Dawkins sued for libel

[charlou]

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.

A bit like Exi5, eh? ... or not, if you're not inclined to make the same allowances, I suppose.

[charlou]

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

I've found that to be the case in all my encounters with him, yes. Either that, or points are ignored.

Much of a muchness, really.

[vjohn82]

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.

Sage advice

[lordpasternack]

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

I've found that to be the case in all my encounters with him, yes. Either that, or points are ignored.

Much of a muchness, really.

A bit like Exi5, eh? ... or not, if you're not inclined to make the same allowances, I suppose.

As for Exi5 - the evidence doesn't bear out.

[vjohn82]

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

I've found that to be the case in all my encounters with him, yes. Either that, or points are ignored.

Much of a muchness, really.

Quite.

Seth has my pity for only not understanding irony when it slaps him in the face. He is missing out on a world of satire.

[lordpasternack]

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

I've found that to be the case in all my encounters with him, yes. Either that, or points are ignored.

Much of a muchness, really.

Quite.

Seth has my pity for only not understanding irony when it slaps him in the face. He is missing out on a world of satire.

Or he is living, breathing satire. A Poe within a Poe.

[charlou]

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

I've found that to be the case in all my encounters with him, yes. Either that, or points are ignored.

Much of a muchness, really.

Quite.

Seth has my pity for only not understanding irony when it slaps him in the face. He is missing out on a world of satire.

Kinda self perpetuating world view, really.

[Seth]

Seth; still desperate for me to produce evidence which I have stated I cannot do.

Then why the fuck did you show up here whining about being mistreated by the legal system? Don't answer, that's a rhetorical question and I'll tell you why, as I've told you before, you came here to garner sympathy and further disparage and harass the plaintiff by firing up the radical Atheist base so they will heap opprobrium upon your enemy and even potentially physically harass him into dropping his suit. You expected to be welcomed with open arms and lots of sympathy at this supposed miscarriage of justice, and to your dismay you've discovered that we're (or at least I) are not patsies or credulous fools to accept what you say without critical review, which has revealed your feet of clay and your disgusting, reprehensible behavior towards innocent children.

Notice his disproportionately lengthy posts which, ironically, are marked against his previous statement that he does not care about the case at all.

I don't care about your libel case, I care about protecting the children you endangered and harassed.

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, statement of fact and intention.

No wrong was committed in repeating information already in the public domain.

You're so deep in delusional denial and atheistic hatred that you cannot even see, much less admit the wrong you perpetrated against the innocent children.

No cause of action in a court of law.

Sez you. McGrath might have a different opinion.

I can't explain why right now because it's part of my evidence but I don't need your approval Seth.

How conveeeeenient for you. Sorry, you're the one who broached the subject, and until you provide credible evidence to the contrary I'm going to continue to berate you for your reprehensible conduct towards McGrath's children, who you had no right and no reason to involve in your deranged little vendetta.

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.

I'm not accusing you, I'm analyzing the facts that you yourself posted on your blog, and I'm rendering a judgment about your behavior, something I'm perfectly entitled to do according to US libel law. It's you who are perpetuating this matter by denying that you did wrong to those children and continuing to attempt to evade responsibility for that wrong. STFU about your case and this colloquy will end. Until then I'm going to continue to point out your wrongdoing.

Either way, you do not affect, on any level, the outcome of the case.

Which case? Your libel case? Who cares? A new case alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress that I hope McGrath files against you for your wrongdoing against his children? Who knows? Still, it's worth staying on your sorry ass until you admit that you had no legitimate reason or right to involve his children in this matter.

So you can speculate as much as you like because I'm comfortable with the arguments I have put forward in my case.

It's not "speculation," it's analysis of YOUR OWN WORDS and actions. You provided the evidence I'm using against you. That was imprudent and foolish, much like your coming here to whine and bitch about being sued and expecting everybody to sympathize with you.

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.

Who cares why you put it up? Legally speaking, it was a stupid thing to do, as any competent lawyer will tell you.

I have a right of reply whether you like it or not.

Of course you do, I've never denied that you do, no matter how stupid and foolish you are for doing so. I'm merely pointing out that you're not doing your own case any favors by doing so, as demonstrated by the fact that you put forth, in writing, admissions of tortious conduct against McGrath's children, and the precise circumstances and your motives for doing so, that give rise to the distinct, and I hope fulfilled, threat of ANOTHER lawsuit against you for intentional infliction of emotional distress on behalf of his children.

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

Pointless though. Entirely pointless.

I think we're done?

Bud, you were done when you let your ego get away from your common sense and you started trying to try your case on the Internet. I've been trying to tell you that for some time, but you're evidently too egotistical to even recognize good advice when it's given to you.

Do as you please, but as long as you keep whining about being mistreated by the UK's legal system, I'm going to point out your malfeasance in regard to McGrath's children because THEY deserve an advocate in this mess, which YOU created, and YOU deserve to be held accountable for your reprehensible actions against them.

[Seth]

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.

"Bordering on trolling?" Now I AM insulted...I'm the GrandMaster Zen Troll and you'd best not forget it, otherwise I'll have to (not) give you a good spanking, young lady!

[Seth]

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

I've found that to be the case in all my encounters with him, yes. Either that, or points are ignored.

Much of a muchness, really.

Quite.

Seth has my pity for only not understanding irony when it slaps him in the face. He is missing out on a world of satire.

Actually, satire is my life's blood, and it's you who doesn't recognize when he's being satirized. It's pretty ironic, actually.

[Seth]

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

I've found that to be the case in all my encounters with him, yes. Either that, or points are ignored.

Much of a muchness, really.

Quite.

Seth has my pity for only not understanding irony when it slaps him in the face. He is missing out on a world of satire.

Or he is living, breathing satire. A Poe within a Poe.

Ah, my darling girl...so perceptive, so pulchritudinous...

[lordpasternack]

Seth is flirting with me!

(And he used the word 'pulchritudinous' - which is one of the most unfitting words in the English language - in that it sounds like it could be a description of some suppurating infection, and actually means exceptionally beautiful. )

[Seth]

Seth is flirting with me!

(And he used the word 'pulchritudinous' - which is one of the most unfitting words in the English language - in that it sounds like it could be a description of some suppurating infection, and actually means exceptionally beautiful. )

Hey, I know a good thing when I see it... Have some Maderia, M'dear...

[vjohn82]

[vjohn82]

your deranged vendetta

Like you one you clearly have towards me you mean?

It's quote funny to see you going above and beyond to remonstrate with me.

STFU about your case and this colloquy will end.

Where here or elsewhere? I would dearly love another internet stalker.

As I said earlier on, your lack of knowledge of UK libel law, despite whatever morality tale you want to spin now, is pretty non-existent. So long as I acted within the law, that's should be enough.

But then someone who gets their morality from a biblical god who commits mass murder against his own children isn't expected to deal with the inner workings of the reality of law on this earth. It's very Christian of you to judge others in the manner you have done...

...and I'll keep saying, you are basing your entire assessment of the case based on the words you claim cannot be trusted anyway. Says more about you than me.

I suspect I'm being baited to say something actionable... I'm tempted.