ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags "Republican Party Animal" , david cole , david stein , michael shermer

Reply
Old 3rd June 2014, 01:14 AM   #1
Mondial
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 355
Michael Shermer Tries To Ban Book

The publisher of Skeptic Magazine Michael Shermer has taken legal action to try and halt the distribution of a new book by David Cole called Republican Party Animal - www.countercontempt.com/archives/5232
Mondial is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2014, 01:23 AM   #2
ehcks
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
On one side, an attempt to use the courts to revoke free speech.

On the other, a vile liar-by-trade, whose speech is not worth hearing.

I don't like either of them, I hope they both lose.
__________________
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
ehcks is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2014, 02:03 AM   #3
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 26,928
Originally Posted by ehcks View Post
On one side, an attempt to use the courts to revoke free speech.

On the other, a vile liar-by-trade, whose speech is not worth hearing.

I don't like either of them, I hope they both lose.
David Cole is pretty bad too.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2014, 02:07 AM   #4
ehcks
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
David Cole is pretty bad too.
That's what I mea...
http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2...never_mind.jpg
...I'm just going to bed.
__________________
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
ehcks is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2014, 02:15 AM   #5
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 26,928
Originally Posted by ehcks View Post
That's what I mea...
http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2...never_mind.jpg
...I'm just going to bed.


Sorry.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2014, 03:13 AM   #6
Doghouse Reilly
Adrift on an uncharted sea
 
Doghouse Reilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,093
Originally Posted by ehcks View Post
On one side, an attempt to use the courts to revoke free speech.

On the other, a vile liar-by-trade, whose speech is not worth hearing.

I don't like either of them, I hope they both lose.
Shermer was in the wrong here, and the case has been dropped. Shermer clearly misrepresented things to his own lawyers.
Doghouse Reilly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2014, 06:56 AM   #7
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,614
That's somehow important? Shermer called him a racist instead of an anti-semite and the guy has held onto it for all these years even though Shermer has apologized to him on numerous occasions? Film at 11:00.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2014, 08:16 AM   #8
ShadowSot
Graduate Poster
 
ShadowSot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Pensacola
Posts: 1,206
Isn't Shermer a libertarian?
__________________
I love this crazy tragic, sometimes almost magic, awful beautiful life.
- Darryl Worley
The Stupid! It burns!
ShadowSot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2014, 08:20 AM   #9
Monketi Ghost
Confusion Reactor
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 25,141
Originally Posted by ShadowSot View Post
Isn't Shermer a libertarian?
Does the libertarian exist who doesn't have exceptions?
Monketi Ghost is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2014, 08:25 AM   #10
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,893
When I clicked on the link in the OP I got a malware warning:
Quote:
Access has been blocked as the threat Mal/ExpJS-BH has been found on this website.
What's up?
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2014, 09:12 AM   #11
ravdin
Illuminator
 
ravdin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,985
Very entertaining reading, thanks for the link!
__________________
Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. -Christopher Hitchens

Believe what you're told. There would be chaos if everyone thought for themselves. -Top Dog slogan
ravdin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2014, 09:29 AM   #12
Walter Ego
Illuminator
 
Walter Ego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dixie
Posts: 3,377
Originally Posted by Mondial View Post
The publisher of Skeptic Magazine Michael Shermer has taken legal action to try and halt the distribution of a new book by David Cole called Republican Party Animal - www.countercontempt.com/archives/5232

The link is to David Cole's page. Cole was a Holocaust denier and has not been known in the past for his honesty. A skeptic would want to hear Shermer's side of the story before drawing any conclusions.

Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly View Post
Shermer was in the wrong here, and the case has been dropped. Shermer clearly misrepresented things to his own lawyers.
Citation (with link please)?

ETA:

The only information I can find about this is from little David Cole running around the internet whining about what a bad man Shermer is. I did find this, however, from The Guardian of May 3 of last year.

Quote:
Hollywood conservative unmasked as notorious Holocaust revisionist.

