There hasn’t been a lot to report on in the famous Doctor’s Data v Barrett, et al, federal court case, lately. They are in the “Discovery ” phase, and, as expected, Stephen Barrett, through his legal team, is screeching, and lashing out, like a cornered rat.
Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen
Doctor’s Data’s legal team has had to put on protective clothing, so to speak.
Stephen Barrett‘s lead legal counsel (snort here) Michael K. Botts, Esq, is, already a known piece of work. But, in “Discovery“ Botts comes into his own. And, I have to laugh at how easily Jeff Levens, Doctor’s Data’s lead counsel, slaps him around. I thoroughly enjoyed reading all those legal documents filed by both sides. What a hoot.
Legal documents? Well, sort of – Botts, on behalf of Barrett, seems to believe that the louder he yells, the worse his behavior, the nastier he talks, the more crap he flings, that somehow, this will extricate Barrett from his desperate predicament.
The fact that none of these tactics have worked so far in this case seems to escape Bott’s notice. But, at least he is consistent.
And, I just realized, Botts, in his actions, is acting just like an average Skeptic (pseudo-skeptic).
I’ll explain..
Rats, quackbusters, pseudo-skeptics, and other vermin…
Vermin –
(1) noxious, objectionable, or disgusting animals collectively, especially those of small size that appear commonly and are difficult to control, as flies, lice, bedbugs, cockroaches, mice, and rats.
(2) an objectionable or obnoxious person, or such persons collectively.
(3) animals that prey upon game, as coyotes or weasels.
Virtually everyone associated with cutting-edge health care, with a presence on the internet (and, doesn’t everyone have a presence?), has come across, and been assaulted by, one of the pseudo-skeptics.
Parents of Autistic children, people seeking information on non-conventional health care approaches, journalists, government employees, etc., have ALL become victims of the carefully designed written hatred campaign, performed incessantly, for the purpose of discouraging anyone, and everyone, from exploring new concepts.
The assault tactic – a wave of nastiness directed at the inquirer is, in fact, a taught skill, passed on from one disgusting quackbuster, skeptic, or other vermin, to the next. It’s purpose? I’ll get to that, shortly.
Answers.com defines “Nastiness” as:
A desire to harm others or to see others suffer: despitefulness, ill will, malevolence, malice, maliciousness, malignancy, malignity, meanness, poisonousness, spite, spitefulness, venomousness, viciousness.
See attitude/good attitude/bad attitude/neutral attitude.
The Purpose – it is all a control mechanism. David J. Lieberman, Ph. D. in his article “Psychological secrets to predict, control and influence every situation” writes:
“From the bedroom to the boardroom learn how to see clearly and easily evaluate information without being swayed by those with selfish interests and unkind intentions. The manipulator’s bag of tricks is stocked with seven deadly tactics that can leave you jumping through hoops. The good news is that by knowing what they are, you can watch out for them, and…never be manipulated again.
These powerful manipulators are: guilt, intimidation, appeal to ego, fear, curiosity, our desire to be liked, and love. Anyone who uses any of these tactics is attempting to move you from logic to emotion-to a playing field that’s not so level. She or he knows that she or he can’t win on the facts so they will try to manipulate your emotions with any one or a combination of the tactics below
- Guilt: “How can you even say that? I’m hurt that you wouldn’t trust me. I just don’t know who you are anymore.”
- Intimidation: “What’s the matter can’t you make a decision? Don’t you have enough confidence in yourself to do this?
- Appeal to Ego: “I can see that you’re a smart person. I wouldn’t try to put anything past you. How could I? You’d be on me in a second.”
- Fear: “You know, you might [not get “it” if you go take a pee/act un-coach able] just lose the whole thing. I sure hope you know what you’re doing. I’m telling you that you won’t get a better deal anywhere else. This is your last shot at making things work out. Why do you want to risk losing out on being happy?
- Curiosity: “Look, you only live once. Try it? You can always go back to how things were. It might be fun, exciting-a real adventure. “You never know unless you try and you regret never seeing what happens.”
- Our Desire to be Liked: “I thought you were a real player. And so did everyone else Come on, nobody likes it when a person backs out…this can be your chance to prove what you’re made of.
- Love: “If you loved me you wouldn’t question me. Of course I have only your best interests at heart. I wouldn’t lie to you. You know that deep down inside, don’t you? We can have a wonderful relationship if you’d only let yourself go and experience the wonders that the future will deliver to us.”
Although the above info applies specifically to personal relationships you can see how each of these tactics can be adjusted to an internet situation. And, the so-called “skeptics,” actually pseudo-skeptics, have classes on these techniques. Do they work?
Yes, they can, if one is not prepared. And, one MUST be prepared. Why? Well, like it or not, these tactics are those that pedophiles would use on your children, were you foolish enough to allow one to have the time and the proximity. And, if you haven’t read my mini-series on who the Skeptics (pseudo-skeptics) really are maybe THIS is a good time.
So, did Doctor’s Data’s lead attorney Jeff Levens fall victim to these tactics?
No – of course not. When Botts ranted, Jeff just smiled, patted him on the head, so to speak, and offered him a cookie and a glass of milk, and suggested, perhaps, it was time for his nap.
And, that’s the way you treat a pseudo-skeptic. Never react to their control trick in the way they want. Just chide them. Adult condescension is the order of the day. Do it. Treat them as inferiors. Leave your kindness on the shelf.
Instead of YOU getting upset, watch how upset THEY get. I use this tactic with them all of the time on Discussion Groups,, and frankly, I make them so angry that I, Tim Bolen, become their very life – I kid you not. I can wait days to respond to one of their comments, and, within less than a minute I’ll get another rant from more than one of them. I’ll bet they check the Discussion Group every five minutes, all day and all night. I literally own them with this tactic.
What does that mean? It means, I think, several things: (1) In the pseudo-skeptic ranks we are dealing with some seriously personally defective individuals, (2) They have nothing else to do besides being a skeptic – which means either: (a) long term unemployment for cause, or employment by some entity that WANTS them to act strange, and weird, on the internet (like Orac or Steve Novella) (3) We are dealing with individuals who, due to their pseudo-skeptic affiliation, get reinforced and accepted BECAUSE of their bad behavior for, perhaps the very first time in their lives.
And that is very sad. But, DO NOT feel sorry for them.
My guess is that for the most of them the nastiness is something they are very used to in their personal lives – probably starting with their family unit. In short, they treat others the way their mothers, teachers, arresting officers, probation officers, neighbors, treat them. But, in their case there is/was most likely VERY JUST CAUSE.
That, of course, explains their insistence on fake internet names – like they use on Wikipedia and Discussion Groups. I have traced at least one back to a Sexual Offender Registration Card.
What does all this mean?
It means that the Doctor’s Data v Barrett, et al, federal court case has had the effect of a meteorite striking in the heart of the quackbuster/skeptic misinformation campaign. It was assumed before, that Barrett was unassailable, and by association, so was his support network. Now, it has been shown that, in fact, it is easy to slap down a thug.
The case has clearly struck fear into skeptic land. Why? Because, except for a few people at the top, NONE of the pseudo-skeptics, they realize, could come up with the funds to hire an attorney to Defend them in federal court. Even, all together, they couldn’t Defend. They need to be told that someone else would pay.
So, they wait to see what happens.
And, so do we.
The difference is that WE like what is happening. They can’t say the same.
Stay tuned.
Tim Bolen – Consumer Advocate