#47629: — 11/08  at  05:46 AM
I personally think that Wally's email to the University was uncalled for. However, a libel suit? Please. And against Bitch, phd. for saying that he spoofed an IP (a common phrase which doesn't necessarily reflect the legal meaning of the word).

I had a little bit of debate with Deignan over at The Politburo Diktat

#47631: The Commissar — 11/08  at  06:10 AM
Wally tried to damage Paul's career. "That's right. Over blogging."

Paul is a PhD candidate and Wally emailed his advisors.

Wally brought this silly, internet kerfuffle into the real world and took actions designed to hurt Paul's career.

#47633: Johnny Vector — 11/08  at  06:32 AM

Wally brought this silly, internet kerfuffle into the real world and took actions designed to hurt Paul's career.

Since I haven't read Wally's email, I can't say whether he libeled Butt-Head or not, but AFAIK truth is an absolute defense against libel claims. I'm pretty sure you can't be (successfully) sued for libel if all you do is point someone to a public statement. If that's all Wally did, then Butt-Head has no case.

Also, "Butt-Head" is a very useful term. See Carl Sagan vs. Apple Computer.

#47635: Mike the Mad Biologist — 11/08  at  06:57 AM
So does Deignan's lawsuit qualify as one of those frivolous lawsuits that conservatives are always ranting about?

P.S.-what the other professor did (not Dr. B) was wrong. I think it's inappropriate for professors to target vulnerable grad students, no matter how stupid they might be (it's not like Deignan was being a bigot or racist, just a pompous idiot). Then again, Deignan's attempt to 'out' Dr. B is even more inappropriate. During my brief blogging tenure, I've received a borderline physical threat of violence. If I had a small child, I might want anonymity too.

#47636: PZ Myers — 11/08  at  07:05 AM
There's a disjoint between "damage Paul's career" and "emailed his advisors". It's kind of like "tried to murder him" and "shot a spitwad at him".

Is the health of his career so fragile that it is likely to collapse at the first spitwad fired his way? That's sad, but I think there are then root causes in play that have nothing to do with an exchange on a weblog.

#47637: Republic of Palau — 11/08  at  07:24 AM
He's getting very mixed up with defamation law: he's probably thinking of the caselaw around the publishing of defamatory statements, and joint liability for re-publishing same. But he understands that about as well as he understands the Mandelbrot set.

Coturnix: I was working on getting him ranked as no 1 result for 'wanker'. 'Moron', along with 'cretin' should be reserved for GWB, IMO...

#47638: coturnix — 11/08  at  07:31 AM
Paul has reprinted Wally's e-mail to Paul. From it, one can see that Wally did not call Paul's advisor in order to stop his academic career. Quite the opposite, he asked the advisor to have a little 'talk' with Paul to warn hism that this kind of behavior in the future will ruin his career. He was trying to help, you see, as much as the wanker deserves no help.

#47639: PZ Myers — 11/08  at  07:31 AM
I wouldn't have done what Hettle did, and I think he was a little out of line. The appropriate level of response, of course, would have been to email Hettle's department chair or dean. The impact on his career would have been comparable to the impact on Deignan's (that is, negligible...but at least he would have blown off some steam.)

Charging into a frivolous lawsuit just makes Deignan look like an ass.

#47643: — 11/08  at  07:42 AM
I notice that at least one commenter over at Dr. B. site said that Deignan had left some of his own comments out of the pdf showing the comments (as well as replies to it).

Deignan doesn't come across very well in all this, and I think that his actions are easily as bad as Hettle's, and much worse than anything Dr. B. did (which was to enforce her comment policy).

#47644: Zeno — 11/08  at  07:45 AM
In Paul Deignan's comment policy:

I may correct spelling, but will indicate that your comment was edited.

From Paul Deignan's post "Additional Correspondence":

recieved a nice reply from Lauren

Do as I say...