Republican Party Animals operator David Stein says he is really David Cole, and that he still holds controversial views

To those who knew him, or thought they knew him, he was a cerebral, fun-loving gadfly who hosted boozy gatherings for Hollywood's political conservatives. David Stein brought right-wing congressmen, celebrities, writers and entertainment industry figures together for shindigs, closed to outsiders, where they could scorn liberals and proclaim their true beliefs.

Over the past five years Stein's organisation, Republican Party Animals, drew hundreds to regular events in and around Los Angeles, making him a darling of conservative blogs and talkshows. That he made respected documentaries on the Holocaust added intellectual cachet and Jewish support to Stein's cocktail of politics, irreverence and rock and roll.

There was just one problem. Stein was not who he claimed. His real name can be revealed for the first time publicly – a close circle of confidants only found out the truth recently – as David Cole. And under that name he was once a reviled Holocaust revisionist who questioned the existence of Nazi gas chambers. He changed identities in January 1998.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...st-revisionist

Last edited by Walter Ego; 3rd June 2014 at 10:02 AM.
Walter Ego is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2014, 05:28 PM   #13
Walter Ego
Illuminator
 
Walter Ego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dixie
Posts: 3,377
More on David Cole, aka David Stein.

Quote:
David Stein fooled everybody. In all the time he attended RPA [Republican Party Animal] functions, he never once spoke about anything other than Republican politics and getting drunk. There was no way any of us could have known that this Jewish guy with the nasally voice was a complete liar and a fraud.

http://communities.washingtontimes.c...#ixzz33cB7piyZ
Walter Ego is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2014, 05:57 PM   #14
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,968
Okay, I'm sorry - I read this thread, and it's like walking into the middle of a very long conversation with no clue or context. Can I get a neutral summary of what the heck the problem is that this thread's supposed to be about?
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2014, 06:04 PM   #15
Doghouse Reilly
Adrift on an uncharted sea
 
Doghouse Reilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,093
Originally Posted by Walter Ego View Post



Citation (with link please)?
The link in the OP contains all of the communications between Cole and Shermer's lawyers. Seems very clear cut to me.
Doghouse Reilly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2014, 06:18 PM   #16
Walter Ego
Illuminator
 
Walter Ego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dixie
Posts: 3,377
Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly View Post
The link in the OP contains all of the communications between Cole and Shermer's lawyers. Seems very clear cut to me.
And since it's from such an unimpeachable source like Cole we must accept it as true and not give Shermer the least benefit of the doubt? I don't give page hits to frauds and Holocaust deniers like Cole. Perhaps someone could quote some relevant portions of the alleged exchange between the attorneys.

Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Okay, I'm sorry - I read this thread, and it's like walking into the middle of a very long conversation with no clue or context. Can I get a neutral summary of what the heck the problem is that this thread's supposed to be about?
Not neutral, but it's about people accepting what they read on the internet at face value no matter its provenance .

Last edited by Walter Ego; 3rd June 2014 at 06:30 PM.
Walter Ego is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2014, 08:17 PM   #17
Doghouse Reilly
Adrift on an uncharted sea
 
Doghouse Reilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,093
Originally Posted by Walter Ego View Post
And since it's from such an unimpeachable source like Cole we must accept it as true and not give Shermer the least benefit of the doubt? I don't give page hits to frauds and Holocaust deniers like Cole. Perhaps someone could quote some relevant portions of the alleged exchange between the attorneys.



Not neutral, but it's about people accepting what they read on the internet at face value no matter its provenance .
Don't be ridiculous, that's not what the thread is about. I'm not going to do the work of collecting the relevant information for you when it's readily available. It's very clear that the exchange between Cole and the attorneys is legitimate, but since you refuse to look at it, you'd hardly be expected to be aware of that. If it's not, we'll soon be hearing about Shermer suing Cole for defamation and slander. I'm not holding my breath.

