Pharyngula::Pissant of the Week

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Monday, November 07, 2005

Pissant of the Week

PZ Myers • 132 Comments (last page)

This little pimple rather pompously trolled Bitch Ph.D., and one commenter ("Wally") sent an email to his advisors, and Dr B chopped out some of his comments and banned him. His response? He's trying to puzzle out Dr B's identity so he can reveal it and use it in his lawsuit against Wally.

That's right. Lawsuit. Over blogging.

The story is pretty damned stupid already, and Mr Deignan is looking like a whiny little wanker with an elevated sense of entitlement, but what really blows the story into a major league example of assholishness and hypocrisy are his dimbulb rationalizations for doing this:

1. To make an example out of miscreants. The internet should be a place where free speech is respected.

Whaaa…? Who is trying to silence his critics with a nuisance lawsuit and an attempt to intimidate by exposing a pseudonym here? He is no friend of free speech, obviously.

2. Because, I am a nice guy. I am allowing Wally one more opportunity to save himself and his friend a lot of grief. Ever been sued Wally? It goes on forever and it is no fun at all (except for me). And I'm going to enjoy spending a lot of money in attorney fees because I like lawyers.

He's also trying to extort Wally by threatening to sue Dr B:

Remember, if I sue you, I sue your friend. It's a twofer.

Nice guy, huh? I think a declaration that he enjoys harrassing people with lawsuits, and is also willing to lash out at people's friends to get them to obey his demands, pretty much closes the book on that claim. Oh, and one more example of Deignan's hypocrisy:

Apparently, this professor has nothing better to do with his time than to go on a witch hunt (and not a very smart one at that).

That's in the middle of a long post with sitemeter screenshots and obsessive nitpicking over comments…by Deignan. I guess Ph.D. candidates in Indiana have even more free time.

You know, for such a self-declared smart guy, you might think he'd realize that this kind of outrageous excess is going to attract links to his behavior, and Google is going to remember who Paul Deignan is. What's going to hurt his reputation isn't an email to an advisor or an edited comment on a weblog…it's his own ugly, petty response.

Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/3323/tZuurlhc/

Comments:

#47679: — 11/08 at 09:26 AM
I have to agree, this Wally was off in "tattling" on the guy. But that's just etiquette, or rather lack thereof. If his email just called their attention to Deignan's behavior and expressed an opinion that it was inappropriate, I don't see how any rational person could call that libel. Deignan's subsequent behavior over this just further undercuts his own credibility, using threats of a lawsuit as a club.

And as far as career damage goes...if a candidate's advisors question the candidate more thoroughly over interpretations of science that he's offering on his own blog, and other sites, that they were not previously aware of...so what? I'm having a hard time seeing the inherent illegality of "hey, you know this kid you're about to give a degree to? You should see these examples of his 'understanding' of the science..."

#47680: — 11/08 at 09:31 AM
Oh, Paul, would you care to say exactly what was defamatory and untrue in Wally's e-mail? Given that you have misidentified Dr B as the person who accused you of sending a threatening e-mail, it's rather difficult to have any confidence in this assertion. Have you even read the e-mail he sent?

#47682: PZ Myers — 11/08 at 09:35 AM
A professional editor...using "LOL"? Chris, I think that's a hanging offense, isn't it?

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

#47683: — 11/08 at 09:38 AM
If this "Social Information Theory" is the basis of his graduate work he should not be given a degree. Even if it is not I think the University has a moral obligation to look into his work - I don't like the idea of Purdue minting yet another PhD-wielding crackpot. It is disturbing that someone at the PhD level believes applications of Chaos Theory to "the thinking conservative vs. the feeling socialist" is appropriate mathematical research.

#47685: Chris Clarke — 11/08 at 09:43 AM

A professional editor...using "LOL"? Chris, I think that's a hanging offense, isn't it?

Alas, I was only an assistant editor then.

Besides, V*nd*m*n wasn't worth the effort of actually constructing complete sentences.

"I do not think we should antagonize the religious when it is not warranted, though I think we should be willing to do so whenever it is.”
-- Glen Davidson

#47686: Raven — 11/08 at 09:43 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.

Used to be, those with "mathematics envy" who couldn't be arsed to actually master the subject with any real rigor had to admit they were just pulling the currently fashionable math buzzwords out of their ass. Now they just co-opt the name of a real other discipline and slap the label "information theory" on it.

Kind of dismaying, actually, to real informaticists, although not always--when I told my informatics professor, who had never heard of Dembski, about "the Isaac Newton of information theory", he almost snorted coffee out his nose.

#47688: — 11/08 at 09:54 AM
This guy doesn't have a case. As long as Wally just showed his advisors the questionable material being presented by this guy, it is not libel. Truth is an absolute defense to any defamation claim.

He also has no rights of free speech. The worst thing that could happen to Dr. B is that she violated the terms of her blog provider's user agreement. No one has the right to free speech on the internet. Almost all sites are privately owned, so you have no rights except what you are given.

This guy is your typical lawsuit threatening troll. You don't take them seriously, because they are going to bankrupt themselves paying for a lawyer to tell them that they don't have a case.

#47690: removed — 11/08 at 09:55 AM
I doubt that Deignan has even contacted a lawyer, let alone filed a lawsuit. Nutcases like Deignan are fairly predictable in their noise making but never follow through with their psychotic visions. Besides, what lawyer would embarrass themselves with such a stupid and baseless case?

Again, Mr. Deignan, seek psychiatric help ASAP!

#47692: — 11/08 at 10:01 AM
This guy is just full of hot air. All bark no bite. He has not case and I doubt he's even pursuing one.

