Monday, August 20, 2007

Kook Sues PZ-- NOT a Joke

Remember a while back, when PZ reviewed some crappy book by a no-name author, and you were like "Why the hell did PZ write about this guy? Weird." and then you went about your day?

Well, that wasnt just any no-name author. It was a high level grade A screwball that has decided to take on the entire blogodome.

This scum-covered-quacker has put everyone in the blagosphere at risk. Hes trying to ruin the fun for everyone. Wanna review Behe? He can hold his finger on a temper-tantrum trigger. Wanna quote-mine a respected scientist, Creationists? Wait patiently for a phone call from her lawyer.

Luckily, the 'legal' folks that have read the review say its crap and wont make it past a judge, and (secret) Neil de Grasse Tyson told no-name last November to take his name off the book, well before PZs review, but still-- waste of time, worry for PZ, worry for SciBlogs, worry for all of us... I hope this guy never works again.

Edited to add-- HOLY CRAP! No-name put some comments on PZs blog-- What a friggen KOOK! I DO "see why rominent scientists have endorsed the model as plausible, ublishable, and worthy of investigation."


Israel Barrantes said...

I'll never understand why american people allows this kind of fanatic behavior... I mean, you don't see these things either in europe or south america (and never on a catholic country). Perhaps protestantism is the key factor... anyway, good luck to PZ.

Ian said...

Even some of the IDists support PZ on this...they aren't that dumb.

Torbjörn Larsson said...

Oh, joy.

First Adnan Oktar (aka Harun Yahya) gets turkish courts to block in Turkey because of bloggers criticizing his "science".

Now another two bit censorship courtier wants to suppress criticism.

It is good to see internet juridical status tested and solidified. But I fear for a negative outcome with regards free speech. So I'm heartened to see that Pivar is as much a legal kook as he is scientifically (for example, by 'defending' his science in court) :

the New York State court system’s database reveals fifteen cases since 1986 in which Stuart Pivar has been the plaintiff (and two in which we was the defendant)

Israel Barrantes:

Certainly the background behind social behavior is complex. But as an example, here in Scandinavia, with former or persisting lutheran influences, while we aren't (yet) as litigious as in anglosaxon countries we do prefer to have unconstrained social conditions as default. That could support your key factor hypothesis by correlation. (While detract from the fanaticism angle.)

This default works when you are used to it, and enough individuals and organizations support it. When it doesn't work, the steel claw may come out. We have high taxes to provide basic social and medical insurance policies. That could either be seen as individual weakness or as collectivist strength...