That picture of him is a rare find.
I know this isn't very nice to say, but if I looked like that, I wouldn't post a picture on my blog. also, have you read any of the "game-theoretical" "analyses" of current politics? it's as if there were a poor man's steven den beste, and then there was the poor man's poor man's steven den beste. and then we had to turn to this guy, later, after the poor man x2 den beste suffered a fatal brain haemmorage brought on by being a fucking eeeedjeet. and we found this guy's writing rolled up with some used BART transfers in that other guy's pockets after he passed out.
Oh my goodness, what a silly, silly man.
I saw this over at B.Phd's, and I have to say that I can't figure out what he thinks he's going to sue her for, or even what he's cranky about. The other guy, who emailed his advisor? Still not tortious, but I could see getting cross about it. But B didn't do a blessed thing beyond banning him.
what he thinks he's going to sue her for
You can't ban me. Do you have any idea who I am?
Labs, can you trackback to him so we can all get on the defendants' list?
It's a well known fact on campus at Purdue that most mechanical engineering students, especially at the graduate level, lead lives of more or less ceaseless pain and misanthropy. Undergrad ME work is generally regarded as one of the most legitimate reasons for developing a drinking problem.
one of the most legitimate reasons
We're supposed to be able to cite reasons? Sheesh, I'm going to have to find a better one than "I really, really like getting drunk."
Woody Harrelson is totally playing him in the made-for-tv-movie.
Trackback, trackback! If Ogged insists on hiating, the Mineshaft demands red meat. Tom Hildean red meat!
If the meat is red, I certainly don't want it.
Purple and pink, yes. Red: no.
This applies to Deignan, but leads me to a larger comment: I simply find it impossible to trust people who make poor decisions in regard to their glasses. Bad glasses = Bad Analytic Skills = Untrustworthy. 80s gomer glasses? Bad. Tinted lenses, especially the ones that change? Bad.
Seriously, what is with people?
Re: the update
I repeat, what a silly, silly man. I love the last paragraph with the faux-mafioso attempt at implicit menace.
Anybody else getting a heady whiff of Asperger's Syndrome emanating from our new favorite litigant?
Chooper, my similar line of thinking has always been: "never trust a man who doesn't wear a belt."
er, Chopper. but "Chooper" does have a kind of "annoying by-the-watercooler nickname" feel to it...
IANAL, but is suing for loss of consortium right out? He's clearly never had sex, but perhaps he had future hopes, now dashed. Also, isn't there some sort of "interference with future business relationship" tort? Looking at him, one would think that sex with him was always going to require some sort of cash payment, but I can imagine even that possibility has now been foreclosed.
Getting in touch with his advisor was well out of line, but his actions in response are simply bizarre.
since i'm clogging the comments section: who the hell has a "People I've sued" section of their CV?
also, nice that we had four comments 10:08...
who the hell has a "People I've sued" section of their CV?
Does he really? That's a selling point on your CV.
Aw, rats, you were kidding. I figured you really meant that he had a 'Lawsuits' heading.
Word to the wise, Chopper: there's been a significant uptick in the prevalence of Revenge of the Nerds–styled glasses among the hipsterati. Click through this place and you'll see what I'm talking about. I think our man Deignan is probably better explained by your social dysfunction correlation than an acute sense of irony on his part.
Oh, is it "people I've sued"? I thought it was "political campaigns I've donated to", which is obviously a common part of your CV, if you live in the Crab Nebula.
SCMT - The guy who contacted the adviser said something about that being in response to a "serious threat" sent via e-mail, but I never followed up to check what it was.
Don't think I'm serious? Did you read my CV? I just spent $1500 to help take down Miers and I thought she was a nice lady.
...is what led me to believe his CV has to be fascinating reading. unfortunately, i finally found it, and it doesn't have a "People I've taken down" heading.
I started to click through that site, Armsmasher, but got stuck on this one.
I'm a huge fan of anonymous blogging (though I blew my own cover, damn it, and now my Mom reads my blog. It cramps my style, I tells ya!), so I've been really disturbed to see the Bitch threatened with an outing. The great thing about anonymous blogging is . . . oh, but I don't have to tell you what the great thing is.
My sympathies are naturally with the Bitch, and I'm not sure what on this guy's site is to be believed, but . . . did that guy Wally really call the dude's academic supervisor? If so, that's really fucking low. What could he possibly have been thinking? Or have I misunderstood something here?
Hmm. I might be wrong in 24. The difference between Deignan and this person escapes me.
The difference between Deignan and this person escapes me.
The bling, obviously.
My sympathies are naturally with the Bitch, and I'm not sure what on this guy's site is to be believed, but . . . did that guy Wally really call the dude's academic supervisor? If so, that's really fucking low.
Eh... while I agree with you offhand, it depends on how threatening the 'threatening email' was. Someone sends you scary emails, I caould see going to their supervisor.
Anybody else getting a heady whiff of Asperger's Syndrome emanating from our new favorite litigant?
He'd take that as a badge of honor. Please, as a nerd I beg you: don't encourage the socially inept to self-diagnose themselves as having Asperger's. It leads to a deplorable "I can't get laid because I'm a genius" sort of attitude.
These legal threats are a kind of amusing, but he's going to get tiresome quick -- it's just a classic troll variant. I guess letting him waste his money is fine, but who knows? Maybe he has a lawyer stupid or crooked enough to actually file a suit. I'd suggest that BPHD/Wally call the EFF and/or ACLU and ask that somebody with a law degree make a polite but firm phone call explaining the first amendment and whatever the countersuit options might be. Ideally this phone call would end with the words "you fucking pussy", but that might be asking a bit much.
believe his CV has to be fascinating
Yeah, I thought the same thing. He doesn't mention Harriet Miers even once in his CV. Nor does he list his presidency of the Baffling Non Sequitur Society.
