Dr. Phil Sues Deadspin For Reporting On Manti T'eo Hoax Even Though Deadspin Broke The Story

from the who's-leeching-off-whom? dept

If you recall the insane concept of "hot news," you know all about the attempt to treat factual information as intellectual property as long as you were breaking that information as news. Courts have since seen through that kind of insanity, but that doesn't keep some of the more obnoxious organizations out there from attempting end-arounds that amount to the same thing. And since I used the word "obnoxious," you just had to know that the latest example of this is going to feature Dr. Phil, who is every bit an M.D. as I am a velociraptor.

Many months back when people still gave a damn about college football, Dr. Phil had a two-part series with Ronaiah Tuiasosopo, the man who says he perpetrated the hoax of a fake, dead girlfriend on Notre Dame linebacker and now NFL draft-dropper Manti T'eo. Deadspin covered the story, including the use of clips from the show, in which Tuiasosopo performed his falsetto girl-voice in one of the most awkward television moments this side of that one time when Tom finally caught Jerry and ripped his limbs off in victory (FYI, that never happened). Dr. Phil has apparently cried copyright foul. His reason for this is that some of history's worst math mixed with a touch of irony told him that Deadspin's coverage cost him massive amounts of viewers.
Peteski Productions is arguing that Deadspin spoiled a two-part cliffhanger on the Dr. Phil program by posting a clip of Ronaiah Tuiasosopo speaking in what he said was the voice of the fictitious girlfriend "hours before the Dr. Phil Show aired to over 98% of its viewers." In other words, the clip was posted after the episode of Dr. Phil had already been broadcast in some markets, breaking the show's own news blackout on the question of whether or not Tuiasosopo would perform the female voice.
According to Broadcasting & Cable, the first and second parts of the interview drew 4.8 million and 4.3 million viewers respectively, exceeding the show's average of 4.1 million. That performance helped make Dr. Phil the No. 1 rated syndicated talk show for that sweeps period.
Keep the math we're discussing here in mind, because the level of stupid is about to approach epic proportions. Dr. Phil's ratings during those two shows exceeded their averages. Meanwhile, the two Deadspin posts in question garnered a grand total of 164k views together. The lawsuit alledges that the second Deadspin post, which had 103k of those views, caused the drop in viewership between the first and second episodes of the Dr. Phil show. Read that again. A post with roughly 100k views cost Dr. Phil 400k viewers. Clearly, Dr. Phil's doctorate isn't in mathematics. Nor is it in intellectual property law, I'm afraid, as most people would have to conclude that using the short clips to report on the story, with additional commentary, would very likely fall under fair use.

So, there you have the bad math part. But I promised you irony, didn't I? For that, we'll return to the lawsuit, which references Deadspin's ex-editor, AJ Daulerio's joking claim about how people refer to the site as a "content remora" and then the lawsuit helpfully goes on to describe exactly what that is.
A remora is a fish, sometimes called a suckerfish, which attaches itself to other fish like sharks. The host fish gains nothing from the relationship but the remora is enriched by obtaining benefits (usually food and transportation) from the host.
Got it? The lawsuit is claiming that Deadspin is leeching off of Dr. Phil, providing nothing to them but benefiting from Dr. Phil's laborious undertakings. So why is this ironic? Well, because Deadspin broke the damned T'eo story to begin with. No Deadspin, no Dr. Phil shows with higher-than-average ratings. The remora reference would only be apt if remoras left their host sharks regularly to order those sharks Chinese takeout and deliver said takeout personally. And, of course, Daulerio's use of the term, in context, shows that he was actually mocking those -- like Dr. Phil -- who falsely imply that Gawker and its sites like Deadspin only leech off of someone else's content. The whole point of Daulerio's statement was to show that they're not, in fact, leeching, and yet Dr. Phil's lawsuit attempts to flip that around.

So take your own advice and get real, Dr. Phil. This was a case of fair use and your piss-poor math is as laughable as it gets. You should be thanking Deadspin for the story in the first place, not slinging mud and lawsuits in their direction.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Robert (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 2:09pm

    He's not a doctor

    He admits this in the beginning minutes of Scary Movie 4. Apparently he's an electrician.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Pseudonym, May 8th, 2013 @ 6:32pm

      Re: He's not a doctor

      I know you jest, but I don't know what makes someone look more faux ignorant: not knowing that he has a PhD from the University of North Texas (which is arguably better than a MD), or admitting to having watched Scary Movie 4 (even if it was only the beginning minutes).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Robert (profile), May 9th, 2013 @ 7:05am

        Re: Re: He's not a doctor

        I know he has a PhD in Philolophy (It's in his name) in psychology (he's a psychologist).