I don't really see why you're participating in a thread for which you refuse to read the relevant source material.
Doghouse Reilly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2014, 09:34 PM   #18
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,844
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Okay, I'm sorry - I read this thread, and it's like walking into the middle of a very long conversation with no clue or context. Can I get a neutral summary of what the heck the problem is that this thread's supposed to be about?
The links posted by Walter Ego seem to be fairly illuminating.

Take your pick, the left-wing Guardian or right-wing Washington Times.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2014, 12:58 AM   #19
Doghouse Reilly
Adrift on an uncharted sea
 
Doghouse Reilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,093
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
The links posted by Walter Ego seem to be fairly illuminating.

Take your pick, the left-wing Guardian or right-wing Washington Times.
The links don't have a whole lot to do with the topic of the thread, actually. The subject isn't whether Cole is an admirable person or not, it's the issue between Cole and Shermer.
Doghouse Reilly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2014, 11:13 AM   #20
Walter Ego
Illuminator
 
Walter Ego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dixie
Posts: 3,377
Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly View Post
It's very clear that the exchange between Cole and the attorneys is legitimate, but since you refuse to look at it, you'd hardly be expected to be aware of that. If it's not, we'll soon be hearing about Shermer suing Cole for defamation and slander. I'm not holding my breath.

I don't really see why you're participating in a thread for which you refuse to read the relevant source material.
I'm willing to read the "source material" but I'd rather have it from a more credible source that Cole/Stein, a known liar and fraud. Until then, as a skeptic, I'll continue to give Shermer the benefit of the doubt.
Walter Ego is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2014, 11:15 AM   #21
ravdin
Illuminator
 
ravdin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,985
Originally Posted by Walter Ego View Post
I'm willing to read the "source material" but I'd rather have it from a more credible source that Cole/Stein, a known liar and fraud. Until then, as a skeptic, I'll continue to give Shermer the benefit of the doubt.
If Cole is lying, then I hope Shermer sues his ass. He would certainly have plenty to go on.
__________________
Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. -Christopher Hitchens

Believe what you're told. There would be chaos if everyone thought for themselves. -Top Dog slogan
ravdin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2014, 12:19 PM   #22
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,968
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
The links posted by Walter Ego seem to be fairly illuminating.

Take your pick, the left-wing Guardian or right-wing Washington Times.
Neither has anything whatsoever to do with Michael Shermer. The information isn't the least bit useful.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2014, 01:13 PM   #23
Walter Ego
Illuminator
 
Walter Ego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dixie
Posts: 3,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puppycow

The links posted by Walter Ego seem to be fairly illuminating.

Take your pick, the left-wing Guardian or right-wing Washington Times
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Neither has anything whatsoever to do with Michael Shermer. The information isn't the least bit useful.
It goes to the lack of creditability of David Cole who is the sole source of the allegations against Shermer. Excuse me for being a skeptic but I'd like some independent verification before I uncritically accept the word of a Holocaust denier and liar like Cole.

Last edited by Walter Ego; 4th June 2014 at 01:58 PM.
Walter Ego is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2014, 01:21 PM   #24
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,968
The language that Cole uses on his own webpage is more than sufficient to establish his lack of credibility; that's why I'm looking for an alternate source explaining exactly what's supposed to have happened. I don't even like Shermer, and I'm still not inclined to trust anything this guy says.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2014, 11:49 AM   #25
Doghouse Reilly
Adrift on an uncharted sea
 
Doghouse Reilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,093
As untrustworthy as Cole may be (I personally have never heard of him before this thread), I find it extremely unlikely that the communications posted on his website between himself and Shermer's lawyers are in any way fraudulent. He may be a despicable person, but I would assume he is savvy enough (judging from the descriptions of the way he avoided detection for so long) to not get himself into legal trouble in such a blatant way.

Knowing what I know of Shermer, on the other hand, it is very easy to believe that the communications published on Cole's website are completely valid as represented by Cole.

Again, if Cole were lying about this, it would soon enough be public record, because Shermer would have grounds for a slam-dunk lawsuit against Cole, which I have no doubt he would be eager to file.

