Dawkins sued for libel

[Seth]

your deranged vendetta

Like you one you clearly have towards me you mean?

There's nothing deranged or vendetta-like about taking you to task for your malfeasances towards innocent children while you continue to deny and evade your culpability and responsibility for that reprehensible act. Nobody else cares to take you on, so I must perforce defend the rights and interests of the children.

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

I'm not the one being sued for libel, nor am I the one who was so obsessed with anti-theism to the extent that innocent children were made into "bait" and pawns in a deranged vendetta.

STFU about your case and this colloquy will end.

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

Just here, unless I happen across your maunderings elsewhere, which might give me the opportunity to remonstrate with you and show a whole new audience how delusional vendetta became and how much damage you caused as a result. That's the thing about free speech, you see. Just as YOU get to obsessively stalk people you think are your enemies, other people get to obsessively stalk you. Sauce, goose, gander.

I, however, am not stalking you, I'm merely rebutting and criticizing your posts here in this forum, and I was here first, so I get to do that.

But I do see some justice in the potential for some equally deranged religious zealot "stalking" you and doing things that make your life hell as payback for your reprehensible antisocial behavior. Oh, wait, somebody's ALREADY doing that!

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.

Well, time will tell, won't it? That's the thing about amateur lawyers defending themselves, they often think they know what the law is, and they are usually wrong.

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...

Er, I believe I already told you, I'm not a Christian, I'm a non-theistic Tolerist™. You don't get any tolerance from me because your actions were not peaceable, and I'm all about temporal retribution and punishment for wrongdoing. Jesus can judge you again later, but I'll judge you right now.

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

Er, I'm not making an assessment of "the case," a fact that I've repeatedly told you, which means that you're even more delusional than I first thought. I'm levying castigation, opprobrium and judgment upon you for your self-admitted wrongdoing towards the children. It's just that the mendacity and attitude of smug denial towards your self-admitted wrongdoing against innocent children leads me to also disbelieve your claims in re your innocence in the libel case, so I decline to give you the benefit of the doubt and insist that you provide the requisite evidence from which your claims can be judged by your peers here if you expect your claims to be given credence. You may choose not to provide that evidence, but in so doing, you leave yourself open to being judged on the evidence in the record, and your complaint that I'm not judging you fairly is rejected because you refuse to come clean and show us the evidence.

Says more about you than me.

It says I'm not a credulous fool who would believe whatever you say. It's called being skeptical and using reason and rationality to assess bald-faced unsubstantiated assertions, something that this particular forum is SUPPOSED to be, but is only rarely, about.

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

Trust me, you've ALREADY said something actionable. Not to worry though, I'm a big boy and I've taken shots from the very dregs of the Internet before without harm. You're an amateur at it I'm afraid.

[vjohn82]

There's nothing deranged or vendetta-like about taking you to task for your malfeasances towards innocent children while you continue to deny and evade your culpability and responsibility for that reprehensible act. Nobody else cares to take you on, so I must perforce defend the rights and interests of the children.

No apology is needed. And yes, you are on a vendetta; why else copy the text I write for later on or to pass onto the person suing me?

Well, time will tell, won't it? That's the thing about amateur lawyers defending themselves, they often think they know what the law is, and they are usually wrong.

The only person getting the law horribly wrong (UK wise) is you. Seriously, you should stick to something know. UK law is not it.

Trust me, you've ALREADY said something actionable.

I've not said a single thing actionable towards you.

[lordpasternack]

It's called being skeptical and using reason and rationality to assess bald-faced unsubstantiated assertions, something that this particular forum is SUPPOSED to be, but is only rarely, about.

I'll have to have words with Pappa about that. I thought this forum was supposed to be about cheese, puns, derails, drama, cleavage and full frontal nudity?

In all seriousness, this forum has no pretensions of being anything much more than a community of (mostly) atheists, and generally intelligent and interesting people. That's why it works, for the most part, for what it is. That's why we're one of the few forums out there ultimately willing to tolerate bastards like you.

[vjohn82]

[lordpasternack]

You've hardly poked your head into the rabbit hole, young padawan.