#47693: — 11/08 at 10:05 AM
Looks to me like he already senses he might not be facing that great a career after he files his PhD, and he's casting around trying to find other people to blame this fact on.

#47695: — 11/08 at 10:16 AM
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.

Only if libel occurs. And libel doesn't occur unless an untruth is told that damages a living person's reputation. If someone tells your supervisor something that is true or draws their attention to something that you actually have written, there is no libel, even if it damages your reputation. Even if the intent is malicious.

I've never yet heard of a successful lawsuit of the type you're talking about. Frankly, I've never heard of a suit like this actually being brought to court. It's usually just impotent threats.

Frankly, I read stuff like this, and I immediately start thinking of Bernard Shifman.

#47699: — 11/08 at 10:36 AM

Frankly, I read stuff like this, and I immediately start thinking of Bernard Shifman.

That's exactly who I was thinking of, but I couldn't remember the name or site...

#47701: marsha — 11/08 at 10:41 AM
hahaha...you meet a crazy like this guy once a week in new york city...they are pathalogical liars and the people in the courts know them and the worst thing you can do is pay attention. But sometimes they are very very funny. :D

#47704: — 11/08 at 10:50 AM
People have been successfully sued over internet comments, at least in more plaintiff friendly countries like the UK and Australia. But as Frito and Scooter says, we haven't seen any evidence of basic grounds for libel, let alone a winnable case.

#47705: removed — 11/08 at 10:53 AM
The irony in all of this is that Paul Deignan has done himself in, i.e., given the Ivan Tribble piece in the Chronicle of Higher Ed. His identity in conjunction with such stupidity is forever in the public domain and the more attention it gets the worse off he’ll be. Oh the tragedy of it all…

#47706: — 11/08 at 11:01 AM
I sincerely hope that all Paul Denigen is suffering from is methamphetamine abuse. I sure hope he isn't like that normally.

#47708: pough — 11/08 at 11:12 AM
The email to the advisors was a result of the blogging? Really? Then what does this bit in the comments mean:

Just to clarify: I contacted Paul's advisers after he sent me threatening email.

And how many comments have been deleted? It's hard for us to really get a clear picture when comments have been deleted and some of the key information is in emails.

#47709: LochNess — 11/08 at 11:14 AM
My only question:

PZ, why are you giving this guy more publicity than he deserves by even mentioning this?

#47710: — 11/08 at 11:14 AM
Paul Deignan is an idiot and a crybaby who hasn't recovered from his parents' inept attempts to potty train him.

I'll add him to my list of petulant lawsuit-threatening idiots that includes the dipshit who wrote Women Are From Venus (remember, he whined and cried when his Ph.D. was revealed to be from some half-assed diploma mill).

#47711: — 11/08 at 11:16 AM
Damn this be one wack be-atch - He be jus axin for the takedown! Ma homies at Pudue - go "talk" to this sucker & go Sholin on the weasel. Don't yall forget to wash yo hands after neither - you don't want the dudes Max Creepy cooties on yall!

#47713: — 11/08 at 11:23 AM

PZ, why are you giving this guy more publicity than he deserves by even mentioning this?

The public ridicule (and having his name all over Google in connection with this) might have the salutary effect of making him shut the f*ck up and dropping the suit.

Failing that, he deserves the humiliation anyway.

#47714: Nullifidian — 11/08 at 11:24 AM
<quote>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).</quote>

This will have to come out anyway in the bill of particulars (if you file generally) or the declaration which you will file, so perhaps you would grace us by telling us exactly what the alleged "libel" is here?

So far all I've seen is that the guy who goes by "Wally" went and contacted your advisors about your unprofessional behavior and asked them to take you in hand and tell you that your behavior wasn't going to do wonders for your career in any sort of collaborative field. All of this is true, and even if you can establish that it was done maliciously, which doesn't seem to be the case, you simply cannot build a libel case when the defendant is making true statements.

Either there's some deeper dirt to be dished, or you are simply going to be dismissed on summary judgment, probably dismissed with prejudice. If you're very unlucky and the judge takes an extreme dislike to you (and given your postings, that may well be the case), he or she could demand that you pay the costs, money I would say, from your previous postings, that you can ill afford to lose.

"We are obliged, therefore, to spread the news, painful and bitter though it may be for some to hear, that all living things on earth are kindred.” Edward Abbey, Desert Solitaire

#47715: — 11/08 at 11:28 AM
The Internet remembers. Ten years from now a prospective employer will enter "Paul Deignan" into Google/Yahoo!/MS Search and read the whole thing. It's like the teacher who intones "this will go on your permanent record. Well, today we write our own "permanent records"...

#47717: Ron Sullivan — 11/08 at 11:33 AM
#47708: pough — 11/08 at 11:12 AM
The email to the advisors was a result of the blogging? Really? Then what does this bit in the comments mean:

Just to clarify: I contacted Paul's advisers after he sent me threatening email.

Your memory of the account coincides with mine, for what it's worth. Whoozits' public snit was over blog exchanges and being banned; Wally's call regarded a perceived personal threat, and he's not anonymous even on that blog.

(shrug) Seemed to be somewhat different circumstances to me, anyway.

#47721: — 11/08 at 12:08 PM
I'd hate to see the guy's whole life tarnished because he got out of hand on the internet. Still his advisor need to confront him on the topic of his crackpot mathematical hypothesis. Purdue is a fairly well-regarded university, I wouldn't like to see them hand out a PhD to another DI/Neocon lacky.

Page 3 of 6 pages « First < 1 2 3 4 5 > Last »

Next entry: Behe opens mouth, speaks, brain falls out

Previous entry: Lifecode

<< Back to main