Last edited by Doghouse Reilly; 5th June 2014 at 11:50 AM.
Doghouse Reilly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2014, 12:02 PM   #26
Sherman Bay
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,261
I don't know much about the facts in this case, but Cole repeatedly, mockingly, calls Doctor Michael Shermer "Shermy" or "Mikey" in his rants. Not being respectful doesn't strengthen his position.
Sherman Bay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2014, 12:14 PM   #27
Cleon
King of the Pod People
 
Cleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 25,682
Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly View Post
As untrustworthy as Cole may be (I personally have never heard of him before this thread), I find it extremely unlikely that the communications posted on his website between himself and Shermer's lawyers are in any way fraudulent.
We're talking about a Holocaust denier. Fraud and lies aren't the exception, they're the rule.
__________________
"People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich
Cleon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2014, 04:03 PM   #28
Sherman Bay
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,261
Originally Posted by Cleon View Post
We're talking about a Holocaust denier. Fraud and lies aren't the exception, they're the rule.
Or: Never let facts get in the way of a rant.
Sherman Bay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2014, 04:45 PM   #29
eirik
Muse
 
eirik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 706
It's not obvious shermer would sue should this be a lie. I bet known skeptics gets slandered all the time by various nutcases. Legal proceedings are tiresome, choose your battles as they say.

I doubt the veracity here, and would await better sources for these claims.
__________________
"I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern without any superhuman authority behind it." -Albert Einstein
eirik is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2014, 11:33 AM   #30
TimCallahan
Philosopher
 
TimCallahan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,293
Originally Posted by eirik View Post
It's not obvious shermer would sue should this be a lie. I bet known skeptics gets slandered all the time by various nutcases. Legal proceedings are tiresome, choose your battles as they say.

I doubt the veracity here, and would await better sources for these claims.
My understanding is that, if you want to sue someone for libel, slander or defamation of character - the burden of proof, of course, being on the plaintiff - you have to prove that what they said or wrote was untrue, that they knew it to be untrue and said or wrote it anyway, and finally that, as a result of what they said or wrote you suffered a measurable financial loss. You need this third and last proof if you want to get any money out of the suit. You could sue to curtail the slander or libel and even force the defendant to print a retraction, even if you haven't suffered a loss. However, since lawyers and legal proceedings are costly, it would probably be to one's detriment to sue if one cannot get any money out of it.
TimCallahan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2014, 11:38 AM   #31
TimCallahan
Philosopher
 
TimCallahan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,293
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
That's somehow important? Shermer called him a racist instead of an anti-semite and the guy has held onto it for all these years even though Shermer has apologized to him on numerous occasions? Film at 11:00.
You mean an anti-semite isn't a racist? I'd be damned if I'd apologize over that.
TimCallahan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2014, 11:45 AM   #32
ehcks
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Originally Posted by TimCallahan View Post
You mean an anti-semite isn't a racist? I'd be damned if I'd apologize over that.
He also gets mad about being called a holocaust denier instead of his preferred title of "holocaust revisionist," not realizing that denying the holocaust is a clear example of historical revisionism.

Arguing against the common definitions of words and becoming angry about it is also part of his shtick.
__________________
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
ehcks is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2014, 09:31 PM   #33
Mondial
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 355
Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly View Post
As untrustworthy as Cole may be (I personally have never heard of him before this thread), I find it extremely unlikely that the communications posted on his website between himself and Shermer's lawyers are in any way fraudulent. He may be a despicable person, but I would assume he is savvy enough (judging from the descriptions of the way he avoided detection for so long) to not get himself into legal trouble in such a blatant way.

Knowing what I know of Shermer, on the other hand, it is very easy to believe that the communications published on Cole's website are completely valid as represented by Cole.