He does, however, fuck up the link to his website, so that's something.
He's saying that BPhD defamed him by saying he 'spoofed' his IP to get around her ban (she meant 'ban evasion', not spoofin), and that when she called his comments threatening, she defamed him AGAIN.
What's that you say? How does her calling him a 'spoofer' relate to someone e-mailing his advisor? It doesn't!
He's been busily looking up all the FREE LEGAL ADVICE!!11!! on the Internets, which assure him in plain-man's language that he's got a case if someone accused him of a crime (which hasn't happened, near as I can tell) or hurt his feelings.
This is really the equivalent of getting drunk at a conference, acting like an asshole, and then suing because someone else at the conference tipped off your advisor. And then suing the girl who threw the martini in your face because she called you a drunk.
The other thing, of course, is why is he threatening a lawsuit to expose Bitch? If he knows her identity, all he'd have to do is publish it. If he doesn't, suing her isn't a particularly efficient means of unmasking her.
24: Hipsters can be retardos too. For that matter, membership in the hipster scene might in fact qualify as de facto evidence of some level of retardoness.
Although on a brief skim of the linked site, I did see some guy managing to pull off some HST-esques aviator glasses.
aw, c'mon. if we can't diagnose people with asperger's from afar, whom will me make fun of? also, I have delved deeper into unhip/hip glasses than any of you, owning as I do many pairs of tinted sunglasses (shading dark to light, top to bottom) which are both roughly octagonal and have the arms come off the bottom of the frames. still, there's a certain something that distinguishes the hipster from the apparently identically-clad nerd, and he doesn't have that thing. also, he's a fucking moron who imagines he will win $500,000 in libel damages because someone accused him of spoofing his IP address.
Seriously, is there anything that endears you to potential future employers more than a reputation as a litigious asshole?
Alameida:
a) sunglasses don't count. They're supposed to be tinted.
b) Those glasses, with the frames coming off the bottom? Would not be able to trust you if I met you in person (with the proviso that trumps all: unless you were hot).
c) a key point that I didn't make explisict, but alluded to above: it all goes out the window if you can pull it off. The vast majority of the people making the decisions that lead to bad eyewear can't.
Internet is full of tools
Full of tools
Full of tools
Internet is full of tools
Like Paul Deignan
unless you were hot
That has already been firmly established, yo.
I'm with Tom on the Asperger's thing. Why can't we just say that the guy is an asshole? Why does it have to be a syndrome? (My brother is likely on the autistic spectrum, and the behind-his-back diagnosis is mild Asperger's, but he's not an asshole, just a dork.)
41: I'm sure that's the case in theory, and by her writing I can tell she's teh hott (I can tell, dammit), but I have no actual knowledge of a blogger named alameida's hottness.
Oh, no doubt he's bonkers. But I sort of trust that the truth will be apparent to his supervisors without the tip. And google will now do the rest. How freaked out you are by the call to the supervisor depends, perhaps, on how freaked out you are by your own supervisor. Consider me freaked out.
A quick (quick!, so don't tell my supervisor I said this!) perusal of the exchange really makes that phone call seem petty and vindictive. I mean, really, would it be cool to call someone's boss because you don't like their attitude on a completely unrelated comment thread? If a right winger did that I would boo and hiss. We have lives outside of our work, and while our character traits are unfortunately impossible to cordon off neatly into the two domains, it is nice to maintain the fiction that this is possible. Or at least, I would like to think that nonymous blogging also has its place, and there's no future for nonymous blogging if people will complain to your boss/supervisor about your views.
And I think Cala is wrong to say this: This is really the equivalent of getting drunk at a conference, acting like an asshole, and then suing because someone else at the conference tipped off your advisor. And then suing the girl who threw the martini in your face because she called you a drunk.
A conference is a professional setting. Bitchphd's blog is not. That ought to make a big difference to whether the guy's advisor gets called onto the scene.
Of course, a lot depends on what the private correspondence looks like. If it's just awful, I take it back. But if it's really awful, perhaps he should have called the police, instead of the advisor.
What has chaos theory given us but pretty pictures and flaky grad students . That is no penicillin.
"IANAL, but is suing for loss of consortium right out? He's clearly never had sex, but perhaps he had future hopes, now dashed. ... Looking at him, one would think that sex with him was always going to require some sort of cash payment..."
He claims half a million dollars in damages... so, damn, that's a whole lotta hookers! Then again, as you pointed out, he is pretty rough to look at. Do you think prostitutes have an "ugly client" fee?
Can't disagree with you -- Wally was over-the-top in calling Deignan's boss, unless the private email was seriously weird. That, on the other hand, does not make Deignan's reaction any the less that of a complete tool.
Oh, I agree, it was petty and vindictive. Things online should stay online.
But Deignan is basically whimpering that he said something in public under his real name, and then it came back to haunt him. That was the point of the analogy (let's make it a bar, as I only picked conference because I couldn't think of a reason academics would be hanging out together willingly. Paul's running around drunk, declaring, 'I'm a Purdue PhD!!!!!!', like he was on the blog, falling all over himself, and someone tips off his advisor. Or he's travelling on business, but in his free time gets liquored up, starts handing out his Goldman Sachs business cards, and someone lets his boss know.); if you make an ass of yourself in public, you can't really complain if people find out about your public assitude.
At least not to the point of defamation.
What would have happened, if, say, an Instalanche had hit that comment thread? Would he sue Glenn Reynolds for making it popular enough that his advisor might stumble upon it?
Chris is right in 44, but the lawsuit is still ridicule worthy.
