Paul and Meklar made some very pointed observations on Gordon's latest
legal folly:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.seduction.fast/msg/7d4bcbfaebbc759b

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.seduction.fast/msg/6c473ab43d3bd4ab

And his filing in the Sloan case is, again typical as pointed out by
TB:

http://www.cybersheet.com/pleadings-080708.pdf

Just for the hell of it, I tried to wade through the Viacom, et al.
debacle to see how many errors in reasoning and arguement there were.
It's like being on pure oxygen, it's bad for the brain.

Within two page, I estimate I could do about a six page analysis and
critique and that is putting everything as tightly as I can and only
hitting the highlights. In reading through the whole, completely but
not particularly critically, I think that nearly every flaw in
informal (inductive) reasoning I ever learned about it is present in
spades.

Informal argument is looser in it's conventions than a specialist area
such as law and if Gordon were a lawyer, everything would be thrown
out in first reading. However, the court will loosen up the
conventions...