Again, if Cole were lying about this, it would soon enough be public record, because Shermer would have grounds for a slam-dunk lawsuit against Cole, which I have no doubt he would be eager to file.
David Cole became famous/infamous for being a Jewish holocaust revisionist who made the following documentary in 1992 - http://codoh.com/library/document/1001/ He made several appearances on tv talk shows such as Montel Williams, Donahue and Morton Downey Jr. After receiving death threats from other Jews - www.ihr.org/books/ztn.html he went into hiding. He resurfaced last year after having a successful Hollywood career under the name of David Stein - www.countercontempt.com Here is footage from the 1994 Donahue show where Cole appeared with Michael Shermer - www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwwXQRHcXC4
Mondial is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2014, 10:16 PM   #34
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,844
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Neither has anything whatsoever to do with Michael Shermer. The information isn't the least bit useful.
The Guardian one does have some background about Shermer and Cole, but I thought everyone here already knew who Shermer is.

I did not know who Stein/Cole was prior to this thread, so to me anyway, those articles told me all I needed to know.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th June 2014, 04:18 AM   #35
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 26,928
Originally Posted by TimCallahan View Post
My understanding is that, if you want to sue someone for libel, slander or defamation of character - the burden of proof, of course, being on the plaintiff - you have to prove that what they said or wrote was untrue, that they knew it to be untrue and said or wrote it anyway, and finally that, as a result of what they said or wrote you suffered a measurable financial loss. You need this third and last proof if you want to get any money out of the suit. You could sue to curtail the slander or libel and even force the defendant to print a retraction, even if you haven't suffered a loss. However, since lawyers and legal proceedings are costly, it would probably be to one's detriment to sue if one cannot get any money out of it.
That depends. From what I understand, in the UK it is the other way round; the burden of proof is on the defendant. In order to sue for libel you pretty much only have to show that a particular statement has been made and then it is up to the defendant to prove either:

a) that the statement is true
b) that this could not affect that person's reputation

OR

c) that the affect of people believing such an untrue statement could not affect the finances of that person.

For example, David Irving tried to sue another historian for libel and was only defeated after a very lengthy trial in which Richard Evans was brought in to show that Irving actually was indeed a fraudulent liar who abused the historical resources for his own Holocaust denying aims.

However, Irving was based in the UK where he had actually had something of an undeserved reputation as a historian.

For a time, foreign libel suits were made in the UK particularly on this basis that they could not sue elsewhere. For example, Roman Polanski sued Vanity Fair when he was in France because:

a) he could not go to the US to sue Vanity Fair or he would have been arrested

and

b) he could not go to the UK for fear of extradition but he only had to show that the statements in Vanity Fair had been made. It was up to Vanity Fair to show that it could not dent his reputation and it seemed they lost.

and

c) because Vanity Fair earned money in the UK, presumably he could win something from them.

So I think there could have possibly been a way in which Shermer could sue David Cole, except the UK may have recently tightened restrictions on who can sue to avoid libel tourism, and it may be difficult to compel David Cole to pay money in the UK.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th June 2014, 10:00 AM   #36
TimCallahan
Philosopher
 
TimCallahan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,293
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
That depends. From what I understand, in the UK it is the other way round; the burden of proof is on the defendant. In order to sue for libel you pretty much only have to show that a particular statement has been made and then it is up to the defendant to prove either:

a) that the statement is true
b) that this could not affect that person's reputation

OR

c) that the affect of people believing such an untrue statement could not affect the finances of that person.

For example, David Irving tried to sue another historian for libel and was only defeated after a very lengthy trial in which Richard Evans was brought in to show that Irving actually was indeed a fraudulent liar who abused the historical resources for his own Holocaust denying aims.

However, Irving was based in the UK where he had actually had something of an undeserved reputation as a historian.

For a time, foreign libel suits were made in the UK particularly on this basis that they could not sue elsewhere. For example, Roman Polanski sued Vanity Fair when he was in France because:

a) he could not go to the US to sue Vanity Fair or he would have been arrested

and

b) he could not go to the UK for fear of extradition but he only had to show that the statements in Vanity Fair had been made. It was up to Vanity Fair to show that it could not dent his reputation and it seemed they lost.

and

c) because Vanity Fair earned money in the UK, presumably he could win something from them.

