There comes a time in every debunker’s life when they are threatened with a lawsuit. It’s the bar mitzvah of skepticism.
The story is generally the same. Skeptic writes an article debunking some form of nonsense, author of said nonsense gets a bee in their bonnet (the archaic form of "wild hair up their butt"), said author says they will sue the skeptic, said skeptic laughs it off.
I’ve had my share of emails and letters, generally ALL IN CAPS, saying that I am preventing some Earth-shattering result from coming to fruition and keeping the author — who compares himself to Einstein, Galileo, and Newton — from getting what they deserve.
The irony is obvious: they are getting what they deserve: a logical spanking. And generally, that’s the end of it. The crank never follows through, and we’re done with it.
But this time it’s different. A guy by the name of Stuart Pivar has written a tome that says that genetic biologists have their profession all wrong, and that only he knows the truth. In a blog entry (and some followups) PZ Myers pointed out that the guy is clearly wrong. I am no biologist, but it only takes a glance to see that this guy is, um, maybe not terribly accurate.
PZ called him a crackpot, and perhaps that’s where the trouble lies. Pivar is suing PZ. Normally this can be shrugged off as just another goofball rattling the cage. Unfortunately, Pivar is a wealthy businessman, and can actually afford to follow through. Most times the cranks make threats, but can’t afford a lawyer, and even if they could, the lawsuits have no merit.
Nor does this one, in fact. Besides the use of that single term, PZ takes apart the science and lack thereof of Pivar’s book. There can be no libel if no lie is committed in an attempt to defame, and PZ told the truth. In a sense, this is just more cage-rattling, even if it goes to court. But a judge will quickly dismiss the case, I would imagine.
In fact, and I almost hate to say this, I rather hope (just a little) it does go to court. Most judges take a very dim view of frivolous lawsuits. It’s pretty cut and dry that PZ is innocent, and Pivar is trying to shut him down due to a negative review. If it goes to court, Pivar might be in for a lot more than he bargained for.
August 21st, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Not as cut and dried, and hindered by the fact that PZ writes for Science Blogs and Seed Media. This person is suing the publication and PZ, which puts this on a different footing.
There is a difference between writing for a for profit publication, and writing personally as a weblogger.
More importantly, because of Seed Media, the venue for this case is in New York. I imagine that PZ’s school would be unhappy if he had to spend a lot of time in New York in a court case.
I’m not a lawyer, but this isn’t going to be fun for PZ.
August 21st, 2007 at 2:41 pm
I disagree. Taking apart the science of the book is one thing, but suggesting in any way that he is mentally unsound and therefore unable to have ideas worth entertaining is quite another.
Two reasons for this: first, PZ and others go onto dangerous ground when they flippantly diagnose. You don’t know the person and, aside from the book, cannot evaluate their sanity. To suggest that people with weird ideas are insane will result in the condemnation of just about everyone. More often than not, the people who come up with this kind of stuff are normal, unafflicted by mental illness.
Second, (and with extreme prejudice) I don’t particular like having the people who write this crap labeled insane because I suffer from bipolar disorder (diagnosed in 2005). Don’t shove these people on me and my friends! We accept the medical model (well, most of us). It is not neccessarily true that our minds only come up with bizarre and unthinkable solutions. Studies show that one in ten genuine scientists suffer from the syndrome. If you go rejecting material on those grounds, you do a large segment of your profession (including a few Nobel Prize winners) a grand disservice.
August 21st, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Well, dictionary.com give crackpot as “a person who is eccentric, unrealistic, or fanatical.” Calling someone a crackpot is not the same as saying they’re mentally ill. Someone who writes a book purporting to dismiss modern science and replace it with their own ideas is almost certainly eccentric and quite probably unrealistic. If the ideas they are pushing can be shown to be illogical then saying that they are being unrealistic – calling them a crackpot – would sound valid to me.
I would hope that his school would allow PZ whatever time he needs to defend this suit. As the publisher will be engaging the lawyers, who could probably fly to wherever PZ is and talk to him there, I would think he’ll only need to be in NY if he is actually called as a witness (which could well be never, if the case is dismissed quickly as being without merit).