[Seth]

There's nothing deranged or vendetta-like about taking you to task for your malfeasances towards innocent children while you continue to deny and evade your culpability and responsibility for that reprehensible act. Nobody else cares to take you on, so I must perforce defend the rights and interests of the children.

No apology is needed. And yes, you are on a vendetta; why else copy the text I write for later on or to pass onto the person suing me?

ven·det·ta
noun \ven-ˈde-tə\
Definition of VENDETTA
1
: blood feud
2
: an often prolonged series of retaliatory, vengeful, or hostile acts or exchange of such acts.

Seeking justice for wronged children and preserving evidence which I fully believe you capable of trying to conceal is neither retaliatory (you haven't done anything to me), vengeful (I'm seeking justice, not vengance), nor hostile (holding you accountable for your own self-admitted actions is not a hostile act, it's an act of good citizenship).

Nice try though.

Well, time will tell, won't it? That's the thing about amateur lawyers defending themselves, they often think they know what the law is, and they are usually wrong.

The only person getting the law horribly wrong (UK wise) is you. Seriously, you should stick to something know. UK law is not it.

Pot, kettle, black.

Trust me, you've ALREADY said something actionable.

I've not said a single thing actionable towards you.

I didn't say you did, nor did you make that specification.

[Seth]

It's called being skeptical and using reason and rationality to assess bald-faced unsubstantiated assertions, something that this particular forum is SUPPOSED to be, but is only rarely, about.

I'll have to have words with Pappa about that. I thought this forum was supposed to be about cheese, puns, derails, drama, cleavage and full frontal nudity?

In all seriousness, this forum has no pretensions of being anything much more than a community of (mostly) atheists, and generally intelligent and interesting people. That's why it works, for the most part, for what it is. That's why we're one of the few forums out there ultimately willing to tolerate bastards like you.

Aw, sweetie, does that mean no knob-twiddling? I'm sorry...

[lordpasternack]

It's called being skeptical and using reason and rationality to assess bald-faced unsubstantiated assertions, something that this particular forum is SUPPOSED to be, but is only rarely, about.

I'll have to have words with Pappa about that. I thought this forum was supposed to be about cheese, puns, derails, drama, cleavage and full frontal nudity?

In all seriousness, this forum has no pretensions of being anything much more than a community of (mostly) atheists, and generally intelligent and interesting people. That's why it works, for the most part, for what it is. That's why we're one of the few forums out there ultimately willing to tolerate bastards like you.

Aw, sweetie, does that mean no knob-twiddling? I'm sorry...

Only in TITTL.

[Seth]

It's called being skeptical and using reason and rationality to assess bald-faced unsubstantiated assertions, something that this particular forum is SUPPOSED to be, but is only rarely, about.

I'll have to have words with Pappa about that. I thought this forum was supposed to be about cheese, puns, derails, drama, cleavage and full frontal nudity?

In all seriousness, this forum has no pretensions of being anything much more than a community of (mostly) atheists, and generally intelligent and interesting people. That's why it works, for the most part, for what it is. That's why we're one of the few forums out there ultimately willing to tolerate bastards like you.

Aw, sweetie, does that mean no knob-twiddling? I'm sorry...

Only in TITTL.

Dang! Oh well, I've got backup right here next to me. Maybe next time...

[vjohn82]

Perhaps you need reminding of your own words?

Trust me, you've ALREADY said something actionable. Not to worry though, I'm a big boy and I've taken shots from the very dregs of the Internet before without harm. You're an amateur at it I'm afraid.

You're inferring that something actionable has taken place which directly affects you, hence your comment that you will shrug it off.

Nice to see you quote the definition of "vendetta" - we can both play that game:

vendetta [vɛnˈdɛtə]
n
1. a private feud, originally between Corsican or Sicilian families, in which the relatives of a murdered person seek vengeance by killing the murderer or some member of his family
2. any prolonged feud, quarrel, etc.

It's clear you have a vendetta whether you realise it or not.? You've admitted as much yourself already.

[Seth]

Perhaps you need reminding of your own words?

