Richard Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

[karadan]

I sent personal emails to him pointing out what an act of criminal intellectual vandalism that would be and although he never replied to those emails the forum (still missing the deleted accounts) has been retained on the site.

I sent him several e-mails as well. I was more placatory in tone, suggesting that even if the forum were to close, there was no reason we couldn't at least retain some measure of working together.

I also posted about the destruction of the forum and the aftermath thereof on my blog:

http://reciprocity-hackenslash.blogspot.com/
http://hackenslash-reciprocitypartdeux.blogspot.com/

The other account that constituted a fair bit of really excellent content was that of DarwinsBulldog who, among other things, posted a lot of articles on breaking science, as well as a good deal of anti-creationist material.

That was a great blog post, Hack. I'd not seen that letter from dawkins before - the one about the suppurating rats rectum. Well, if anything, it confirmed to me the guy is out of touch with the internet and doesn't fully understand its true function. He'd obviously made the decision to change the format because he'd seen the usual troll rubbish all forums get but was unable to see the benefit of the tens of thousands of posts from the legitimate proponents of reason.

It's a real shame such a resource has gone but was it really worth presiding under the banner of dawkins in the end? I must admit, my view of the guy has plummeted in recent years. He seems to have become a self important dinosaur.

[Tank]

The other account that constituted a fair bit of really excellent content was that of DarwinsBulldog who, among other things, posted a lot of articles on breaking science, as well as a good deal of anti-creationist material.

I didn't know his account had gone. Tragic as he was a theist when he joined an one thread was his detailed journey out from under the comfort blanket of institutionalised superstition.

[Sophus]

Let me be the very first to throw a curveball your way.

The judge states that Dawkins' and RDFRS' "complaint is very poorly pled and confusing" and that "the pleading is poorly pled and confusing".

[SSY]

Thata's not going to spin well for a man of logic

[ForTheLoveOfAll]

As if I needed another reason to like Dawkins.

[Whitney]

Let me be the very first to throw a curveball your way.

The judge states that Dawkins' and RDFRS' "complaint is very poorly pled and confusing" and that "the pleading is poorly pled and confusing".

I read through the demurrer ruling and had previously read the filing made by RDF.  I agree that the there are parts that require clarification and assumed supporting documentation (like evidence of the agreements) would be presented in court.  However, while I can understand court documents well enough to follow them I'm not that familiar with procedure...I'm wondering if RDF needs to get better lawyers who can produce documents correctly the first time (perhaps the original plea was written by Dawkins and is confusing because he is not familiar with court procedures?...I didn't catch if he had lawyers involved or not but had assumed he did).  The ruling on the demurrer seems to be saying that the judge thinks RD and RDF could have a case but that they need to make their evidence clear to the court, and has provided RDF an option to ammend the plea in order to provide clarifications.

[karadan]

Even if it is poorly written, he surely does have a case, doesn't he?

[Whitney]

Even if it is poorly written, he surely does have a case, doesn't he?

I don't see what Dawkins or RDF would have to gain from making any of this up.  However, just because their claims are mostly likely true (though there does seem to be some potential for speculation in regard to Timonen's family's involvement) doesn't mean they'll necessarily have a case if they didn't sign any contracts with Timonen; hand shake agreements put you in a he said she said situation and those aren't very good for making a case in court.