August 21st, 2007 at 3:01 pm
He never actually described Pivar as a crackpot. He said the book was “flagrant crackpottery.” Crackpottery, in this context, is simply bad science. No one will deny that’s the case with Pivar’s book. Furthermore, I didn’t see PZ calling for people with mental disorders to be ignored.
Sounds like you’ve got a bit of a persecution complex going and are filtering his article through the lens of your own insecurity. Lots of people with afflictions of one kind or another start to define themselves by them, but don’t let it degrade your reading comprehension. Not everything is about your problems.
August 21st, 2007 at 3:04 pm
PZ may have some grief over this, if Pivar insists that his attorneys take it to court. Depositions and other legal hassles. Possible costs. But you’re right, Phil, it’ll be laughed out of court.
Joel – I empathize, but PZ is not a medical professional and was not making a diagnosis. He was simply using a common term in the usual way, not passing judgement on Pivar’s medical condition.
Jim Downey
August 21st, 2007 at 3:07 pm
If this does go to court, Pivar will indeed sell more books (especially the ones that don’t sell by regular means) which is why some people actually create this frivolous suits in the first place. You can’t win either way but I felt the same way initially.
August 21st, 2007 at 3:13 pm
The proof is in the pudding here…If this guy were indeed not a crackpot, he wouldn’t be suing PZ over a few poor reviews of his books/ideology and some name-calling.
I see on SciAm that the plaintiff has requested a jury; I wonder if Pivar is going to play the ath-eist/lib-rul card?
August 21st, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Depends. If the plaintiff can demonstrate the dictionary definition to be insufficiently narrow, he might have a case. The phrase “cracked” has the meaning of
4. Informal. eccentric; mad; daffy
Mad and daffy both have the insinuation of insanity or mental abnormality.
If I were a lawyer working this, I’d be considering this usage, too.
August 21st, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Someone on the Nielsen-Haydens’ blog mentioned that Pivar’s intention may not be to actually win this case but to bury PZ in a financial sinkhole of a never-ending legal mess.
Aside from that, I think Pivar is a simple intellectual coward if he’s reduced to suing his critics as opposed to actually defending his bizarre theories. It’s a shame that he chose PZ as a target in order to drum up publicity for his failure of a book based upon shoddy science. Had he not acted like a whimpering little brat, Pivar may have actually learned something from Myers. Unfortunately, as a result of shunning any sort of education at the hands of PZ Myers, Pivar only deserves derision and a wide open mocking in the academic community for his cowardice.
August 21st, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Any reasonable judge would dismiss the case and saddle Pivar with SciAm/Myer’s legal fees, and a punitive fine to boot.
August 21st, 2007 at 3:22 pm
There’s a debate raging in the comments over at skepchick.org about whether atheists should be nice or not when speaking out. This isn’t an atheist/religious issue, but it comes from a source that is known (and loved) for his vitriol. I know you can’t avoid attracting threats when you write or speak publicly about sensitive subjects, but it seems to me that, given the position popular bloggers/speakers/writers are in, there should be a little more attention to, if not exactly politeness, at least a sense of decorum when addressing formally positioned crackpots (as opposed to the guy on the street with a sign). This has not so much to do with playing it safe as it does with maintaining a sense of dignity for your cause. I’m 100% behind PZ and think he should be free to call a crackpot a crackpot if he sees fit. Sometimes the Buzz Aldrin approach is entirely justified. But with this development, it worries me how he will be perceived by his peers should the case go to court.
If you read the original blog entry that contains the comment though, it hardly seems the case has merit. He refers to the book in general as “crackpottery”, in what is essentially a summation of his quite appropriate negative review of the book. The word itself could not possibly be construed as more damaging than the review itself.
August 21st, 2007 at 3:23 pm
re: The actual lawsuit, *if* the suit is filed in NY state it’s probably worth pointing out that NY has anti-SLAPP statutes in force.
August 21st, 2007 at 3:27 pm
I’m getting “a whimsically eccentric person” as the definition for “crackpot”. This is also clearly not the same as “insane”, and once again I think this person easily fits that definition.
August 21st, 2007 at 3:30 pm
I wonder if, as a professor, PZ had libel insurance of any kind: that would help out with his legal fees if he did. Anyway, who’s Pivar? I’ve never heard of him, ever.