Trust me, you've ALREADY said something actionable. Not to worry though, I'm a big boy and I've taken shots from the very dregs of the Internet before without harm. You're an amateur at it I'm afraid.

You're inferring that something actionable has taken place which directly affects you, hence your comment that you will shrug it off.

No, you're inferring something that was not implied. You have, however, incorrectly conflated two statements in reaching your erroneous conclusion.

Nice to see you quote the definition of "vendetta" - we can both play that game:

vendetta [vɛnˈdɛtə]
n
1. a private feud, originally between Corsican or Sicilian families, in which the relatives of a murdered person seek vengeance by killing the murderer or some member of his family
2. any prolonged feud, quarrel, etc.

It's clear you have a vendetta whether you realise it or not.? You've admitted as much yourself already.

It's neither a feud or a quarrel, I'm simply stating facts and rendering opinions and giving sage advice.

You give yourself too much credit, you're not that important.

[vjohn82]

No, you're inferring something that was not implied. You have, however, incorrectly conflated two statements in reaching your erroneous conclusion.

I asked a couple of friends to read your comment; one has just been awarded a scholarship to Cambridge University and the other recently completed his Masters Degree in English at Warwick.

I just posted the words, and not the preceding conversation. They were both of the opinion that the person who wrote the phrase was that they were accusing the person they were conversing with of saying something actionable, that the person was not bothered by it because they were experienced in taking insults from others and that the person who had insulted them was not that good with insults anyway, hence the "you're an amateur at it".

I trust their interpretation, and my own initial one, to say that you were clearly inferring that I had said something actionable towards you.

If this is not the case, why not simply clarify why you made the remark and what you meant by it? Surely that's the easiest thing to do?

[vjohn82]

It's neither a feud or a quarrel, I'm simply stating facts and rendering opinions and giving sage advice.

You give yourself too much credit, you're not that important.

I'm not give myself any credit; it's simply a statement that a person who is saving my conversations and words (on here and elsewhere) for use in litigation against me is clearly going a little bit beyond a simple disagreement.

Protest all you like, it's clear you are rattled with something I have done (wonder what that is...)

[Seth]

It's neither a feud or a quarrel, I'm simply stating facts and rendering opinions and giving sage advice.

You give yourself too much credit, you're not that important.

I'm not give myself any credit;

Of course you are. You're engaging in narcissistic sympathy-mongering from a group you thought would credit your statements without critical review.

it's simply a statement that a person who is saving my conversations and words (on here and elsewhere) for use in litigation against me is clearly going a little bit beyond a simple disagreement.

You harmed innocent children. I consider that to be an offense against humanity. Therefore it's my obligation to make sure that you don't get the chance to tamper with the evidence needed to convict you. It's just good citizenship.

Protest all you like, it's clear you are rattled with something I have done (wonder what that is...)

That you still "wonder what that is" after being explicitly told exactly what I'm concerned about half a dozen times or more simply highlights the narcissistic delusion you're laboring under.

[vjohn82]

Of course you are. You're engaging in narcissistic sympathy-mongering from a group you thought would credit your statements without critical review.

This is your assumption. I asked nothing of no-one here and even asked people to reserve judgement both on my blog and elsewhere. Why? Because I stated that this was my interpretation of events. You're incorrect.

You harmed innocent children. I consider that to be an offense against humanity. Therefore it's my obligation to make sure that you don't get the chance to tamper with the evidence needed to convict you. It's just good citizenship.

This is now a separate allegation. First you said I harmed the claimant with my words (which you still do not have evidence but which are part of the court record). Now you are saying the kids are actually harmed? You have some explaining to do...

Tamper with evidence? For what? It's part of the libel case you moron; didn't you read? All of the evidence the claimant has put forward is far more detailed and damning than I have mentioned (but in his interpretation). You've not even taken his argument at its highest level so what makes you think your argument about it means anything to me? Even if I was the sort of character to tamper with evidence, I couldn't do it simply because the evidence is part of the court record.

That you still "wonder what that is" after being explicitly told exactly what I'm concerned about half a dozen times or more simply highlights the narcissistic delusion you're laboring under.

You missed the sarcasm entirely. Brilliant. You're providing plenty of entertainment