? You'll send the thugs around?

No, or else you're going to take it up the ass, good and hard, in court. You still can't even comprehend that I'm doing you a favor by recommending that you STFU about your case in this forum. That's a really dense thing to do.

Moron.

You certainly are.

[charlou]

But having discovered this forum I am sure I would like to contribute here, particularly because it is more user friendly than RD.net.

Welcome to ratz ... no matter how you find us.

[vjohn82]

I'm not the one being sued for defamation, now am I? That says something important about who's "full of shit" here if you have the wit to understand it. I've never been sued for libel, and I never will be, because I know the limits of the law and I abide by them.

Same here. That's sort of the point. But again, you're not grasping it. I can see that you're a guy who can mouth off with righteous indignation but struggles with the nuances of an argument. My words were not libellous. But the claimant is suing anyway. Ergo, I shouldn't be in court regardless of how my character is perceived.

He's an idiot too, but that's not really relevant, since he's the injured party, and you're the one who injured him.

Again, you are assuming he was injured. My point is that my words were the truth and, like it or not, that is a full defence under UK libel laws.

Without your tortious interference with McGrath and his children, their school would never have been revealed, so you are to blame, quite directly.

Nope, still wrong. I didn't know where his kids went to school. I never mentioned his kids school either. That you have harped on about it could place them in danger of some nutcase. So if blame is being thrown about, the person shouting from the rooftops about it can be squarely blamed more than someone who never mentioned it. Therefore should any harm come to them, all fingers can be pointed at you. Hope you're happy with your "reprehensible, disgusting, cruel, unnecessary, bigoted, prejudiced and dangerous deliberate and intentional attack upon the man's children".

I think I now have the cut of your jib to be honest Seth. Having read your own posts and the vitriol you clearly hold it's evident that you have embarrassed yourself to some extent with your over dramatization of the reality of the event, based on your lack of knowledge of the case, your hatred towards Atheists and your schoolboy lawyer assertions which I have already shown, on two of three occasions now, are entirely wrong.

But the naming of the kids schools is just one of a number of examples of flawed thinking. For example:

You really know NOTHING about lawyers, do you? There is no such thing as a case no lawyer will touch.

Maybe in the US, but not in the UK. I could explain why you are wrong of course but then you wouldn't understand.

So whilst it would be entertaining to sit and read your keyboard thrashing for a little while longer I suspect that, as you have kids to attend to that need your loving, caring, honourable and undivided attention, my situation is clearly keeping you from this task; no mean feat considering that you don't give a "flying fuck about the case".

[Horwood Beer-Master]

not sure... though I'm a lot more interested in looking at the god delusion than at the selfish gene... the latter, from what i've heard, would tend to make you believe in ID.

From my reading The Selfish Gene is of no comfort to ID, but social Darwinists and sociobiologists probably like it.

Sociobiologists maybe, but I'm not sure why social Darwinists would like it (unless they'd read it by title only)

...Oh and there's more… believe me, there's more… You just wouldn't believe how daft Richard can be if he puts his mind to it...

Well, that's public school for you.

...He didn't even bother to look at the science sections on his old forum - spending most of his time in the Richard Dawkins section and the General Discussion section...

...And once, fatefully, the Veterans section.

[lordpasternack]

...Oh and there's more… believe me, there's more… You just wouldn't believe how daft Richard can be if he puts his mind to it...

Well, that's public school for you.

Boarding school, no less, and he's a country bumpkin, and I would be honestly surprised if he has ever had a job outside of academia.

...He didn't even bother to look at the science sections on his old forum - spending most of his time in the Richard Dawkins section and the General Discussion section...

...And once, fatefully, the Veterans section.

And I love how he and others used situations that were symptomatic of their utter neglect of the forum, and how they knew fuck all about it - as a rationale to dissolve the entire forum - including all the valuable and commendable bits that they'd also neglected and knew fuck all about till the end.

[Seth]

I'm not the one being sued for defamation, now am I? That says something important about who's "full of shit" here if you have the wit to understand it. I've never been sued for libel, and I never will be, because I know the limits of the law and I abide by them.

Same here. That's sort of the point. But again, you're not grasping it. I can see that you're a guy who can mouth off with righteous indignation but struggles with the nuances of an argument. My words were not libellous. But the claimant is suing anyway. Ergo, I shouldn't be in court regardless of how my character is perceived.

But we don't know that because you're concealing the actual words you used. You are expecting us to take your word for it, and I see no reason to do so. I know nothing about you other than what YOU have provided by way of evidence in your blog and your claims here, and from that information I have gleaned the following:

In my opinion, for reasons which you announced in your blog having to do with your hatred of religion and religious "indoctrination," you set out on an atheistic vendetta against the author of a religiously-oriented book. In so doing you went beyond all reasonable bounds of propriety and civilized behavior in tracking down and outing the author, who had chosen to protect his privacy by using a pseudonym. As a part of your vendetta you engaged in tortious conduct towards two children by using them as "bait" in an attempt to draw out the person you thought was the author of the book. You showed up here pleading oppression because you are included in a libel lawsuit under UK law, and you maintain that your words were not libelous, yet you refuse to reveal those words here so that we can judge for ourselves.

In my opinion, this smacks of self-serving propaganda as a part of a public campaign not only intended to defend your position and further defame the plaintiff by alleging that he is unfairly suing you, but also a sub-rosa continuation of the attack on the author and a bald-faced attempt to generate outrage among the Atheist community which, again in my opinion, you hope will end up with others applying pressure on the courts and/or government and/or directly harassing the plaintiff in this lawsuit in hopes that he will drop the case if sufficient threat and opprobrium is brought to bear.