When Buckley, Jr. dies, they can hire Mr. Deignan to write more Blackford Oakes mysteries. The Application of Information Theory to Putting Parts Into Other Parts, Or So I've Heard, etc.
If 47 is meant for me, then yes, we are in complete agreement.
I want to mount a vigorous defence for this point while I can still do it without appearing directly self-interested. But to be honest, it's been worrying me for a while. Why, just recently I pissed off the lackey of a shadowy underworld Russian arms trader who is on the run from the FBI (oh, how I love to say that), and the first thing I thought of was whether he would contact my advisor to complain about me. He's just nuts enough to do that, but thankfully far too stupid. Of course I've done nothing wrong, but the less I have to talk about why I haven't finished my dissertation yet, the better.
Of course, I could always just finish my dissertation so that I could stop living in fear.
I imagine his name is pronounced like "Dignan", the character from Bottle Rocket.
I was actually trying not to do that.
Of course, I could always just finish my dissertation so that I could stop living in fear.
Oh, I don't know if that's wise. If we don't win a few elections, and Republicans continue to run the country, fear will be the natural American state. Your present lifestyle will make you well-adapted for the New Republican Order.
Richard Kind Paul Deignan says:
The burden of proof is on the one who libels.
I disagree. The burden of proof is on the experimental squid.
Cala, hmmm, yeah it does get a bit trickier if he's dragging his own identity as a scholar into it.
I still object to the tone of Wally's comments though. Comes off far too much like tattling.
And yes, I'll say it as many times as necessary, P.D. sounds bonkers.
Help me! Everything I touch turns to diplomas!
What would have happened, if, say, an Instalanche had hit that comment thread? Would he sue Glenn Reynolds for making it popular enough that his advisor might stumble upon it?
We should ask ogged to ask Insty to link.
Gawd he's a moron. I increasingly wonder if he's ever watched L&O, let alone contacted a lawyer.
Why, just recently I pissed off the lackey of a shadowy underworld Russian arms trader who is on the run from the FBI (oh, how I love to say that), and the first thing I thought of was whether he would contact my advisor to complain about me. He's just nuts enough to do that, but thankfully far too stupid. Of course I've done nothing wrong, but the less I have to talk about why I haven't finished my dissertation yet, the better.
I dunno, don't you think it gives you a sort of devil-may-care glamour? 'Of course I haven't finished my dissertation yet -- but as soon as my investigation of the arms-trading underworld is complete, I'll be right on it.'
We also have the three nonlinearly related dimensions necessary for chaotic systems which can roughly be mapped to the id, ego, and superego dimensions of Freud's psychoanalytic model. So I propose to use the vehicle of the libel lawsuit against Wally and his friend as a means of discovery and exposition of larger political and sociological themes: the internet and information, academia, the nature of truth and libel, and politics of the culture wars.
Oh, lord.
1. mention irrelevant historical curio from psychology
2. declare it to exist as a multidimensional space, for some reason
3. ???
4. PROFIT!!! LIBEL LAWSUIT!!!
Can people like this really get PhDs? I thought they all just ended up fooling investors into losing money on crackpot alternative energy schemes.
4. PROFIT!!! LIBEL LAWSUIT!!! BAD POST-MODERN DECONSTRUCTIONIST PERFORMANCE ART!!!
Seriously, there is no other interpretation I can realistically attach to the passage Tom quoted.
I can't stop looking at the picture. And when I look long enough, he starts talking in a Jimmy Cagney voice.
"I'm gonna sue ya, see? Mehhh."
Also, IANAL, but I would think that passage in 61 would tend to scream "frivolous lawsuit" to any judge that read it.
Oh, the only actual legal difficulty any of this could lead to is the annoyance and expense of getting it dismissed. It doesn't begin to approach the possibility of a defamation claim.
If he managed to find a lawyer to file a suit for him, which strikes me as beyond unlikely.
From Three-Toed Sloth's review of Wolfram's book:
Thus Martin Gardner's classic description of the crank scientist in the first chapter of his Fads and Fallacies. In lieu of superfluous comments, let us pass on to Gardner's list of the "five ways in which the sincere pseudo-scientist's paranoid tendencies are likely to be exhibited."1. He considers himself a genius.
2. He regards his colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads. Everyone is out of step except himself....
3. He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against....
4. He has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest scientists and the best-established theories. When Newton was the outstanding name in physics, eccentric works in that science were violently anti-Newton. Today, with Einstein the father-symbol of authority, a crank theory of physics is likely to attack Einstein in the name of Newton....
5. He often has a tendency to write in a complex jargon, in many cases making use of terms and phrases he himself has coined...."
Now we can play along at home as this goes forward.
Re 63:
Apo, perhaps you'd prefer the full-size version.
Strangely, he gets less funny-looking as the picture gets larger. The Cagney thing is still fully operative.
If LB's not getting it done for you, Ogged, I'll email you.
67: LB's fatal fascination strikes!
Chris, if you don't put "pissed off the lackey of a shadowy underworld Russian arms trader who is on the run from the FBI" on your CV--well, I can see why you wouldn't, but damn you should.
I agree that Hettle should absolutely not have contacted Deignan's supervisor. (If you read the thread--God knows why I did--you'll see that Hettle says something about "I'm a real professor with tenure," which really makes me have some kind of non-positive feelings in his direction.) But Deignan seems to be unable to distinguish between things Hettle did and things B did. The fact that Hettle sent his supervisor an e-mail doesn't exactly give him the right to sue B.
You appear to be ignoring the feminist conspiracy that's out to get him. He's going to blow the lid off the academic-feminist mafia, using game theory, chaos theory, and an incredible grasp of the subtleties of the law.
(ogged -- done.)