        And he was hilarious in that film. He saved Shaq.

        My fav is still Scary Movie 2, James Woods as Father McFeely was down right awesome!

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 2:56pm

    "I am a velociraptor"
    So thats why you wear the Dark Helmet

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    PlagueSD (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 2:56pm

    Prior art...Case closed!!!

    Shortest litigation ever...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 2:58pm

    If you recall the insane concept of "hot news," you know all about the attempt to treat factual information as intellectual property as long as you were breaking that information as news. Courts have since seen through that kind of insanity, but that doesn't keep some of the more obnoxious organizations out there from attempting end-arounds that amount to the same thing.

    The Supreme Court's adoption of the hot news doctrine in INS is very much good law today. What's insane about it? It's a legitimate claim. It hasn't been preempted by federal copyright law. See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 132 (1976) (“‘Misappropriation’ is not necessarily synonymous with copyright infringement, and thus a cause of action labeled as ‘misappropriation’ is not preempted if it is in fact based neither on a right within the general scope of copyright . . . nor on a right equivalent thereto. For example, state law should have the flexibility to afford a remedy . . . against a consistent pattern of unauthorized appropriation by a competitor of the facts . . . constituting ‘hot’ news, whether in the tr aditional mold of International News Service v. Associated Press or in the newer form of data updates from scientific, business, or financial data bases.”) (internal citation omitted); NBA v. Motorola, 105 F.3d 841 (2d Cir. 1997) (holding that hot news misappropriation claim was not preempted by Copyright Act). Some claims may be presented as hot news that are in fact copyright claims in disguise and thus preempted, but hot news is very much alive and well.

    And since I used the word "obnoxious," you just had to know that the latest example of this is going to feature Dr. Phil, who is every bit an M.D. as I am a velociraptor.

    You do realize that people with a PhD often are called "Doctors" because, well, they hold a doctorate degree, right? Apparently not.

    That said, what does hot news misappropriation have to do with this case which has only one claim which is copyright? Are you sure you're qualified to discuss legal matters?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 3:40pm

      Re:

      "Are you sure you're qualified to discuss legal matters?"

      Are you? Wait, I don't even know who you are.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      That One Guy (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 3:57pm

      Re:

      What's insane about it? How about the idea that such an law makes it legal to lock up or prohibit the dissemination of public facts simply to gain commercial advantage.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 3:58pm

      Re:

      The Supreme Court's adoption of the hot news doctrine in INS is very much good law today.

      Is it?

      http://www.medialawmonitor.com/2011/09/the-future-of-the-hot-news-misappropriation-tort-after-ba rclays-capital-inc-v-theflyonthewall-com/ makes a good case for why it is not and the courts recognize that.


      Recently, however, on June 20, 2011, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an important decision which, while ostensibly limited to the facts of that case, nonetheless strongly indicates that hot news misappropriation claims are generally preempted by the Copyright Act....



      International News Service v. Associated Press is no longer precedential law because it relied on the concept of federal common law, which the Supreme Court determined in 1938 federal courts had no power to create. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938).


      Separately, can you name a successful hot news case in the last decade?

      You do realize that people with a PhD often are called "Doctors" because, well, they hold a doctorate degree, right? Apparently not.

      You do realize that he has used the title to imply he's a medical doctor, right? Apparently not.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 4:04pm

        Re: Re:

        "You do realize that he has used the title to imply he's a medical doctor, right?"

        Really? Doctor Phil annoys me for some reason but he doesn't come across as dishonest. Maybe he just spoke in a haste and wasn't really thinking. People make mistakes. Then again I don't really watch his show though I've seen a few snippets as others were watching it. I don't know how anyone can sit through it.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 7:26pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          and I'm not claiming that Dr. Phil claimed to be an M.D., just that if he did he may have accidentally misspoke in haste.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Wally (profile), May 9th, 2013 @ 9:21am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            The fact that he makes referrals tp professionals during the show is a big red flag as he is not allowed to do that without a practicing license. His advice always backfires.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, May 9th, 2013 @ 4:33pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "he is not allowed to do that without a practicing license."

              Not that I don't believe you but do you have a citation for this?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Wally (profile), May 9th, 2013 @ 10:13pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Not that I mean to yell or anything...but... IM A FUCKING PSYCHOLOGIST PARCTICING UNDER LISCENSE IN OHIO....THAT'S MY CITATION.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, May 9th, 2013 @ 11:13pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  ahh, Ohio. Maybe the laws differ there than here, I dunno. Is it a federal law or a state law that you are referencing.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Robert (profile), May 10th, 2013 @ 11:36am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  You seemed stressed. I hope you have more patience with your patients.

