Dawkins sued for libel

[Seth]

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.

No, it's my observation and opinion.

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.

I disagree. I see as your only possible motive for posting your complaint here that of sympathy-mongering.

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.

Er, that's what I've been telling you for some time now.

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).

Please cite any statement by me to that effect. I have merely said that I don't believe your claim that you HAVE NOT done so, along with a claim that you HAVE harmed him, and his children, through your actions.

Now you are saying the kids are actually harmed? You have some explaining to do...

No I don't, you do. You're the one being sued, you see.

Tamper with evidence? For what?

Potentially removing the blog post in which you admit to tortiously using his children as pawns in your little vendetta.

It's part of the libel case you moron; didn't you read?

If your blog posts are part of the libel case, then my preservation of evidence is redundant. No harm there.

All of the evidence the claimant has put forward is far more detailed and damning than I have mentioned (but in his interpretation).

Well, clearly what you've written here is not in evidence, now is it? Nor do I know for a fact that your admission against interest in your blog is in evidence, therefore it's worthwhile preserving it, just in case it's not but needs to be.

You've not even taken his argument at its highest level so what makes you think your argument about it means anything to me?

I don't care about his argument. Nor do I care about yours. I care only about your admission in your blog that you tortiously used his children in your vendetta.

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.

Is it? Prove it.

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

That you're backpedaling and are trying to claim that you're being sarcastic is pathetic.

[vjohn82]

I disagree. I see as your only possible motive for posting your complaint here that of sympathy-mongering.

I already made it perfectly clear. My main aim was to stop people speculating that it was Dawkins who wrote libellous words. That was achieved. I have enough support elsewhere.

Now you are saying the kids are actually harmed? You have some explaining to do...

No I don't, you do. You're the one being sued, you see.

There's no case against me that the children were actually harmed. The only person making this claim is, er, you. So either explain how they were harmed or admit you are talking bollocks...

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.

Is it? Prove it.

No. I have nothing to prove to you. And I keep saying, I can't post evidence. This isn't getting through is it?

That you're backpedaling and are trying to claim that you're being sarcastic is pathetic.

No, you just didn't recognise the sarcasm. Bit embarrassing for you really.

Bit like your earlier claim that I have somehow wronged you and said something actionable but you'll take it on the chin like a big boy.

[Seth]

I disagree. I see as your only possible motive for posting your complaint here that of sympathy-mongering.

I already made it perfectly clear.

What you say, and what you really mean, are not necessarily the same thing. We have already seen how duplicitious and cruel you can be, so why would I believe you now?

My main aim was to stop people speculating that it was Dawkins who wrote libellous words. That was achieved. I have enough support elsewhere.

So, presumably you are now going to STFU about your case here?

Now you are saying the kids are actually harmed? You have some explaining to do...

No I don't, you do. You're the one being sued, you see.

There's no case against me that the children were actually harmed.

That can change in an instant, you know.

The only person making this claim is, er, you. So either explain how they were harmed or admit you are talking bollocks...

That you have not *yet* been sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress against the children doesn't mean you aren't guilty of doing so. Not sure what the statute of limitations is in the UK, but around here it's three years, so it ain't over till it's over, and you can sweat it for the next couple of years anyway. You have ADMITTED you are guilty of doing so in your own blog, in your own words. That you still refuse to recognize or acknowledge the wrong you did to them merely further impeaches your credibility and reputation.

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.

Is it? Prove it.

No. I have nothing to prove to you. And I keep saying, I can't post evidence. This isn't getting through is it?

Then it is my considered opinion, based on what I know about your character from your own writings, that you are lying.

That you're backpedaling and are trying to claim that you're being sarcastic is pathetic.

No, you just didn't recognise the sarcasm. Bit embarrassing for you really.

I recognized the backpedaling on your part, and it's not in the least bit embarrassing.

Bit like your earlier claim that I have somehow wronged you and said something actionable but you'll take it on the chin like a big boy.

Actually, I was referring to your wronging McGrath's children, which you missed, so, pot, kettle, black.

[vjohn82]

[quote"Seth"] "That you have not *yet* been sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress against the children doesn't mean you aren't guilty of doing so. Not sure what the statute of limitations is in the UK, but around here it's three years, so it ain't over till it's over, and you can sweat it for the next couple of years anyway. You have ADMITTED you are guilty of doing so in your own blog, in your own words. That you still refuse to recognize or acknowledge the wrong you did to them merely further impeaches your credibility and reputation. [/quote]

Ahhh, so now the children were AWARE of the comments too? Crikey... you know a hell of a lot about all of this.