#47647: — 11/08  at  08:02 AM
"I was also offended by the professor on Dr. B's site who thought it was appropriate to contact his advisors about his comments on her site. First, she was doing this while protected by her own anonymity, so it's a bit cowardly."

Huh? "the professor" is neither a she nor acted anonymously.

#47650: Paul Deignan — 11/08  at  08:10 AM
Hello,

The lawsuit is over libel. The internet is the medium. The malicious intent was to destroy my potential for gainful employment.

As part of the lawsuit, the identities of the defendants need to be established. I have done this.

Welcome to the reality based community where there are consequences for libel. (I see you got a quick start on the name calling. How entitled of you).

#47651: — 11/08  at  08:23 AM
Kip, regarding Dost thou not suspect my place? dost thou not suspect my years? O that he were here to write me down an ass! But, masters, remember that I am an ass; though it be not written down, yet forget not that I am an ass. No, thou villain, thou art full of piety, as shall be proved upon thee by good witness. I am a wise fellow, and, which is more, an officer,
and, which is more, a householder, and, which is more, as pretty a piece of flesh as any is in Messina, and one that knows the law, go to; and a rich fellow enough, go to; and a fellow that hath had losses, and one that hath two gowns and every thing handsome about him. Bring him away. O that I had been writ down an ass!

You are correct. This is Much Ado About Nothing

#47653: — 11/08  at  08:25 AM
Kip, regarding

Dost thou not suspect my place? dost thou not suspect my years? O that he were here to write me down an ass! But, masters, remember that I am an ass; though it be not written down, yet forget not that I am an ass. No, thou villain, thou art full of piety, as shall be proved upon thee by good witness. I am a wise fellow, and, which is more, an officer,
and, which is more, a householder, and, which is more, as pretty a piece of flesh as any is in Messina, and one that knows the law, go to; and a rich fellow enough, go to; and a fellow that hath had losses, and one that hath two gowns and every thing handsome about him. Bring him away. O that I had been writ down an ass!

You are correct. This is Much Ado About Nothing

#47654: coturnix — 11/08  at  08:26 AM
Paul Deignan needs to spend a few more years on the Internet before he starts posting.

Paul Deignan needs to realize that a blog is a privately-owned website and the owner has the right to ban anyone for any reason - no explnation needed.

Paul Deignan needs to grow a thicker skin and some balls. Being called a moron and a wanker is MILD. Internet is not for sissies.

Paul Deignan needs to realize that rules of conduct emerged democratically on the Internet. Calling someone a moron is not against the rules. Spoofing IP is. Outing an anonymous poster is.

Paul Deignan needs to realize that Internet defends itself agains individuals who break the rules or threaten to do so. It is like an immune system (Dr.B banning him, then all of us linking to him and bashing him) getting rid of a cancerous growth.

Paul Deignan needs to understand that a little chat with his advisor about what is appropriate behavior may do him some good, perhaps get him straight and save his career. He should thank Wally for alerting the advisor.

Paul Deignan should understand that he has no case against either Dr.B or Wally. On the other hand, if he discovers and exposes the identity of an anonymous Internet user, Dr.B has a strong case against him for cyberstalking.

Paul Deignan should apologize to all involved and take a break from blogging for a while to cool off.

#47655: — 11/08  at  08:29 AM
Hi Paul,

Who do you have lined up for legal counsel? I understand Leonard J. Crabs is an expert in the area of INTARNET LAWSUITES.

At any rate, best of luck in your burgeoning, Fred Phelps-like career: supporting your family through lawsuits because you're otherwise unemployable.

#47656: Mrs. Coulter — 11/08  at  08:29 AM
Perhaps someone should introduce Paul Deignan to Ivan Tribble. Surely, this kind of bizarre behavior is the kind of thing that makes people hesitate about hiring someone with a blog. What's next? "So-and-so gave me a funny look when I went to water cooler! I think I have grounds for a lawsuit!"

