« Dinesh D'Souza is Not Very Bright | Main | 72nd Skeptics’ Circle »

October 24, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I posted the full article on Oct 14. I would be happy if you would also link to my blog:


Interesting that legal action ought to include (in the link to the pre-action protocols):

* the words complained of and, if known, the date of publication; where possible, a copy or transcript of the words complained of should be enclosed;
* factual inaccuracies or unsupportable comment within the words complained of; the Claimant should give a sufficient explanation to enable the Defendant to appreciate why the words are inaccurate or unsupportable;

Unworthy of reply, eh? If they want to initiate legal action, by the above they *should* reply. He should put the page back up, and talk to his ISP about that. Let them take legal action - I don't think they could win. People can go to their site and verify everything he said...so therefore it must be accurate and supportable, yes?

"Oh boo hoo. No – don’t respond with any actual arguments to refute what was written; don’t respond with any evidence that homoeopathy works (it doesn’t). Play martyr instead. That’s the ticket."

Typical of any group of true believers... They don't need facts, just the heavy club of censorship!

I doubt that my own mini article was at all vitriolic. This is a link to my blog where I've also reproduced the original article:


They should somehow dilute their whining,then it'll be all the more powerful. ;)

What cowards. Mr. Lewis is a better person than I am - I don't think I could've maintained his professional and polite tone in any correspondence I'd have sent to these quacks. Here's hoping justice prevails.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search site