Bit like your earlier claim that I have somehow wronged you and said something actionable but you'll take it on the chin like a big boy.


Actually, I was referring to your wronging McGrath's children, which you missed, so, pot, kettle, black.

Gotcha.

Which means your part about you being able to take it on the chin and that you had experienced worse insults on the net was a mistake. Nice try at revisionism there...

There was no back-pedalling by me at all... you missed the sarcasm. Just admit you missed it. It's fine. People do. The words speak for themselves... any reader of my comment could see I was taking the piss out of the fact you had mentioned, what you were referring to, multiple times. Saying "I wonder what that could be" is a pretty sarcastic statement...

But like I said, you missed it.

[Seth]

[quote"Seth"] "That you have not *yet* been sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress against the children doesn't mean you aren't guilty of doing so. Not sure what the statute of limitations is in the UK, but around here it's three years, so it ain't over till it's over, and you can sweat it for the next couple of years anyway. You have ADMITTED you are guilty of doing so in your own blog, in your own words. That you still refuse to recognize or acknowledge the wrong you did to them merely further impeaches your credibility and reputation.

Ahhh, so now the children were AWARE of the comments too? Crikey... you know a hell of a lot about all of this.[/quote]

Only what you have revealed, combined with rational inference. That's fully sufficient in this case to demonstrate your wrongdoing.

Bit like your earlier claim that I have somehow wronged you and said something actionable but you'll take it on the chin like a big boy.


Actually, I was referring to your wronging McGrath's children, which you missed, so, pot, kettle, black.

Gotcha.

Which means your part about you being able to take it on the chin and that you had experienced worse insults on the net was a mistake. Nice try at revisionism there...

Actually, that was merely my way of saying that you're an amateur when it comes to cyberstalking and harassment, and that I've dealt with your sort for two decades now and you don't concern me at all. This was by way of letting you know that pointless threats to sue ME for disparaging YOU would be a waste of your time and money, but if you're so inclined, go right ahead.

There was no back-pedalling by me at all...

But we know you lie and dissemble, so why would I believe you now?

you missed the sarcasm. Just admit you missed it. It's fine. People do. The words speak for themselves... any reader of my comment could see I was taking the piss out of the fact you had mentioned, what you were referring to, multiple times. Saying "I wonder what that could be" is a pretty sarcastic statement...

But like I said, you missed it.

[vjohn82]

But we know you lie and dissemble, so why would I believe you now?

Lie? I've not lied once. Again, your attempts to smear me are not working. Why? You need facts.

I've given you a mouthpiece, of sorts, to spout some pretty hilarious nonsense. But I have given you too much credit for your "it's all about the children" crap. You have provided no basis for making the claim that I "harmed children" so your assertions on that point are resigned to the dustbin...

Only what you have revealed, combined with rational inference. That's fully sufficient in this case to demonstrate your wrongdoing.

Which demonstrates my point perfectly... I have made no reference, whatsoever, to the readership of the original words. So how you get from that to the "children have been harmed" is a step in logic I would love to see justified in one form which does not consist of your own sick delusions on the subject.

Furthermore, your indignation with the "it's all about the children" nonsense is something I have given far too much credit too... and I don't actually think you have children either. The time you spend on here leads me to suspect that you have none or, at the very least, they are suffering from your absence. So you are lying about having kids or lying about how much you care for them - otherwise you would be spending time with them wouldn't you? Why spend inordinate amounts of time on this place at all hours if you have little kids? Get a life either way and spend more time with your kids (real or imagined - I suspect the latter).

Now you are proven as a liar, there is no need for me to trust a singe thing you have said. SethLogic®

[Seth]

But we know you lie and dissemble, so why would I believe you now?

Lie? I've not lied once. Again, your attempts to smear me are not working. Why? You need facts.

Your continued evasions and denials regarding your attack upon innocent children certainly qualifies as dissembling, and a lie.

I've given you a mouthpiece, of sorts, to spout some pretty hilarious nonsense. But I have given you too much credit for your "it's all about the children" crap. You have provided no basis for making the claim that I "harmed children" so your assertions on that point are resigned to the dustbin...

I have provided a detailed and precise basis for making that assertion based on your own words. That you continue to deny your culpability and responsibility resigns the rest of your claims and plaints to the dustbin.

Only what you have revealed, combined with rational inference. That's fully sufficient in this case to demonstrate your wrongdoing.

Which demonstrates my point perfectly... I have made no reference, whatsoever, to the readership of the original words. So how you get from that to the "children have been harmed" is a step in logic I would love to see justified in one form which does not consist of your own sick delusions on the subject.