Oh, the only actual legal difficulty any of this could lead to is the annoyance and expense of getting it dismissed. It doesn't begin to approach the possibility of a defamation claim.
Would there be the loss of anonymity, though?
[Edited by Ogged: I took out this part of LB's comment, because I'm not sure Deignan ought to get free legal advice here. I'll restore it when this blows over.] If he brings an action with the intent of using the discovery he gets as a part of that suit to uncover her, a good lawyer should be able to block it.
If he goes after her anonymity, she really should contact EFF or someone like that. And he should be widely shunned on the Internet - on the order of a Left/Right agreement to delete any comment he makes on a site. Attacking anonymity was wrong when Leiter threatened to do it, and it's wrong when done by a Red.
Alternate thought: maybe he's trying to salt the data to make a more compelling case for tort reform.
This thread does not fill me with good feelings.
No one, I think, finds Deignan's quick resort to legal action, nor his grouping of Hettle and BPHD advisable. But look: Hettle threatened Deignan's livelihood. That's enough to make anyone jumpy. If there are now-deleted comments on BPHD's site that would help him exculpate himself with his supervisor, BPHD could make them available. As for the other matters, is it not clear that a single tactful email from BPHD would get this whole nightmare off of her hands?
I suppose I understand her reasons for not wanting to send that single tactful email, but that does not make them good reasons.
And as for the comments on Deignan here: why? Why do this?
He keeps claiming that he's acting in the interests of free speech and that he's got a mysterious law firm retained.
I thought hipster glasses had to have darker, thicker frames?
74 and 75, this's the body of the e-mail I sent Prof. B:
B-
I am not a lawyer, nor is the following legal advice, and I can't believe I just wrote that. Anyway, if no one has sent it to you yet, CDA 230 codified as 47 USC §230 is why even if the idiot sues whomever is hosting your blog, they have no obligation at all to disclose your identity. Even in a case where what you had written was defamatory (I don't see at all how it is) and obviously so, they'd have no obligation to do that: See Zeran v. America Online, 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997).
Can some clever person explain an IT aspect of this situation? If you comment anonymously on someone's blog can they nevertheless figure out who you are?
If there are now-deleted comments on BPHD's site that would help him exculpate himself with his supervisor, BPHD could make them available. As for the other matters, is it not clear that a single tactful email from BPHD would get this whole nightmare off of her hands?
I don't understand your basis for believing that anything Dr. Bitch deleted was exculpatory, nor that a 'single tactful email' would shut him up. Was there some offer to go away and stop being an ass if she made nice that I missed?
And as for the comments on Deignan here: why? Why do this?
Because he's being an incredible ass. Hettle did something that, while a lousy thing to do, was part of the risks you take. When you send someone email under your own name, there's a chance they're going to pass it on. (And of course, if Deignan's email was unexceptionable, it shouldn't have done him much damage with his advisor.) Dr. Bitch didn't have a damn thing to do with that interaction. Taking revenge on her for Hettle's action is lunatic.
He's also revealed himself as pig-ignorant. Nothing that has happened bears any relationship to a valid defamation claim.
I can understand why Deignan is jumpy, but his response is exceedingly disproportionate. He hasn't said a word, incidentally, of what the consequences to him were; I somehow doubt that his employability was destroyed by this, especially as he's not searching for a job in the academy.
63: Now you've got me thinking of the Chappelle standup special. Black people talking like Jimmy Cagney has got to be the most discordant thing I have ever heard.
78: I never though "the lurkers support him in e-mail" would actually be cited as justification for a legal action.
If there are now-deleted comments
Deignan has them archived in .pdf format on his own site, I think.
why? Why do this?
What, we're only allowed to mock the people who actually comment here?
Carrying on: seventh picture on this page. Relative?
If you comment anonymously on someone's blog can they nevertheless figure out who you are?
They can tell your internet address, unless you do something explicitly to hide it. That usually narrows down your geographical, if not your institutional, coordinates.
I suppose I understand her reasons for not wanting to send that single tactful email, but that does not make them good reasons.
Here's a line from the headers of an email I got from Dr. B, slightly edited:
Received: from [REDACTED] by web52611.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 16 May 2005 16:56:12 PDT
The redacted material being her IP address, which is sufficient to determine the city in which the computer she was using is located. Is that not a good reason?
Can some clever person explain an IT aspect of this situation? If you comment anonymously on someone's blog can they nevertheless figure out who you are?
Yes. Well, yes, if you actually mean "pseudonymously". You'll leave your IP address behind, which can be used to track down your ISP, which is frequently synonymous with your employer. See tor.eff.org if this worries you.
Re: 75
Good thought -- I hadn't thought of what I said there as likely to be useful to him. (And I should say that for purposes of these blog comments anything I say is certainly not legal advice. I'm nattering off the top of my head, rather than doing legal work here.)
Can some clever person explain an IT aspect of this situation? If you comment anonymously on someone's blog can they nevertheless figure out who you are?
It's not hard to figure out what someone's IP address is, and usually that can be tied to a region or an institution. The problem is, of course, that that doesn't pinpoint a person directly.
slolernr, he can get an IP address from the comment. That (theoretically -- they aren't always accurate; I've watched mine be quite inaccurate at times, carrying over from travels and once who knows what) can give location. Then if you know someone is at a U and approximately what they teach, about how old they are, etc. you can go digging on the U web sites for that area and see if you can figure it out. Professors are fairly public figures in general (often we have a fair amount of web presence just from publishing and presenting in addition to our home institution's web whatever).
However, much as we all seem unique, in many ways we're all alike. I have a commenter who thinks we're in the same location based on how I describe my town -- and we're not. And if you started to look me up based on geography ... there are other female junior faculty at my U with my same first name, others in my college with similar backgrounds ... and who knows how many others who are a lot like me at other universities altogether.