So I think there could have possibly been a way in which Shermer could sue David Cole, except the UK may have recently tightened restrictions on who can sue to avoid libel tourism, and it may be difficult to compel David Cole to pay money in the UK.
I'm aware of the decidedly odd take on such suits in the UK. It seems to regard someone as guilty if accused until they prove a negative. I find this really bizarre.

As far as I know, Shermer would have to sue Cole in the U.S. So, the UK take on such suits might not be relevant.
TimCallahan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2014, 01:33 AM   #37
CaptainHowdy
Graduate Poster
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,325
Thanks for the link

That story is hilarious. There's enough information there to convince me that David Stein is telling the truth about what happened. If he's not, the law firm for Michael Shermer will be able to easily deal with it
CaptainHowdy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2014, 02:11 AM   #38
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 26,928
Anyway, no doubt both systems are open to abuse. And in both cases the tactics can be to outspend the other person, or to write intimidating letters knowing the other person will blink first.

I've finally got round to reading this exchange. I don't give David Cole the time of day, but it is interesting that this exchange comes up, assuming Cole has not simply invented these emails:

Quote:
Hi Mike,

It’s the guy you never get tired of attacking, David Cole. I’ve been keeping up with this whole rape accusation thing, and, of course, I have no special knowledge beyond what I’ve read. But, and here’s the reason I’m writing to you, I’m just damn, terribly curious. And curiosity is good, right, Mike? So here’s my curiosity. Has this experience, you know, the whole rape accusation thing, made you any more sympathetic, or perhaps given you a bit more empathy, regarding the things you said about me? How you branded me a “racist” (the modern equivalent of calling someone a “witch”). How you admitted you lied. And how you refused to retract your accusation even after admitting you lied.

So I’m interested in asking you if your current dilemma has perhaps birthed in you some small regret for having lied about me.

I have no knowledge of the truth or lack thereof regarding the accusations made against you. If they’re true, there is no punishment that is too harsh for you. But if they’re false, well . . . it kinda stinks having folks print lies about you, huh? Is this a “chickens coming home to roost” moment for Dr. Michael Shermer?
Quote:
Hi David,

Thank you for the frank and forthright letter. To cut to the chase and answer your question, yes the libelous and defamatory comments being made about me has (sic) made me more sympathetic and understanding to how I have interacted with creationists, Holocaust revisionists, New Age gurus like Deepak Chopra, and others, and in fact, all of the people I have debated with in all of these fields have been, for the most part, unfailingly polite to me and far more thoughtful and reasonable than any of the people in the FTB/athiest [sic] community and how they have treated me.

I don’t think you are a racist David, and I’m sorry for the things I said about you.

So, yeah David, the chickens have come home to roost, so please accept my apology for some of the things I said about you.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2014, 03:52 PM   #39
eirik
Muse
 
eirik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 706
Originally Posted by TimCallahan View Post
My understanding is that, if you want to sue someone for libel, slander or defamation of character - the burden of proof, of course, being on the plaintiff - you have to prove that what they said or wrote was untrue, that they knew it to be untrue and said or wrote it anyway, and finally that, as a result of what they said or wrote you suffered a measurable financial loss. You need this third and last proof if you want to get any money out of the suit. You could sue to curtail the slander or libel and even force the defendant to print a retraction, even if you haven't suffered a loss. However, since lawyers and legal proceedings are costly, it would probably be to one's detriment to sue if one cannot get any money out of it.
That's not my point. Even if you have a good case, it's not always the best solution to go to court. In fact, it seldom is.
__________________
"I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern without any superhuman authority behind it." -Albert Einstein
eirik is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2014, 03:55 PM   #40
CaptainHowdy
Graduate Poster
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,325
Wrong thread for the rape allegations

There's already a thread about Michael Shermer's rape allegations. This thread is about Michael Shermer's attempted book banning. Just sayin'
CaptainHowdy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:50 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.