I have pointed out in explicit detail, using your own words, to prove how you deliberately "outed" the children as pawns in your vendetta even though you did not know for certain that McGrath was the actual target of your obsessive stalking behavior. You have never denied doing this, you have simply evaded the issue and denied that you have done anything wrong, which indicates the depth of your delusional denial.

Furthermore, your indignation with the "it's all about the children" nonsense is something I have given far too much credit too...

What leads you to the deluded believe that I give a flying fuck what you think? I'm concerned with defending the children you used as pawns in your vendetta by exposing the delusional, narcissistic stalking behavior you have yourself documented in your blog which demonstrates that you are unrepentant and unconcerned about the blatant and wrongful use and abuse of innocent children as a part of your obsessive anti-theistic quest to disparage and libel the target of your reprehensible behavior, Mr. McGrath and his family.

The fact is that I don't care what YOU think, I'm merely determined that you not be allowed to get away with such malfeasance unchallenged and unrebuked in this forum, lest some credulous lurker think that your complaints should be given uncritical credence.

and I don't actually think you have children either. The time you spend on here leads me to suspect that you have none or, at the very least, they are suffering from your absence. So you are lying about having kids or lying about how much you care for them - otherwise you would be spending time with them wouldn't you? Why spend inordinate amounts of time on this place at all hours if you have little kids? Get a life either way and spend more time with your kids (real or imagined - I suspect the latter).

Ah, here we go. Now I'm the new target of your obsessive stalking behavior, and you're attacking me and once again children are your pawns. This goes to prove that narcissism and obsessive compulsion are at work in your arguments and are out of control, which renders your attempts to rationalize and justify your own reprehensible conduct to be suspect and likely false, making it highly likely that you did, in fact, libel McGrath and his family, and therefore deserve to be sued and punished.

Now you are proven as a liar, there is no need for me to trust a singe thing you have said. SethLogic®

What is it, exactly, that you think you have "proven?"

[vjohn82]

The fact is that I don't care what YOU think

Quite...

Ah, here we go. Now I'm the new target of your obsessive stalking behavior, and you're attacking me and once again children are your pawns. This goes to prove that narcissism and obsessive compulsion are at work in your arguments and are out of control, which renders your attempts to rationalize and justify your own reprehensible conduct to be suspect and likely false, making it highly likely that you did, in fact, libel McGrath and his family, and therefore deserve to be sued and punished.

Hmmm... I'm not sure that doubting you have children qualifies as being an obsessive stalker but then as the allegation comes from you I am not surprised at the level of argument you drop to.

Get back to the non-existent children Seth, there's a good chap.

[vjohn82]

The fact is that I don't care what YOU think

Quite...

Ah, here we go. Now I'm the new target of your obsessive stalking behavior, and you're attacking me and once again children are your pawns. This goes to prove that narcissism and obsessive compulsion are at work in your arguments and are out of control, which renders your attempts to rationalize and justify your own reprehensible conduct to be suspect and likely false, making it highly likely that you did, in fact, libel McGrath and his family, and therefore deserve to be sued and punished.

Hmmm... I'm not sure that doubting you have children qualifies a comment that labels me as being an obsessive stalker but then as the allegation comes from you I am not surprised at the level of argument you drop to. You really think you are that important?

Get back to the non-existent children Seth, there's a good chap.

[Seth]

The fact is that I don't care what YOU think

Quite...

Nor should anyone else care what a person who uses and abuses children in a deranged atheist vendetta against a religious book author care what you think.

Ah, here we go. Now I'm the new target of your obsessive stalking behavior, and you're attacking me and once again children are your pawns. This goes to prove that narcissism and obsessive compulsion are at work in your arguments and are out of control, which renders your attempts to rationalize and justify your own reprehensible conduct to be suspect and likely false, making it highly likely that you did, in fact, libel McGrath and his family, and therefore deserve to be sued and punished.

Hmmm... I'm not sure that doubting you have children qualifies a comment that labels me as being an obsessive stalker but then as the allegation comes from you I am not surprised at the level of argument you drop to. You really think you are that important?

Just goes to show that you will not hesitate to stoop to any depth in your deranged attacks on those who you hate.

Get back to the non-existent children Seth, there's a good chap.

Um, make me.

[vjohn82]

[Seth]

[vjohn82]

Just goes to show that you will not hesitate to stoop to any depth in your deranged attacks on those who you hate.

Irony bites Seth on the arse.

Go and play with your dolls Seth.

[Seth]

Just goes to show that you will not hesitate to stoop to any depth in your deranged attacks on those who you hate.

Irony bites Seth on the arse.

Go and play with your dolls Seth.

[vjohn82]

4373 posts since Jan 2011.

Says it all.