And of course, if Deignan's email was unexceptionable, it shouldn't have done him much damage with his advisor.
Ah, that's exactly the problem. It might well. In a slightly different recent case, someone in Britain got a blogger to shut his site down by complaining to the guy's boss. A boss might have all sorts of reasons for responding harshly even to obviously unreasonable complaints, e.g., simply to avoid publicity. All this helps to make an especially strong case for anonymous blogging in the first place, but, again, I want to carve out a place for nonymous blogging. A strong norm against these sorts of complaints would help.
As for pissing off the lacky of a Russian arms trader, hey, it's easy! Just write something on your own blog about how he the arms trader is a psychopath and you have it on good authority that his lackys are criminals and bedwetters. He's awfully touchy. Just, if it's all the same, don't refer to this thread when you do it, since I've (probably unwisely) exposed the soft underbelly of my darkest fears for all the world to see.
Re 84:
I'm likely to have nightmares featuring the guy in the eighth photo, as is the kid in the ninth photo.
Can some clever person explain an IT aspect of this situation? If you comment anonymously on someone's blog can they nevertheless figure out who you are?
Every comment is associated with an IP address (a unique address identifying the computer used to leave the comment). The owner of the blog can look at the list of IP addresses which have visited his site in the server's log files (or some software like SiteMeter will do this for you, if you don't have direct access to the log files). If you only have an IP address, then in general you can just narrow down the location to a geographical area like a town. (There are free and commercial services that will take an IP address and do this for you.) Sometimes you can do more than that: IP addresses from universities or companies may be much more particiular, in some cases they will resolve to something as specific as myname.mybuilding.myuniversity.edu. If you are accessing the internet from home (through your cable company, say), then geographical information will be all you can glean. As a rule this won't be enough to identify someone -- just roughly where they live. But if you already know other identifying information about the person (such as their occupation or what have you) then the geographical information added by the IP address may narrow it down to a very few candidates. It's not hard at all. This is essentially how Deignan is guessing Dr B's identity.
77: If Deignan had e-mailed bphd to say, "Look, I know you deleted my comments, but somebody narked me out to my supervisor and I need to show him these comments to clear my name," and she'd told him to bug off, he might have a reason to be upset. I see no indication that that's what happened.
As it is, Deignan says that a polite apology and "retraction of the defamation" would be enough to take care of that. But is there any reason to believe him? If he thinks "spoofing IPs" and "threatening" (meaning threatening lawsuits, and threatening to reveal identities) are defamatory claims, he's clearly a bit unhinged. Not to mention that there are reasons not to knuckle under to maximum tools.
LB,
Yes, actually, I think there's some evidence that conciliatory gestures would be taken as, well, concilliatory gestures.
The commentary here about Deignan's looks, sexual habits, and the like are delightful. I am glad that, since he is an ass, and ignorant of law, we need not find these things unseemly.
Ben W: so instead of email, how about some moderately tactful statement on her blog.
Cala: I think your assessment in #82 is likely accurate. That makes it all the more probable that this situation could be easily defused.
Also, isn't mocking silly people an officially approved activity round here?
Big Paul D:
After all of the demagoguery on the issue, there remains two simple questions that the entire abortion debate revolves around:
1. In our democratic society, do all persons have equal intrinsic rights (we are especially concerned here with the right to life--the most fundamental of all rights)?
2. When is a person a person?
After years of hearing the various arguments, I have two simple answers:
1. Yes
2. Erring on the side of caution, when that person is alive.
So here is the challenge: Have I missed anything and are my simple answers wrong?
Duuuuuuuuude.
(Also, No one has yet noted officially that w-lfs-n pwned baa.)
If the Deignan-mocking is too much, please everyone mock me instead.
Here, I'll start: I am an ugly non-sex-haver.
Shit! All the good blogging days happen when I have work to do.
And baa replies while I am laughing at the Pauly.
Also, I am a tool currently entooled at Purtool University.
I dunno, baa. The fact that Deignan's overreacting this badly makes me feel uncharitable; he didn't even hit upon the 'spoofing' and 'threatening' memes until a couple posts after the e-mail incident (that is, it really felt like his L&O watching roommate said, 'hey man, they said you threatened, that's like, defamation'.)
It seems to me that he's looking for a reason to fight, and that any conciliatory move would just be affirmation that he is correct to be upset that someone called him on his public behavior.
I am glad that, since he is an ass, and ignorant of law, we need not find these things unseemly.
I am too. And now that we've cleared that up, I am totally making a poster of his photo.
Q: when is a donkey a donkey?
A: erring on the side of caution, when that donkey is a donkey.
next, please.
Or if you need a more concrete target than Standpipe, I've posted monumentally mockable pictures of myself in this very forum. Wearing glasses, even.
Quick Standpipe, say something nonsensical about complex nonlinear political psychology and answer mechanically profound post-Schrodinger metaethical equations with an elegant and short axiom.
You'll leave your IP address behind, which can be used to track down your ISP, which is frequently synonymous with your employer. See tor.eff.org if this worries you.
I was more worried on Cala's behalf, commenting on the blog of someone who might feel uncharitable at some point.
Thanks, all, for the detail.
Riddle of the Day
What is the difference between a crony, toady, and lackey?
Answer in comments.
The toady flatters in order to gain favors, the crony is simply a long time friend, and the lackey does thankless tasks.
I don't think he understands this word, "riddle."
Though that, to be fair, is a pretty good explanation.
In all serious, Deignan's blog posts do not make sense.
toady was the little ogre who always got stepped on.
baa, I understand what you're saying. I was uncomfortable with the H/ild/ebash and didn't participate.