August 21st, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Actually, after reading about this on Blake Stacey’s website, it seems that the complaint not only has to do with PZ’s criticism, but it seems to also revolve around a misappropriated and outright fabricated quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson (one of your guys, if I’m not mistaken) on Pivar’s website and his book cover.
So, I don’t think we need to worry about PZ.
August 21st, 2007 at 3:42 pm
there should be a little more attention to, if not exactly politeness, at least a sense of decorum when addressing formally positioned crackpots (as opposed to the guy on the street with a sign).
While it is true that such people might be more apt to do something to hurt you for what they regard as a transgression, I think PZ himself would probably question why this particular crackpot’s feelings are worth more than any other’s. Afterall, we know how PZ feels about the Pope, who is definitely more powerful than Mr. Pivar.
I think that this is an extremely good example of what can happen in our world even today when some zealot who supports of some idea that is not necessarily based on reality decides that it is within his power to impose his reality on the rest of the world. Mr. Pivar’s argument is not with PZ, it is with the fact that Evo-Devo doesn’t support his tightly held belief (and therefore doesn’t support him). At its core, this is no different than an Intelligent Design adherent or a Young Earth Creationist sitting on a school board and dictating how science, of which they have no a priori understanding, should or should not be taught to children.
August 21st, 2007 at 3:44 pm
I summarized the background of this and started collecting links on the ongoing developments at the URL linked on my name. Get the skinny on Pivar’s fraudulent book endorsements, and find out how he granted me a PhD!
August 21st, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Stuart Pivar Sues PZ Myers…
Whoa!
Remember that Stuart Pivar fellow who wrote a book called LifeCode (2004), a book which purported to advance a new theory of developmental biology — a theory which would, naturally, overturn everything biologists have figured out so far? W…
August 21st, 2007 at 3:47 pm
I just want to know how much PZ can take the guy for with a counter suit for harassment. The idiot clearly needs to be taught a lesson. Hopefully an expensive one.
August 21st, 2007 at 4:09 pm
I don’t know about cut and dried. I do think though, that the Scientific American blog’s point that “Pivar’s case is weakened by the fact that he is a public figure–he’s written about in the New York Times and he wrote a book, after all” probably applies. It’s hard to libel a public figure, and even people whom normally no one has ever heard of can get to be public figures in a limited way for commentary directly related to their being in the news (I blogged a few months ago about a case where a libel suit got disposed of in just that way because the couple in question were in the news over a very public custody battle). So it would probably be a high bar for PZ Myers to be found to have libelled anyone who has been written about in the New York Times.
August 21st, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Absurdity upon absurdity. You can’t sue someone for giving you a bad review. End of story.
Next case!
August 21st, 2007 at 4:44 pm
viggen:
I wasn’t really concerned with any particular crackpot’s feelings, it’s just that my mother always told me to be nice and so far it works in most, though admittedly not all situations as a starting point for an argument. From there you can choose your posture based on developments. Rarely do you get to begin and end an argument in the Buzz style. Oh, if only it were so!
August 21st, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Willo the wisp:
>> You can’t sue someone for giving you a bad review.
ObDisclaimer: IANAL
Well, you can, if the person (knowingly?) lies in the review.
Consider what would happen if a review of a “pre-release” copy of the latest Harry Potter book were to claim that it included a chapter on killing and eating “mudblood” babies, or explicit sex scenes between characters X and Y, and the publisher could show a series of cancelled orders following that “review”.
Of course, that’s a rather extreme example, but I think it shows that “can’t sue” doesn’t apply in all cases. (Besides, you can sue for just about anything. I could sue you for “severe emotional destress” because your pseudonym reminded me of some horrible tragedy in my life. Getting it to court and actually winning is another story.)
August 21st, 2007 at 5:06 pm
I don’t like lawsuits for revenge or similar purposes. If PZ said that this guy’s book is wrong, he should except that, cancel the book, do more research and admit his mistakes. Oh, and in an ideal world, thank PZ, but to expect that from an antiscientist would be unrealistic. By the way, why is PZ your rival, anyway, BA?
August 21st, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Having been on the receiving end of a baseless defamation suit (spam-fighters face the same threats), I can tell you that this will be no fun unless NY has a strong anti-slapp law. Even then, Pivar is likely to go venue-shopping for a state without such a law.
