Just be careful that you understand the fine line between satire and parody, on the one hand; and defamation of character on the other. I haven't seen anything so far that would be protected satire or parody, which is why I've generally deferred to Keith: If he thinks he's been defamed, and I can't see a defense based on protected expression such as satire, I will of course give him the benefit of the doubt.

I don't want this to have a chilling effect on expression here, but people need to use discretion. I'm well within my rights to say that Keith is a pain in the ass, in large part because I can produce a big pile of email illustrating Keith, in his own words, in fact being a pain in the ass. I have the right to find somebody annoying. But things like disparaging his motives in writing a book, or claims of dishonesty or conflict of interest...those things are dangerous, and if you can't back up your words with documentary evidence, you can expect to be soundly thrashed by a lawyer.

My interest in that is that lawyers always name as many defendents as they can implicate, no matter how tenuous the connection, in a lawsuit. That's why Keith's boilerplate complaint email always contains the word "liability". He's not-so-subtly threatening to sue me over what somebody says on the HabitableZone. Even if I'm completely innocent and in the right, I'll have to pay serious legal costs to be vindicated.

Wanna shut down the HabitableZone? Get me named in a lawsuit. I'll pull the plug so fast it'll make your head spin.