Deignan, on the other hand, is clearly craving attention, and has picked a very unfortunate way to attract it: namely, threatening to launch an attack (with potential real-world consequences) on an almost completely uninvolved third party that most of us consider a friend.
Remember, if I sue you, I sue your friend. It's a twofer (like Bill and Hill).
Oooo, such a big man. Also, due to some specific situations in my past, when somebody starts waving their lawyer around in an attempt to get their way over some ridiculous penny-ante shit, my gut response is to push them in front of a bus.
slolernr, all he'll get is my home IP, which is already pretty well scrambled; the most he gets out of that is my region. (Another person on Comcast? Oh no.)
I haven't posted over there from school since I can't be bothered to find a proxy.
Michael, how long did you work on 106?
I am glad that, since he is an ass, and ignorant of law, we need not find these things unseemly.
You know, baa -- there's not a thing wrong with not having a lot of legal knowledge. There's something very wrong with not having a lot of legal knowledge, and on the basis of that ignorance making uninformed threats of legal action. It's both unpleasant and stupid. Combine it with a risible writing style, and that's material for hundreds of posts worth of mockery.
I shouldn't have threatened to bring those charges against apos. I was asking for it, and so was the horse.
baa-
You've got to be kidding.
1. Hettle was wrong. By and large, we all agree with this. If Deignan had simply put up a post describing what happened, I think he would have been widely supported. There is some precedent for this - Atrios, IIRC, defused a suit from Luskin by putting up a post. I wasn't reading blogs at the time, but I believe Luskin was chastised by his own side as well as ours. If we hadn't come out on Deignan's side on the Hettle matter, it would have been our shame. If the Right doesn't come out on BPhd's side, it's all theirs.
2. The joy of the blogosphere is its anarchic vigor. Every time someone threatens suit (Luskin, Apple, anyone who reads Fortune, this idiot), it makes more likely the possibility that the vigor will disappear. We ought to mock this idiot to enforce a community norm against attacks on the general vigor.
3. Blogging also works because it is impossibly low cost. Make suits appear more likely (esp. when threatening hard to support suits), and you raise the cost of blogging. We ought to be enforcing a community norm against it.
4. Anonymity good, and previously discussed with regard to Leiter. Community norms.
5. Part of the reason I'm puzzled by your response is because I thought conservatives put great stock in community norms.
I actually feel a little bad for the guy, though not for anything on this thread (or any other that I'm aware of). It is never, ever a good idea to come off as an asshole to future employers. I know (as does anyone who has a job) that there's some sort of Deignan constant, an ability-to-asshole ratio, that factors into hiring decisions. Maybe Deignan's so good as to render the issue moot, but why take that risk? He got bad advice somewhere along the line, and he ought to climb down, at least as regards BPhd.
Hrm, if we took the standard mandelbrot equation
Z = Z(squared) + C
And for Z substituted poop
And for C substituted gummi bears
.....do you think?
118: Suprisingly, babbly inchoherence doesn't take much time at all.
124: If there is any food you find difficult to digest, cut it into an equilateral equilangular quadrilateral, and voilà.
the most he gets out of that is my region.
Internet creeps everywhere applaud.
124: If there is any food you find difficult to digest, cut it into an equilateral equilangular quadrilateral, and voilà.
Since I prefer my food to be in three dimensions, this would actually result in a pyramid with a triangular base.
equilateral= equal sides
equi(l)angular = equal angles
quadrilateral= 4 sides
Positing three dimensions, I get a cube.
I am pwned by a piping plated bridge!
But truly, a stand-up piping plated bridge.
B-wo is saying that a three-dimensional object with four identical sides and identical angles is a tetrahedron, rather than a cube. Of course, the -lateral root applies only to sides of a 2-D rather than a 3-D figure, so he should consider himself pwned.
I'm hesitant to get involved, because I don't like blogspats, but having gone through the archives I can say that one of the reasons Unfogged comes across better than Leiter was because Leiter was quick to assume that he knew the motives of others while ogged and some, if not all, of the commenters assumed no such knowledge.
eb, I think the specific Leiter reference was to the time Leiter said he was going to try to out Juan Non-Volokh, which Ogged and others talked him out of.
(On the search for this I just noticed this bit of Bridgeplatican pwnage. Hmph.)
Diegnan strikes me as oddly beautiful. He embodies a kind of cluelessness (social, intellectual and legal) that couldn't possibly be feigned. He is to be treasured, not mocked.
Moreover, it seems clear that Hettle is almost as guilty of violating the norms of the blogosphere as is Diegnan. (Yes, Hettle didn't bring in lawyers, but he did try to "out" someone, albeit not in as blatant a way.) Even if the content of what he forwarded to Diegnan is perfectly innocuous, it still communicates to his advisor that he spends an awful lot of time occupying himself with matters not related to his field. That is seriously uncool. If the threat was serious, then you contact the police. If it wasn't, then you don't try to sabotage someone's academic career and then disingenuously claim later that your motive was non-vindictive.
It seems fairness demands that Hettle be mocked almost as thoroughly as Diegnan. They're both tools whose toolness leads them to try to kill the golden goose that is the blogosphere.
pjs, good point about Hettle. If someone will find his original post where he says "I have tenure, dammit!"--I think it's in the thread Diegnan archived on his site--that will provide some material for mockery.
Re: the link in 135 --
"Neither/nor" (+ "N/n"), c'est moi!
Thanks for allowing me to relive the pleasures of that forgotten exchange after more than two years.
It seems fairness demands that Hettle be mocked almost as thoroughly as Diegnan. They're both tools whose toolness leads them to try to kill the golden goose that is the blogosphere.
