Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Science Blogger Sued for Unfavorable Book Review

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the hope-he-countersues-and-buys-a-nice-summer-home dept.

tigerhawkvok writes "Recently, new author Stuart Privar provided Professor PZ Meyers of Pharyngula a copy of his book, Lifecode, for review. Over the course of the review itself and a few follow-ups, it became evident that the content was nonsense (including, among other things, ten-legged spiders and other phenomena strongly at odds with developmental biology). However, the common threat of lawsuits finally became a reality, and now Privar is suing Myers for $15 million. Can calling someone a 'classic crackpot' in the face of such incorrect data have any chance at making it to court, or even winning the suit?"

12 of 588 comments (clear)

  1. I see dollar signs by Sierpinski · · Score: 5, Funny

    If someone can be sued for their opinions... man I'm going to make a TON of money from my mother-in-law!

    --
    And they said zombies weren't real!
  2. new business plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Aha, I see the floodgates opening now:

    1). Write ridiculously inaccurate book
    2). Send it to a well-known, respected scientist for review
    3). Wait for the scathing reviews to come in
    4). Sue
    5). Profit!

    But, at the expense of respect. Hey, who needs respect when you have 15 million dollars?

  3. Bestest. Review. EVAR. by plover · · Score: 5, Funny
    I love this quote:

    The doodles in this book bear absolutely no relationship to anything that goes on in real organisms, but after staring at them for a while, I realized what this book is actually about.

    This book is a description of the development and evolution of balloon animals.

    It's that bad. This is a book suitable only for use at clown colleges, and even there, I suspect the clowns would tell us that it is impractical, nonsensical, and has no utility in their craft.

    --
    John
  4. Ten Legged spiders Exist! by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 4, Funny

    They only require a little patience, a couple extra spider legs, and some super glue.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  5. Re:Real scientists don't sue by dkf · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is all very well, but of course it also includes a bunch of quakery about eating leaves so that their photosynthesis can oxegenate your gut. It's "quackery". "Quakery" is something to do with porridge oats.
    --
    "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
  6. Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack! by ColonelPanic · · Score: 5, Funny

    The very real danger to the book's reviewer is that he may be placed in the position of defending rationality before a jury comprised of people who find it perfectly reasonable to symbolically eat the flesh of a cosmic Jewish zombie and telepathically implore him to save them from the consequences of a snake-deceived rib-woman's consumption of magic fruit.

    Which is to say, in our rapidly medievalizing former republic, crazy nutbag plaintiffs are granted a decisive advantage.

    --
    "Skill shows through where genius wears thin." -Wittgenstein || Religion: uniting aviation and architecture.
  7. Re:Real scientists don't sue by Joe+Random · · Score: 4, Funny

    As the article I link points out, that wouldn't work too well unless you had a torch up your arse. Gotta love the subtle differences between British and American English. If you put a torch up someone's ass here in the states, it's wouldn't be quite as . . . illuminating . . . an experience. Well, not unless you were one of the bystanders. You could even have some marshmallows ready to roast over the soon-to-be bonfire -- if you're able to deal with your bonfire running around, flailing and screaming, that is.
  8. Re:Bestest. Review. EVAR. by Andrewkov · · Score: 5, Funny
    It's that bad. This is a book suitable only for use at clown colleges

    I would prefer it if you not refer to Princeton in that manner.

  9. Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack! by gordo3000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    What's a religion without nasty threats?

    Philosophy?

  10. Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack! by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

    The guy who wrote the review looks pretty guilty to me.
    That's because you're a crackpot too.
    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  11. Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack! by rizzo420 · · Score: 4, Funny

    i searched the review linked in the article and couldn't find the word "crackpot". i don't think it's libel at all. the only thing the reviewer does is completely trash this guy's "science" and calls it "nothing more than a bunch of pictures". after reading the review, it's obvious that this guy came up with some completely outrageous theories and threw them into a book and called it "science".

    --
    please me, have no regrets.
  12. Vulgar Abuse by giafly · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just because someone publishes something that is wrong, doesn't mean you're allowed to publish statements that they're a crackpot. It's libel.
    ShieldW0lf, you're a fucking retard! Vulgar abuse is not defamatory. Thus you can't win a libel suit against me for calling you a fucking retard and the plaintiff in this case probably shouldn't sue for being called a crackpot.
    --
    Reduce, reuse, cycle