I filed my Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike on 4/11/11. IO Group’s council then provided his Reply to Opposition on 4/15/11. Let’s read the following paragraph on page 2 (emphasis is mine):

In his Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike, the anonymous Filer does not address Plaintiff’s arguments for striking Filer’s Motion to Dismiss, rather the Filer focuses on the merits of the arguments advanced in his improperly filed Motion. He strings together a series of hearsay discussions from pro-piracy websites, briefs filed in other cases, and other miscellaneous sources, none of which address the issue at hand – whether it is proper for a non-party to submit an anonymous motion to dismiss on behalf of yet-to-be identified Defendants. He cannot, and
the document must be struck.

Wow. Pro-piracy websites? Shame on me! I shou… wait a minute… I looked at all the sources I had quoted from. They are:
• Electronic Frontier Foundation
• NetworkWorld
• Metro
• Current
• TorrentFreak
• ArsTechnica

Hmm, which of these websites are “pro-piracy”, if any? Seriously, help me answer this question. For his ad hominem attack Mr. Sperlein could find some actual vices (as a person of flesh and blood, I’m sure I have many) instead of resorting to impudent lies just to invoke a “guilty by association” fallacy? I see the only plausible explanation of this action: inability to disprove my common-sense arguments in a civilized way, i.e using counter-arguments. Hence, dismissing all of my statements in one scoop by labeling the reference sources as “pro-piracy” was the only option, yet a risky one.

Don’t forget, it was not a blog comment, it was not a chit-chat with a buddy in a bar: it was an official court filing! Deception in court is a serious offense. Defamation is also punishable, but barking at big publications is relatively safe: it is not likely that any of them will sue for sneaky little lies buried in piles of court documents.