When you’re slapped with a baseless lawsuit, you fantasize that the judge will take one look at it and throw it out of court, ideally making the plaintif pay your legal fees.
But it doesn’t work that way. Ruling on the merits of a case is what happens at the end, not at the beginning. First comes depositions, subpeonas, and discovery. And motions, and counter-motions, and more depositions. And then your computers get dismantled so the other side can copy your disks and look at them later. Then expert witnesses need to be hired and *they* need to be deposed.
The process can take years and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars if the plaintif is rich enough to keep hammering at you.
This country needs some serious legal reform, but it won’t happen any time soon.
August 21st, 2007 at 5:30 pm
“There is a difference between writing for a for profit publication, and writing personally as a weblogger.”
Actually, there’s little if any difference. Libel is libel. It matters if the subject is a public figure, and what medium you write for can have some impacts on some cases (for example, newspapers versus magazines), but as far as I can tell, writing on the web is writing on the web.
IANAL, but I am a media professional who has taken many media law courses.
August 21st, 2007 at 6:51 pm
[...] is our very own PZ Myers, a.k.a. Pharyngula. Inevitably, the blogosphere is all over this, here, here and here. If there’s any justice, Pivar will lose his shirt over [...]
August 21st, 2007 at 6:52 pm
What I don’t get is the assault charge. In what way did PZ assault the guy?
August 21st, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Pivar has published a book and, therefore, has entered willingly into the lime light. As such, just as with John Edward and Sylvia Browne, he is open to public scrutiny and has no chance in this world of winning a lawsuit. Also, he is a complete crackpot. Feel free to sue me, as I am very willing to counter sue.
August 21st, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Ed Falk, I think you’re right, PZ could tire of this before Pivar does. As NoAstronomer notes, NY does have decent SLAPP protection, but this definitely has the potential to be not-so-fun for PZ. Summary judgment against Pivar seems likely, but PZ may well have to go through a deposition or other annoyingness first. Additional coverage of this issue at overlawyered.com, including the actual complaint (which is quite amusing).
August 21st, 2007 at 9:22 pm
I was sued once. It did not cost me a dime. I didn’t hire any lawyers and I never had to go to court. I am not sure what it cost the company suing me to file the suit, but it was dismissed before I had to do anything other than acknowledge the suit.
I hope this suit goes like mine did.
Side Note: 20 days till my deployment is over…I actually miss wearing bluejeans!
August 21st, 2007 at 10:14 pm
I suspect Seed will handle most of this. Although it is possible they will try to leave PZ out to dry, their business relationship may be too serious to pull that off, it will likely alienate many readers, and it would set a bad precedent that they can be bullied around easily that they probably don’t want. If I am right and they watch PZ’s back through this, they have pretty deep pockets (at least as deep as this guy), a vested commercial interest in it going their way, probably a dedicated legal team, an office in New York, not to mention the law on their side. Hopefully PZ will not have to do anything.
August 21st, 2007 at 10:51 pm
It really depends on what kind of court he ends up in. Some judges will not be so quick to dismiss these types of lawsuits. Hopefully, he won’t be tried in the South; in courts with the 10 commandments places unconstitutionally in full view.
August 21st, 2007 at 10:57 pm
I know of some people who got wrongfully sued. They where advised to settle the suit, rather than going through 2-3 years of legal proceedings.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:56 am
[...] This article is meant to remove discussion about the meaning of the word “crackpot” from Bad Astronomy Blog. [...]
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:47 am
I believe James Randi may have some experience in this area, having dealt with a certain litigious spoon-bender. Perhaps he can advise and assist PZ.
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:07 am
Peevar is obviously trying to gain some free advertising for his book. It’s been said, by those Hollywood types, there ain’t no such thing as bad press and this is particularly true in cases where the author of a book has nothing of value to say. It seems to be all about being cast as the underdog and you know how Americans feel about that.
I hope PZ ops to counter sue for harassment. At least he could pick up a few bucks,,,
PZ, keep on trucking,,,
Gary 7
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:51 am
If the plaintiff is considered a public figure (and I would argue that publishing a book is one irrefutable route to becoming a public figure), he would have to prove actual malice in order to prove libel. There’s no way the “crackpottery” statement about the book could remotely be considered actual malice. And typically actual malice isn’t just a lie — it’s got to be a lie that has the potential to devastate someone.