True. The problem with giving Hettle the mockery that is his moral due, though, is that while he's as bad a person (by blogosphere norms) as Deignan, he hasn't managed to be as funny as Deignan. I can deplore Hettle's conduct, but I don't realy have the material to mock him at the same level.
Why does Deignan insist on referring to Bphd as "wally's friend"?
A combination of mealymouthedness about her profane pseud and putting her in her place, I should expect.
Perhaps he is unwilling to say "bitch" on his site?
Yes, Hettle has also, AFAIK, made a very poor showing of himself. Some reasons that Diegnan is the one being showered with mockery are: his actions after what Hettle did are what brought this to the attention of many other pdf devoted to it, and Bitch, Ph. D. is, as mentioned earlier, considered to be a friend (or blog-friend, or whatever) by many of us.
Anyway, Wally, who may or may not have violated the Unwritten Rules of Blogging, hasn't issued a bunch of slimy threats. That makes a big difference. I mean:
They have both managed to cross two lines together. The first line was the commission of libel. They can make amends for that one. However, the second line was akin to crossing the Rubicon.Congratulations Wally, you're going to find yourself on the end of a lawsuit....Ever been sued Wally? It goes on forever and it is no fun at all (except for me)
Deignan is an irritating child. A brat. A brat who mumbled incoherently about things he doesn't understand and wants to use the court system, the very process of the court system, as a club against people who slighted him. He's not interested in winning a damn lawsuit. He just thinks he can out a a woman and ruin her career and cause another guy a lot of time, pain, and money by sueing. Deignan is a Horrible Human Being.
Hettle got off under the Greater Ass Theory - he found someone to make his own idiocy look small. Not something I'd depend upon in the future.
Michael,
I'm not disagreeing with you about Deignan. (Okay, I am. I think he should be put in a museum, or put on a speaking tour like the talking ape in that Kafka story.) But Hettle's actions appear to have infringed on a serious right too -- the right to express one's views outside of work without being punished by one's boss. True, the fact that Diegnan is trying to punish Dr. B too probably does race his actions into some stratosphere of crazy horribleness far beyond that occupied by Hettle's. But if all he did on Dr. B's site was to express obnoxious political views in a particularly obnoxious way, then trying to get him in trouble with his boss for that strikes me as close to on all fours with what Diegnan's doing to Hettle.
I've read this whole thread, and I still can't imagine drawing any conclusion other than: this is a childish bully trying to bludgeon (or at least threaten with bludgeoning) someone who disagreed with him.
I hate bullies. This, I believe, is what makes me a liberal. I think bullies shouldn't get away with it. They should be put in their place, enthusiastically.
Further dwelling on the link in 135 (and the original post of those comments), I note a shift in the target's stature in these Unfoggings, and in the corresponding ambition of the deflationary thrusts.
2003: Ogged unfs the pretenses of a mad tenured endowed-chair-squatter and entire-discipline colonizer.
2005: Labs urps the as far as we can tell merely fantasized legal play-acting of a Purdue graduate student.
Am I a mere nostalgic if I prefer the fightin' spirit of Unfogged's rowdy youth?
(Hi back Matt!)
138 meant the link in 134 (not 135) as well...
Hey, it finally appeared! Now's your chance to indulge in Unfogged nostalgia.
It's not clear to me that the later unfogged has stopped going after big fish, so much as that it has added little fish to its sight's as well.
Apostrophes look like little fish! The apostropher is a mighty fish.
Wow, lot of confusion here.
If you would like, summarize the points of concern and send me an e-mail. I will respond with a reply which you can publish.
Hey, it's the silly man! With the best of intentions toward you, may I advise you that if you've actually spoken to an attorney, and if that attorney has advised you that anything about this incident is sufficient to support an action for defamation, that you should look for another attorney.
And it was a really lousy thing of Hettle to call your advisor -- my sympathies if there have been unpleasant repercussions.
Yeah, that hasn't been said loudly enough, I think. It was lousy of Hettle to do that; it was just an internet pissing contest that went into e-mail, nothing more.
Of course, it would be at least equally lousy of you to attempt to out Dr. Bitch out of spite, but you knew that.
Or one might take it as good reason to post pseudonymously. If I decide I hate LB for being a lawyer, there's not a whole lot I can do besides make lawyer jokes furiously in her general direction.
summarize the the points of concern
At the Mineshaft.
Wow, lot of confusion here.
There always is. Also, cock jokes. Paul, if you're still reading (and I'm sure you are), let me second what was said above: Hettle was a dick to email your department. However you decide to handle it is between you and him, though if you're willing to file lawsuits just for the purpose of being annoying, that reveals an awful lot about your character and it isn't remotely flattering.
However, you should drop the shit about outing BPhD. That would make you a much bigger tinier dick than Hettle.
Why candy-coat? I don't know what was said to your advisor. But you're a dick, Paul. If you file the suit, you'll get what's coming to you. If not, you are a dick for having threatened it.
And you are a dick for the way you threatened it. I don't think you're capable of writing a paragraph that wouldn't demonstrate to me that you are a dick.
hugs and kisses.
I can't believe all you people fell for this. What happened is
1. He got banned, and thought "screw you!" and sent a nasty email. 15-0!
2. The nasty email got sent to his supervisor. Argh! 15-all!
3. So he thinks, I know, I'll screw right back with this dude's brain and talks the big lawsuit. 15-30!
4. And everyone falls for it. Checkmate, or something.
People who are going to sue you, sue you. People who aren't going to sue you, talk about suing you. It's an iron law of the world.
True. But I think you've missed the point of most of the discussion, which is that threatening to sue makes him immensely silly.
Keep mocking us, Davies, and we'll sue yer ass.