#47659: — 11/08  at  08:47 AM
I think this Wally guy took it too far, although the lawsuit is just ridiculous. Frankly this guy seems like a crackpot in the making; what is it with Chaos Theory and Fractals that attracts so many crackpots - there seems to be people trying to apply it to everything no matter how silly the application is.

I hope this "Social Information Theory" isn't his actual graduate research work, seems pretty ridiculous to me.

#47662: coturnix — 11/08  at  08:58 AM
Speaking of out-of-ass "social theory", have you all seen this?

#47663: Scot Lemieux — 11/08  at  08:59 AM
"Perhaps someone should introduce Paul Deignan to Ivan Tribble. Surely, this kind of bizarre behavior is the kind of thing that makes people hesitate about hiring someone with a blog. What's next? "So-and-so gave me a funny look when I went to water cooler! I think I have grounds for a lawsuit!""

Hah, I thought of Tribble too; the worst thing about this is that it provides him some measure of justification. (His next column: "the problem with blogging is that you may actually *draw attention* to the fact that you're filing a ridiculous nusiance suit.")

#47665: — 11/08  at  09:01 AM
Ok, so let me get this straight:

1) On blog of person A, person A posts their opinion, shored up by some evidence (I have read this stuff btw).

2) Person B makes some comments agreeing with thesis of article by person A.

3) Person C makes some comments disagreeing with thesis of article by person A.

4) Persons A and B disagree with disagreement of person C.

5) Person C gets pissy and start making velied threats.

6) Person A deletes silly threats and pissy remarks from their own blog and bans person C for acting like an ass.

7) Person B takes it upon themselves to email the PhD supervisors of person C. Person A does not approve or incite said act.

8) Person C responds by email, making further threats.

9) Person C tries to track down identities of persons B and A (despite B announcing identity).

10) Person C annonces that unless apologies and all round reparation is made that person C will insitgate lawsuit for libel.

Assuming this summary is accurate, in alphabetical order, my 2 cents:

Person A is blameless, their blog, their rules. Touch shit person C.

Person B acted like a total prick, it's comments on a blog for fuck's sake. Emailing someone's prof because of comments made on a blog is so self importantly pathetic I want to vomit. The sole caveat with regards to this is if actual identification of persons wishing to remain anonymous occured and actual threats/stalking occured. From the little I've seen this hasn't happen, although I am happy to be wrong based on the evidence.

Person C is clearly a dickless moron with FAR too much time on its hands. It's comments on a blog for fuck's sake. It should not have got out of hand, person B should not have done what they did. Tell PhD supervisor (who I seriously doubt gives a toss) that person B is randomn loon. Frivolous lawsuits over trivial nonsense and threats and posturing simply make person C appear to be a dickless moron with FAR too much time on its hands. Hence my conclusion.

People take themselves FAR to seriously it would appear. Lawsuit? Emailing people's boss? Wankers the pair of 'em.

#47667: — 11/08  at  09:07 AM
^should have been tough shit person C! Mind you, an amusing typo nonetheless.

#47668: coturnix — 11/08  at  09:07 AM
And for the craziest projection posing as "science" check out the Best Of list on the sidebar.

#47672: Chris Clarke — 11/08  at  09:17 AM
A few years back my employer received a strongly worded email complaining about my conduct as a result of this Usenet post. The email contained accusations about my intent and character that would have provided me with sufficient fodder to launch legal action of one sort or another. As a result, I had to have a meeting with my supervisor to address the issue, and ths caused a fair amount of stress as a result.

Here's the thing: I was a grownup about it. I didn't run whining to an attorney. I took it as an indication that my words had value and were having an impact. In my line of work, complaints often include threats of physical violence from reactionaries. Non-violent complaints about behavior are part of the work day.

Summation: Deignan is a whiny little self-important conservative wuss. But I repeat myself.

#47674: — 11/08  at  09:18 AM
Yeah but I mean what's the deal with Chaos and Complexity Theory. People seem obsessed with using them in all sorts of crackpot applications. This "Social Information" crap seems like mathematical mysticism in my opinion.