As long as PZ’s got a good lawyer, he should be fine. In fact, he might even get some good publicity out of this.
(I knew my 1995 Comm Law class would come in handy some day.)
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:53 am
From the blog entry I read linked to here, the reviewer called the ideas put forth in the book “flagrant crackpottery”. I did not see where the reviewer called the author a crockpot. If I read something you write and call it “foolish”, I am not calling you a fool. There is a difference.
I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that even this characterization is defensible in court and the lawsuit will probably not go far unless the plaintiff decides to keep pressing it as far as it can go.
Unfortunately, there is a something to be gained by pressing such a lawsuit; it will cause other reviewers to think twice before writing a review on this book.
The downside is that the lawsuit brings a lot of attention to the review that would not have been there had the author just let it drop. Authors can be very ego driven – I have been on the receiving end of that ego when I wrote a short snippet of a review on Amazon; some cannot stand criticism of any sort.
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:21 am
I have to say that if I were of a mind to sue a blogger, I certainly wouldn’t go for one who had the resources of a publishing house behind him! This may well be unpleasant for PZ, but it could be a lot worse if he were freelance. Of course, Pivar may be counting on the publishers preferring to settle than face a law suit, which can’t be discounted – although I should imagine PZ would prefer to stop blogging for SciAm rather than print a retraction!
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:23 am
So “physical forces” accounts for the shape of a person’s skull?
How is it possible that 6 Billion people, living all over the planet and in varying conditions of continual physical exertion all have sufficiently similar “physical forces” acting on their fetal cells such that they all end up having identically shaped skulls, even to the point that their species variety can be determined by mere visual examination?
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:59 am
IIRC Phil mentioned a case where someone was running some kind of scam relating to registering names of stars. When someone tried to warn about it, the scammer successfully silenced him by going for the institution they worked for. Corporate lawyers usually prefer to settle quickly over defending a case if it means burning someone as a sacrificial lamb. Is there any danger that Seed Media will hang PZ out to dry in order to avoid a costly lawsuit?
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:03 am
I hate to say this, but there is no certainty that a judge will throw this case out as a frivolous lawsuit. Just consider the recent case of the Washington, DC man who sued a dry cleaner for $54 million dollars for losing his pants. In that case, the man knew he wouldn’t win, but since he was a lawyer, he didn’t have any legal costs, and the dry cleaners had to spend a fortune in legal costs. It was all about revenge. And if *that* case didn’t get thrown out of court on day one, then nothing can be presumed what will happen with PZ’s case.
J. D.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:05 am
To: Joel Sax.
You claim it’s unfair to call someone a nutter, then you seem to think that admitting to being one somehow strengthens your argument?
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:31 am
To people worried about the tone of the review, I read Richard Dawkins’ dicussion about content, when asked about the tone and words he uses against Religion. He makes the very appropos point that what he says is mild compared to what passes for a normal book review, play review, or restaurant review. The same thing applies here. PZ was very tame compared to comments that occur in the typical restaurant criticism.
From Blake Stacey’s page, part of the claim appears to be that because PZ talked to Tyson, Tyson pulled his endorsement of the book. Thus, PZ is unfairly interfering with his work. Right.
Similarly, he lists assault as a charge. IANAL, but I understand that “assault” as a legal term can mean verbal exchanges rather than physical contact. He seems to be claiming that PZ’s harsh words have made him feel bad. Right.
Let me just say that I would pay to sit on this jury. I would volunteer for an opportunity to deal with this clown in court. These are the types of court cases that provide rich fantasy ground. “We the jury find for the defendant, and not only award all court costs to be paid by the plaintiff, but also award punitive damages in the order of $XXXX. And we find the plaintiff to be a crackpot.” I know, actually being on a jury would hamstring those fantasies to the actual law, but still.
Given the business relationship with Seed and PZ, I can’t see them hanging him out to dry. He’s their flagship blogger, if they dump him, you can bet the rest of their bloggers would bail on them, knowing they wouldn’t support them any better. No, Seed will take this on simply on good business sense, if not on principle.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:44 am
Contrary to some statements on this thread, P.Z. Myers did in fact write that “Pivar is a classic crackpot” in a Pharyngula post dated July 12, 2007–though that line was not in either of the posts P.Z. wrote specifically to review Pivar’s book (two posts for two editions of the book). As is clear from the Complaint, Pivar’s suit focuses entirely on the three-word phrase “a classic crackpot”; it pretty much ignores the book reviews themselves.