                  Why let someone who does not understand get you so worked up?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Pseudonym, May 8th, 2013 @ 6:36pm

        Re: Re:

        You do realize that he has used the title to imply he's a medical doctor, right?

        I'm not saying you're wrong, but some evidence would be useful.

        If he used the title to imply that he is a qualified clinical psychologist, to the point of having a master's and doctorate in that field, then... well... that would pretty much be the opposite of misleading.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 6:37pm

        Re: Re:

        Is it?

        I was actually coming back just now to correct my mistake in saying that INS is still good law. It's not after Erie, as you point out. Nice catch. I appreciate the correction. While INS itself is not good law in that there is no federal common law claim for hot news, the point remains that state law INS-like claims survive preemption. The "June 20, 2011, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals" you cited to is the opinion in Barclay's. The court there was applying New York state misappropriation law, which, as the panel in NBA held, is not preempted by the Copyright Act. In other words, hot news is a viable tort in New York to this day--as it is in other states. There is no FEDERAL common law action for misappropriation post-Erie, but the state law torts still exist.

        Separately, can you name a successful hot news case in the last decade?

        Not off the top of my head. I think you fail to understand that hot news is just a subspecies of the tort of misappropriation generally, and that misappropriation itself is a subset of unfair competition law (trademark law is another subset of unfair competition, for example). These notions are centuries old (which is why the Supreme Court in INS was comfortable identifying a federal common law misappropriation claim). You might consider reading up on this stuff since it's quite interesting and it would give you some broader perspective on things. You might be surprised to find out that not all competition is fair.

        You do realize that he has used the title to imply he's a medical doctor, right? Apparently not.

        Really? Seems to me he's accurately reflecting his PhD. What causes you to think he's intentionally misleading people by accurately using the title? Sounds like FUD to me, unless you have evidence to back it up. I'd love to see your evidence.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Sneeje (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 7:51pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Ugh. You do realize that when you say, "You might consider reading up on this stuff..." that you come across as a) arrogant b) condescending, and c) foolish.

          You should be bothered by c) the most because nothing you've offered actually refutes anything Mike said. All you've offered is your profound and hollow belief that you are more knowledgeable and therefore right. Blech--people like you really piss me off.

          I've been reading this blog for years and perhaps it is you that needs to do some reading so that you'd realize that Mike has not only a deep understanding of this material, but he demonstrates it over and over again with both references and facts.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 9th, 2013 @ 6:42am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            On the contrary, I often find Mike's understanding to be superficial and incomplete. I recommended that he learn about unfair competition law since he often demonstrates that he knows nothing about it.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, May 9th, 2013 @ 9:52am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "I often find"

              and who are you again? At least I know who Mike is so his findings can at least be traced to someone to hold accountable for them when wrong, why should I care about the findings of some random AC? I have a much longer history of Mike than I do of you.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, May 9th, 2013 @ 9:53am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                (who's only history, as far as I'm concerned, only spans a comment or a few comments on a single thread whereas Mike's history spans many Techdirt posts and comments. So why should your findings even matter to me at all, please explain).

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Wally (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 7:56pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Dr. Phil is nothing but FUD....I became a psychologist so I could prove his dumb ass wrong. The worst of it comes out when he talks about Asperger's Syndrome and Autism....I mean really, Autism Speaks threatened to file a degradation lawsuit against him....

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Wally (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 7:57pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            *Defamation

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 8:38pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Dr. Phil is nothing but FUD"

            It's television, it's supposed to get viewers. In order to do that it's common to take something mundane and boring and present it in a captivative manner. To me it's still mundane and boring and I don't see how anyone can see it as entertaining.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 11:46pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "It's television, it's supposed to get viewers. In order to do that it's common to take something mundane and boring and present it in a captivative manner. To me it's still mundane and boring and I don't see how anyone can see it as entertaining."

              Good point....thing is about Dr. Phil...until that episode about Asperger's Syndrome he had a really high ratings score.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 6:44pm

        Re: Re:

        His bio: "Dr. McGraw earned a B.A. from Midwestern State University and an M.A. and a Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the University of North Texas, which was followed by a year of postdoctoral training in Forensic Psychology at The Wilmington Institute. Dr. McGraw was a licensed psychologist in the State of Texas and practiced clinical psychology, where he developed a multimodal treatment protocol for chronic pain patients."