When I combine your claims, your deviousness and refusal to provide probative evidence, the weight of evidence that you have perhaps inadvertently supplied that speaks against you, I find your complaint, again in my opinion, to be self-serving, arrogant, intolerant and more than just a little stupid, given your legal position. I find no reason to give you the benefit of the doubt, and I believe it is entirely likely that you have defamed and libeled the plaintiff, and his children, according to UK law, and that you deserve to be punished by having to pay substantial damages for your actions.

He's an idiot too, but that's not really relevant, since he's the injured party, and you're the one who injured him.

Again, you are assuming he was injured. My point is that my words were the truth and, like it or not, that is a full defence under UK libel laws.

There's that fool of a client talking again. I suggest you re-read the law, or better yet, have an attorney read it for you. But, if you're correct, you have nothing to worry about, do you? You'll get your day in court.

Without your tortious interference with McGrath and his children, their school would never have been revealed, so you are to blame, quite directly.

Nope, still wrong. I didn't know where his kids went to school. I never mentioned his kids school either.

Merely revealing their names was the direct tortious harm. At the time you did it, you did not know they were the children of your target. You used them in an egregiously selfish and narcissistic manner to forward your vendetta without knowing that they were his kids. And even if they are his kids, you had absolutely no justification whatsoever for embroiling them in your deranged little vendetta. That act alone is evil, cruel and reprehensible and I'm pretty certain it's "intentional infliction of emotional distress" under UK law, and I hope their father amends the lawsuit to include the new claim, or perhaps files a second lawsuit against you only for that disgusting act. That their school came out is clearly your fault, but it's also someone else's fault, and they should be sued as well.

You don't seem to be able to comprehend this simple fact: You had NO RIGHT to involve anyone's children in this dispute. None whatsoever. I don't care about your atheistic obsession with attacking the author of a religious book you don't like, but I care deeply about someone who is deranged enough to hunt down and put INNOCENT CHILDREN at risk in a self-serving display of utter disregard for all bounds of fair comment and propriety. Your excuses and rationalizations are weak and lame and they demonstrate that you have no remorse whatsoever for endangering children, and I find that nauseating, and would find it nauseating even if I fully agreed with your claim that you are being unfairly sued for libel, which I might, if I knew what you actually said. But no matter what you actually said, what you DID, and what you ADMITTED DOING in your blog, which is forever preserved here (and in my personal files if McG should need it) was to place children at risk for your own selfish reasons and without any legal, moral or ethical justification.

I think I now have the cut of your jib to be honest Seth. Having read your own posts and the vitriol you clearly hold it's evident that you have embarrassed yourself to some extent with your over dramatization of the reality of the event, based on your lack of knowledge of the case, your hatred towards Atheists and your schoolboy lawyer assertions which I have already shown, on two of three occasions now, are entirely wrong.

You still don't get it, this has nothing to do with religion or atheism or lawyers, it has to do with common decency, which you seem to be lacking. I don't hate atheists, I just find you, specifically and in particular to be a despicable and reprehensible example of atheistic zealotry because you USED INNOCENT CHILDREN as pawns in your vendetta. It was a cowardly, cruel and evil thing to do, and the fact that you can't understand or recognize that fact demonstrates that you are not to be trusted, so I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt on your other claims. I would be saying exactly the same thing about McGrath if HE had used YOUR children as pawns against YOU. Do you understand now? How many more times do I have to say it before it seeps into your skull?

This needs to be said, and repeated, for as long as you refuse to recognize the wrong you have perpetrated against those children. And I will do so, until you shut the fuck up about it.

[lordpasternack]

Seth is quite funny when you get him, actually.

[vjohn82]

Seth; still desperate for me to produce evidence which I have stated I cannot do. Notice his disproportionately lengthy posts which, ironically, are marked against his previous statement that he does not care about the case at all.

This needs to be said, and repeated, for as long as you refuse to recognize the wrong you have perpetrated against those children. And I will do so, until you shut the fuck up about it.

Appeal to emotion... fallacy.

No wrong was committed in repeating information already in the public domain. No cause of action in a court of law. I can't explain why right now because it's part of my evidence but I don't need your approval Seth. You also fail to recognise that your rant against me, along with all of your accusations, allegations and insults have actually gone far beyond what your have asserted should be reasonable.

Either way, you do not affect, on any level, the outcome of the case. So you can speculate as much as you like because I'm comfortable with the arguments I have put forward in my case. I have also stated, quite clearly, that my blog exists ONLY because the claimant, in the guise of a sock puppet, was writing information about the future case to be presented and a one sided account. I have a right of reply whether you like it or not.

(and in my personal files if McG should need it)

Pointless though. Entirely pointless.

I think we're done?

[charlou]

I think we're done?

Up to you, really.

[vjohn82]

Well there's no point in arguing with Seth. His mind is made up.

I would have to produce evidence to change his opinion. I'm not prepared to do that so we are in a kind of Mexican stand-off.

So yes, I'm done with Seth. But it is funny to imagine him bashing his keyboard in frustration. Maybe he wants to get a point across which I am missing entirely... but I don't think so. I have mulled it over a little, asked other people what they thought. I'm left with the conclusions that I started out with.

[lordpasternack]

John, as I said earlier - Seth is a provocateur. No-one knows where the real Seth ends and his devil's advocate persona begins. It's what he is. He is rhetorical and contrary, he pushes buttons, borders on trolling. Don't take him seriously. Don't take his persona at face-value. Respond to his arguments, but don't presume that it really is 'him' speaking.