You know what dsquared, American society is threatened by litigiousness and incivility. Why don't you analyze that?
Don't losers pay costs in the British system?
The really harsh bit about it is the way the judge ritually makes the 'L' hand-gesture at you before he makes you pay.
Ok, I laughed out loud at that. Still laughing.
I would have laughed, but I'm still hurt by #72. It should be kindergarten rules; if LB is going e-mail some of us, she has to e-mail all of us.
This is like Valentine's Day, 1977, all over again.
You'll never forgive women for that tragic day when the little girl in your kindergarten class accused you of having cooties, will you, Tim?
How charming that story might have been, LB, if only the noun were properly singular.
She accused you of having a cootie?
Precisely what I was wondering.
No - I was trying to say that LB's story was nice, but wrong, because all the girls accused me of having cooties. Sorry for the wording, I blame Dengnian.
155: Allow me to defend myself...Hey, look over there, Charles Bird is talking crazy.
Hey, yeah, whatever did happen to Ogged's solicitude for his homies?
Can I ask a metaquestion?
What the fuck is wrong with Indiana?
http://www.junkbusters.com/cgi-bin/privacy
Will elucidate the ways in which a website can determine things about you in addition to your IP address. Depends on your browser and browser settings.
A guy with a fresh almost-PhD from Per-effin'-due thinks he's gonna get an engineering / research job with a starter salary of $500,000 / year. Discuss.
omgb, I don't understand the tenor of your question. Is that "why does the idea of Indiana and/or its residents cause riducule?" or "how did Indiana get so messed up that they have shit like this?"
CO, I thought my link was a dead giveaway.
When you're done discussing that: a guy thinks that Bphd's claim that he was spoofing* will keep him from getting a job, but doesn't think that his endless promotion of her claim combined with his hair trigger for lawsuits will keep him from getting a job. Discuss.
Now if you could excuse me I have to snort cocaine through a rolled-up $100 bill. It's the only way I can think to spend my huge salary.
*when is "jes' funnin'" going to become tech slang?
ogmb, I just can't seem to get away from the brain-hurt today. Thanks a lot.
Chopper, maybe that will relieve your pain.
ogmb, you'll be delighted to know your handle reliably suggests to me either of the following:
1. The sound of saying "ogged" while ball-gagged
2. The Office of Gay Management and Budget
I don't know what the minimum qualifications for a reliable suggestion are, but it could also reliably suggest 3.
I've always heard it in my head as "oh, Gumby."
I'll agree that contacting Deignan's advisor seems inappropriate. However, this was apparantly the email which provoked such action:
Hello;
Have you figured out that you have made a pretty big error yet? I would like to offer you the chance to save yourself some professional embarrassment.
I can give you 30 minutes to reply with your decision.
Have a nice day,
Paul Deignan
Deignan@ada-vs.com"
The best response to such nuttery is to probably avoid it. But, even though Wally seems to have reacted a bit strongly, it's hard to have any sympathy for an ass who would send such an email.
And, to make an observation, repeating points already made in an oh-so-careful fashion (comments 160-165) is reminiscentof talking loudly and slowly to a person who doesn't speak your language, except in this case it's trying to persuade someone you don't really regard as rational. In both cases, you have little hope that you'll be understood, yet there's some kind of desperate hope that through some lucky chance the other person will catch on.
Wait, wait. If that's the e-mail that caused Wally to tattle to Deignan's advisor, then..... Deignan was already planning to sue (his 30 minute rhetoric seems to be related to that on his blog) before his advisor was told? Over blog comments? Which *definitely* didn't count as libel?
I'm beginning to think he just wants some blog traffic.
Well, Hettle had already in the comments said that he had e-mailed Paul's advisors. Here's Hettle's comment (I'm surprised, but many of Deignan's comments seem to be still up); I think he really is being a jerk.
Is there a timestamp on the original e-mail? Can we ascertain when the e-mail was sent in relationship to what comments had been made? 'Cuz that e-mail merits a forwarding to me (says the guys who was threatened with expulsion for poor behavior on the internets 12 years ago) if it was sent before the e-mail to the advisor.
This post lays out the timeline of events.
It seems that Hettle is an enormous bitch.
It does indeed. While I'm open to convincing otherwise (the sequence of events is still a little confusing) Hettle appears to have threatened to contact Deignan's advisor purely on the basis of blog comments, before any email was sent. Which makes Hettle an absolute twerp.
I'm convinced: Hettle's an immense wanker. It was my fear of turning into a wanker like this that led me, regretfully, to stop participating in flamewars. Well, that and making a guy cry, which made me feel a little guilty.
wanker... making a guy cry
His fault for not keeping his eyes shut.
Strong men also cry. Strong men also cry.
Do strong men also cry when informed their head is potato-shaped?
I dunno, Chopper, but I do know that Onion Head Monster brings tears to people's eyes.
Re 203:
Depends on the circumstances under which someone informs you your head is potato-shaped: At the doctor's office? During sex? At the Mineshaft? During your dissertation defense?
(Note: Those are four separate sets of circumstances. If you are defending your dissertation while having sex at a doctor's office in the Mineshaft, you can cry all you want.)
Ok, yeah, I'm confused about the timeline of events now. OK, I've had enough of this subject.
Deignan's "Agents of Chaos" piece looks like a bloody dog's dinner. Throw some neo-con oversimplifications in with some overgeneralizations of the Myers-Briggs types, a sprinkle of Freud, a few dashes of the word "socialist," a gratuitous reference to chaos theory and you have Deignan's fall-back magnum opus if his dissertation gets rejected by his committee. Brilliant work, there.
Don't losers pay costs in the British system?
yes and they're getting bloody narked with it.