That said, for all sorts of reasons that have been noted here and elsewhere, the suit is doomed (the phrase is an opinion, therefore it’s not defamation, therefore the case will be dismissed). The most legally fundamental reason that Pivar is sunk, I think, is that federal jurisdiction in the case is based on diversity of citizenship–but both Pivar and SEED are based in New York, so diversity fails. That’s sufficient grounds for the judge to throw out the suit (without the defendants even requesting it) right there.
P.S.: IAAL, though I don’t have nearly as much experience in defamation cases as several other attorneys who have commented on this matter in the past day-plus on various blogs.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:58 am
“You claim it’s unfair to call someone a nutter, then you seem to think that admitting to being one somehow strengthens your argument?”
That’s a weird misreading. The claim is that it’s unfair to mentally ill people to use terms associated with mental illness as epithets to apply to people who pigheadedly hold foolishly misguided views. Clinically sane people are just as capable as those who are clinically mentally ill of being blind to scientific evidence (if this weren’t the case, we’d have way less disbelief in evolution than we do).
I have no intention of staying in the meaning of the word crackpot part of this thread, since Joel’s already taken that off to his own blog. And as for the libel part, I’ve already said that I think Pivar counts as a public figure and would therefore have to meet a higher bar than he’s met. But your comment is silly; if admitting to being mentally ill automatically disqualifies you from arguing that something indicates prejudice against mental illness, well, then, you’ve just disqualified mentally ill people from speaking for themselves at all. And mental illness (especially treatment-compliant mental illness, but even untreated mental illness) doesn’t completely mentally incapacitate a person to the point where all his opinions can be discredited.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:16 pm
[...] <http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/08/21/pz-being-sued-by-crackpot/> [...]
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Just as a person who was on the receiving end of being slandered by PZ and BA..
I think jerks should be sued for what they write about PRIVATE CITIZENS—
I mean, I was right about Eris and Dysnomia , but never received even a retraction from either of you guys when you called me “right winger” ‘wingnut’, ’stupid’, idiot, and other ad-hominems for making an observation about the names of these two planets being approved over 9/11 was suspect.. nevermind the fact i’m a registered independent (told you and PZ about this as well) and that I voted democrat for the past 2 elections…
Point is, I can see how someone could get irritated enough to sue… and if you people actually had to take the time to come to court, hire a lawyer etc.. it may make you think twice before just spouting off some stupid crap about someone.
In my case, you never contacted me to find out my POV on the eris dysnomia, and give me a fair chance to explain where i was coming from, instead you smeared me, and contacted Mike Brown — and i’m willing to bet that PZ did virtually the exact same thing (again)…
I’ll testify on Mr. Pivars behalf that this type of non-factual adhominem PUBLIC attack based upon nothing blogging, is done by PZ all the time.. then these guys try to hide under some supposed blanket of 1st amendment protections after you get busted for smearing someones good name all because of something they believe…
Just check out what happened to Deb Frisch when she made up things about her intellectual opponents… fyi her blog has been turned off by court order no less, and she received misdemeanor harrassment charges, and was convicted… all for saying “bad” things about someone via her blog (the bad things were unsubstantiated which is why she LOST).
Unfortunately Phil, you and PZ do this all the time.. sometimes you give “logical” spankings and other times you make stuff up entirely to meet your respective world views… its the latter that I feel you should be on the hook for… soon we’ll find out where you guys stand.. but I would venture a guess that (people like me and Mr. Pivar) aren’t worth the hassle of going to court etc..— after all you have bigger fish to fry.. you know.. people like Hovind , and the Creationists..
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Mike J
There have been times in my life when I’ve been deep in thought about something, and then I start talking to someone as if they’ve been part of my mental conversation. This is usually followed by the person looking confused and uttering, “huh?” At that point I realize that I haven’t included this person in my thought process, I apologize, and then I back up a bit.
Now then, huh?