        Source: http://www.drphil.com/shows/page/bio/

        Sounds like a real doctor to me. Licensed and practice clinical psychologist. I'd love to see where he pretended to be an M.D. Doesn't sound at all plausible, Mike. I know you're an evidence-based buy, so I can't wait to see your evidence.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 7:21pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I'd have to agree here. I don't see where Dr. Phil is being misleading about his credentials.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 10:40pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Real doctor in one sense. He may be able to 'treat' patients, but he cannot prescribe medicine. You need the MD for that, at least in California, and most likely elswhere.

          That being said, I have had more value from treatment from non medical Masters and PHd's than from the folks that can prescribe. One med that I was told absolutely not to quit 'cold turkey' I did quit 'cold turkey', and nothing happened. In an encounter with the prescriber a short while later, he said after I reported that nothing happened, and I quote "It was only preventative". How should that make one feel about the medical profession?

          I would not feel comfortable talking to a guy like Dr. Phil, and certainly not on TV. If one really wants to deal with their issues, stuff, more personal than might be revealed in even an hour of 'TV Therapy' is necessary. THAT stuff takes time to get to.

          There is a difference between treating symptom vs treating cause.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 11:50pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            That depends...Psychology and Psychaitry are two very different things because in psychiatry...you prescribe medications as a treatment rather than finding ways to cope.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Robert (profile), May 9th, 2013 @ 7:12am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Technically, psychiatry is practiced by an MD who specializes (post graduation) in mental illness. That's how psychiatrists can prescribe medication where as psychologists cannot.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 9th, 2013 @ 6:05am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You forget that he's not liscensed to practice and in general, most of these issues that Psycologists have with him stem from the fact that he's actually evaluating people and sending referrals to see psychiatrists...that's an issue because be can only do that under liscense. The public's first hint of his erroneous ways was his comments on Britney Spears...but anyone who has Autistic children or children with Asperger's Syndrome kind of dropped him when he started demonizing people with those developmental disorders.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 11:06pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Sounds like a real doctor to me. Licensed and practice clinical psychologist. I'd love to see where he pretended to be an M.D. Doesn't sound at all plausible, Mike. I know you're an evidence-based buy, so I can't wait to see your evidence.

          http://everydaypsychology.com/2008/01/is-dr-phil-actually-psychologist.html#.UYs7YrWR-S A

          Not licensed. Not allowed to imply he's a psychologist. Not allowed to make use of it except for entertainment purposes. And yet... he's done all of that.

          Fwiw, there are two people in my immediate family with PhDs. One in psychology. Neither regularly uses the term "Dr." except in exceptionally formal settings.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Tim Griffiths (profile), May 9th, 2013 @ 3:56am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            My father has an MD my mother a PHD in psychology. She uses Dr because she's damn well earned it (worth nothing MD are in fact only honorary doctorates, at least in the UK) but she also doesn't present a show in which she gives out psychiatric advice.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 9th, 2013 @ 6:40am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            His bio, that I quoted above, says: "Dr. McGraw was a licensed psychologist in the State of Texas and practiced clinical psychology . . . ." That's true. And that article you're citing says that he is a doctor and he can properly call himself a doctor. I'm not seeing evidence that he misrepresents himself.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Robert (profile), May 9th, 2013 @ 7:10am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              The article says he's no longer licensed.

              In my field, once you fail to pay your annual dues to the professional engineering association, you lose the right (privilege?) to call yourself an engineer.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Wally (profile), May 9th, 2013 @ 9:18am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              The issue here is that you have to be licensed to even make referrals and he does that regularly on his show. He is not practicing psychology one bit and has been called out on it for some time.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, May 9th, 2013 @ 9:59am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "you have to be licensed to even make referrals"

                That's stupid and I think against free speech rights. If I wanted to recommend a doctor, even as a non-doctor, why can't I? and if it is my free speech to recommend someone why can't someone with a Ph.D. do the same?

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, May 9th, 2013 @ 12:26pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  (then again, I guess it may depend on if you're being paid. Technically Dr. Phil is getting paid for the show).

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Wally (profile), May 9th, 2013 @ 10:36pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    What's really sad about those two statements is this:

                    When I make a referral to a patient to a psychiatrist....it's usually because I sit down with them and actually analyze what is going on with them and get to know their quirks...but all in an onjective mannor. Before I make the referral, my analysis usually checks in with reference materials I have on hand just in case I feel that medication is needed...after which, if it is so deemed, I refer them to a psychiatrist so that they can get treatment. You have to be liscensed to do that so you don't endanger people's lives.

                    Lets see what Dr. Phil does that violates typical practices of actual psychologists.

                    1. Client confidentiality...you loose your lisence for doing that. His show is public...no confidebtiality what so ever for his "clients".

                    2. Part of renewing your lisence requires you to be up to code with current DSM standards and diagnoses. He has not renewed his since his show started.

                    Oh and I do charge about $150 for a half hour session....

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, May 9th, 2013 @ 11:21pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      "1. Client confidentiality"

                      Well, yeah, but if the patients themselves make information public there is little you can do to stop them (short of locking them up?). If the people on Dr. Phil are willing to go public with their information then how much confidentiality can they reasonably expect? I understand if patients were seeing the psychologist privately then there would be a reasonable presumption of confidentiality that the Dr. would generally be bound to (with few exceptions).

                      Then again you can argue that some of this might involve the patient's family or guardians publicizing some of this information on T.V. even if the patient would rather not. But they can do that without Dr. Phil.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, May 12th, 2013 @ 5:06pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Client confidentiality...you loose your lisence for doing that. His show is public...no confidebtiality what so ever for his "clients".

                      That's not a problem in his case. Approximately 100% of the "advice" that he gives on his show is common sense and general.

                      If anyone came in with a problem that required specific treatment, that probably wouldn't end up on his show.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 4:01pm

      Re:

      "You do realize that people with a PhD often are called "Doctors" because, well, they hold a doctorate degree, right? Apparently not."

      You do realize that your sarcasm detector is malfunctioning, right? You do realize that the author probably knows this but he sometimes gets a bit facetious. You should realize this by his previous posts by now.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    RoyalPITA (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 3:03pm

    Everybody who has a PhD has earned the title "Doctor".

    Not everybody who has a PhD will be a "Medical Doctor".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Sarah Black (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 4:48pm

      Re: Trainers

      "Doctor of Medicine" and "Doctor of Education" are less similar than a "personal trainer" and an "elephant trainer" are.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 5:00pm

      Re:

      agreed. All of this 'oh your not a real doctor' has always annoyed me. how is that different than 'oh online journalism? so your not a real reporter than...'

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Brown (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 5:48pm

      Re:

      For the record, his PhD is in Philosophy, so he is in fact a doctor.

      This is no defense of his actions though. I giant douche bag is a giant douche bag, with or without a title.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Wally (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 7:20pm

        Re: Re:

        Yes but he claims to be a PSYCHOLOGIST....Psychology is based on observation of a being and its interactions with its surroundings...and it's based scientifically...a Philosopher is a thinker but lacks the observation to come to his conclusions...this makes "Dr" Phil a bit if a fraud really. He's simply doing what any person can do and that is peer mediation.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jeffrey Nonken (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 3:30pm

    Remoras cost the host little, and may be beneficial (keeping the host clean). So anybody trying to suggest a parasitic relationship should be wary of that particular analogy.

    A remora is NOT a leech.

    Just sayin'.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 3:39pm

    So I'm thinking Dr. Phil has his PhD in Hollywood Accounting.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 3:47pm

    Simple enough file a counter claim for fruad, Dr. Phil is not a doctor of anything.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, May 8th, 2013 @ 3:52pm

    ROFL The only good think that has came from Dr. Phil is the videos of people using "Dr. Phil" soundboards to make prank calls.

    I'm sure you all know the one where the guy actually makes a woman cry.
    Harsh? Too bad I'm OOTB and I find it very funny.

    Also, I hate velociraptors they're always crawling up your asshole and biting it from the inside.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Wally (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 7:13pm

    I kind of have to laugh at Dr. Phil suing someone over a simple analysis that any person, psychologist or not, can make...Teo had no disabilities known or diagnosed and some people are just that naive. I'll say one thing about Dr. Phil though...he's a fraud in the Freudian community. You just have to look at his episode on Asperger's Syndrome and then hang out with one and befriend someone with it to realize his demonization of the disability. I mean really we would not have had these machines called PC's or software such as Windows if it weren't for the shrewd letter to the law business practices that Bill Gates initiated (common Aspy trate is that we follow laws literally rather than interpretively...ever notice any certain business practices in the computer world that only said to be against the law AFTER Microsoft had lost a few cases in court?) ;-)

    But yes, Dr. Phil is a fraud...not one thing he tells people about actual disorders is true.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Known coward, May 9th, 2013 @ 5:20am

    Dr Phil being spectacularly wrong?

    In other news, the pope is catholic, and Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Wolfy, May 9th, 2013 @ 8:18am

    Dr. Phil has always given me the impression that he was a eunuch.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This