You are posting here as if anyone reading this will know what you’re talking about. How about a link to whatever it is that you were right about in regards to Eris and Dysnomia? And most importantly, how about a link to where either the BA or PZ called you “stupid” or an “idiot.” It’s not that I don’t believe you, but I have to see some evidence of this.
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:04 pm
In the context of a book review it is implied that anything stated about the book or author is in fact an opinion. An opinion can never be libel, since it doesn’t imply that it is a statement of fact. Another issue is that crackpot isn’t in fact a technical term, and he should be even safer saying crack pottery. I’ll be interested to see how far it goes. Really these harassment type of frivolous lawsuits should have to go through a hearing first before the defendant is even contacted.
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Hey Mike J.
“Just as a person who was on the receiving end of being slandered by PZ and BA..
I think jerks should be sued for what they write about PRIVATE CITIZENS”
Are PZ and BA not private citizens? Was that an indirect way of calling them “jerks”? Freedom of speech, fella. Pivar tried to write about something that others knew more about than him, and he got burned. So he started crying. Or he’s kicking up a fuss in order to gain more publicity for his book.
I think you and Pivar are both jerks. Just my humble opinion. So sue me. (shrug) Or call me a jerk back. Go on! I promise to pretend to be upset, but I won’t sue you really.
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:40 pm
You, sir, write terribly.
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Wow, such a lot of nonsense for such a supposedly educated crowd.
The burden of proof (or even some vague indication of same), is upon anyone here, (seemingly about 50% the commenters), who thinks this is libel in any way. To be libel it has to be a lie, and not one single person has pointed to a single false statement in the review. One would be hard pressed to find even an exaggeration.
It’s a straightforward, honest review of a book, period.
On the other hand, those going on about this “nutter” and his outrageous/stupid/wacky theories… well it seems you didn’t read the review either.
While the reviewer rightly rips this guys theory apart, it’s not a “crazy” theory or even close. The reviewer mentions himself that the morphological process talked about are pretty much how embryos do form. He merely argues that the exact sequence of morphologies described (and illustrated in such loving detail) are completely made up, and they are.
How do you think embryos form anyway? Do you think there is a little computer inside with a diagram? Guys with staple guns?
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:38 am
i have a father who has spawned many a “groundbreaking” theory in his life, usually blissfully dismissing classic science because he does not understand it, having no education above grad school.
He has “solved” the classics like doubling the cube and splitting an angle in three and such things that pertain to irrational numbers. Usually he considers himself done once he’s less than 1% wrong.
Also, he has decided how gravity works and written mocking letters to Stephen Hawking. It’s all electromagnetics, really!
He went on to egyptology and explained how the pyramids are built, which is rather impressive for a man who can’t neither visualize nor explain 3-dimensional concepts.
Then he asked me to verify his crackpot ideas, preferrably using those fancy thinking glowing crystals at school called “computers”. It was not an easy teenage.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:22 am
This sounds like a little kid running home, crying to momma because another little kid called him “stupid”.
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:46 am
It looks like someone needs to “go to the corner” for about 90 days to remember that the judicial system isn’t something that we play childish games with by bringing frivolous lawsuits.
In other words, if he’s reading this. You’re a moron Pivar. Regardless of what anyone calls you, we all have a right to say what we want and have our own opinions. This is not 2nd grade. Grow up. I hope the judge laughs at you and puts you in contempt for brining an idiot (yourself) into the courtroom.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:10 am
“There is a difference between writing for a for profit publication, and writing personally as a weblogger.â€
Actually, there’s little if any difference. Libel is libel. It matters if the subject is a public figure, and what medium you write for can have some impacts on some cases (for example, newspapers versus magazines), but as far as I can tell, writing on the web is writing on the web.
I had something in mind when I wrote that, but isn’t worth repeating. You’re right.
That said, for all sorts of reasons that have been noted here and elsewhere, the suit is doomed (the phrase is an opinion, therefore it’s not defamation, therefore the case will be dismissed). The most legally fundamental reason that Pivar is sunk, I think, is that federal jurisdiction in the case is based on diversity of citizenship–but both Pivar and SEED are based in New York, so diversity fails. That’s sufficient grounds for the judge to throw out the suit (without the defendants even requesting it) right there.
You’re a lawyer, but I thought that federal jurisdiction was based on the fact that one party exists outside of the state (or country), and in this case that would be PZ? In addition, the plaintiff met the over 75,000 requirement–wouldn’t that be sufficient? I ask purely for curiosity.
I think PZ’s response to this was the appropriate one: less said, the better until this issue is resolved.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:45 am
[...] any chance at making it to court, or even winning the suit?" final fantasy unlimited-vivid mp3read more | digg [...]
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:50 am
Mike J, still whining? The names Eris and Dysnomia were submitted by Brown before the Iraq war began. You accused Brown of picking those names as protest against the war. He couldn’t have, there was no war to protest.
What you eventually proved was a statement by Brown that the dischord over the war may have resonated with some of the IAU voters. That was the full extent of the connection. Now you are saying there was a 9/11 connection. That was not your original statement.
As for the supposed name calling, your blog is available for all to go read and judge for themselves. Also, none of your accused comments meet the burden of libel, either. And your whining isn’t helping your reputation. You’re worried about people’s opinion of you, start with your own behavior.
Jeremy said:
> The burden of proof (or even some vague indication of same), is upon anyone here, (seemingly about 50% the commenters), who thinks this is libel in any way.
That is correct. The burden of proof is on Pivar to show that the comments made by PZ amount to libel, assault, and defamation (what he is accusing). Almost no one agrees that any of the comments provide any grounds for any of those claims. Apparently some lawyer was able to find enough ju$tification to file the suit. Whether it will get as far as the first hearing has yet to be seen.
> While the reviewer rightly rips this guys theory apart, it’s not a “crazy†theory or even close. The reviewer mentions himself that the morphological process talked about are pretty much how embryos do form. He merely argues that the exact sequence of morphologies described (and illustrated in such loving detail) are completely made up, and they are.
“Crazy” is a non-technical term. It can colloquially mean “mentally derange, deficit, or in need of psychological help”, or it can mean “bizarre, nonsensical, really strange, not logical”. Pivar’s theory certainly does fit the second use. The proposed mechanism of morphological process PZ does agree should be given more consideration. But that is about as far as the agreement goes. Everything else Pivar describes about his explanation of the processes involved are totally wrong. So it is a bit much for you to say that the theory is not crazy or even close. It is ridiculous in the extreme, beyond the basic premise.
It’s a bit like saying that Creationism is scientifically valid because it agrees that animals exist.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:31 pm
I agree with you, it’s madness. What ever happened to free speech, especially when dealing with the truth?
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:14 pm
“… who compares himself to Einstein, Galileo, and Newton …”
Well, never forget, they laughed at Einstein, they laughed at Galileo, and they laughed at Newton.
But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
I guess now we know why. It was his fantastic tricks with balloon animals!
Congrats on the lawsuit. Look forward to you thrashing the legs off him in court. (Most likely he’ll cave long before it gets there).
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:37 pm
[...] data have any chance at making it to court, or even winning the suit?" lara croft sexyread more | digg [...]
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:34 pm
[...] data have any chance at making it to court, or even winning the suit?" X Men 3 reviews xavierread more | digg story RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Cartoons Fans Lounge [...]
August 24th, 2007 at 6:05 am
It’s annoying to hear about this isn’t it?
A man who gets a bad review from a guy he sent a book to decides to send the same man another book for him to review and then gets annoyed when he is given an even worse review.
No wonder he was called a crackpot…
August 24th, 2007 at 6:54 am
Hey, Mike J, who is “Hovind”? Dave K, you beat me to it, but I’ve always loved that “Bozo the clown” comeback.
August 24th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Kai, Kent Hovind is a creationist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind
August 25th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Thanks, Irishman. I thought it was a very bad typo on the name of a Certain Person whose name I won’t mention, but is debunked elsewhere on this site for Mars-related crazy ideas. Gosh, Wikipedia has a page for everything- Spider-Girl even has her own! If superheroes were real, those pages could not be more detailed. Well, they wouldn’t say the secret identities…
August 26th, 2007 at 8:56 am
To sue every time someone doesn’t agree with you is LAME.If I was the judge I would throttle the piss ant for wasting every bodies time.
June 7th, 2008 at 8:46 am
“wild hair up their butt” > s/b “hare”
Just thought you might like to know.