These boots are made for riding…

…you know, like horse-riding…

…sort of like ‘cowboys’ do…

…so it is not really all that far-fetched to call them ‘cowboy boots’!

I’m just sayin’…

A little over a year ago, I reported on a lawsuit brought by Dr. Dawg against some fine people.  If you’d like to read the details, they are here, here and here.

However, that is not the bit I am blogging about now.

Rather, it goes to credibility.

Specifically, my credibility in reporting on these events.

As part of my reporting efforts, I had described how the plaintiff, Dr. Dawg, was dressed for court:

I was curious to see John Baglow – having never laid eyes on him before.  He wore a crisp blue shirt (curiously evocative of ‘the working class’ and of ‘cowboys’ at the same time) with aviator-style sun-glasses in place of a tie, dark pants and cute black cowboy boots with the most adorable little metal trimmings.  In his hands, he held a summer-weight (possibly straw), white, fedora-type hat.  His whitish-gray mustache matched his hair and I could read nothing from the neutral expression on his face.  John Baglow, the man, remained a closed book to me.

Many people picked up on the highlighted bit (highlighted for the purposes of this post, not from before).  Dr. Dawg had attempted to cast doubt on the veracity of my reporting by stating:

‘I don’t wear cowboy boots!’

The implication was that if I could not even report accurately what he was wearing, I could not be trusted to report on the rest of the events…

I must admit, I did not know how to deal with this – so I ignored it.

Until now.

Because thanks to a tip from a friend, I came across this picture, posted by Mr. Pup-In-Boots himself!

(Sorry the screenshot is fuzzy – I simply included it for its news-worthiness and to demonstrate it existed should it become ‘dissapeared’. The resolution is much better in the picture on his site – you can even make out the adorable silver-tone metal trimmings!

Wearing the very footwear I had described him wearing to court…

…while riding a horse (or, perhaps, a pony – I am no equestrian expert)…

…like cowboys do..

 

UPDATE:  Dr. Dawg was kind enough to supply the model of the boots themselves.

The Dr. Dawg saga continues…

Last year, I reported on the courtroom proceedings in the defamation lawsuit John Baglow (aka Dr. Dawg) had brought against Connie and Mark Fournier:  part 1 and part 2.

The judge in that hearing dismissed it in a summary judgment for the Fourniers.  (In his ruling, it seemed clear to me  that the judge did not think Mr. Baglow had handled things well…)

John Baglow appealed.

Now, a panel of 3 judges has ruled that Dr. Dawg will have his day in court:

‘Questions about what constitutes defamation in the caustic world of blogging have not been addressed by Canadian courts “in any significant way,” Blair noted. It means, he said, that a full-blown trial is needed to explore key questions…

In other words, the case may indeed be vexatious, but the judges want to make new laws to govern the internet – and plan to do it on the Fourniers’ dime!

Ayayayayay!

When I know the details of when/where the case will be heard by the court, I’ll update this post.

UPDATE:  While there is still no word of the court date/time, I have received a comment on this from Connie Fournier:

This case will be going to a full-blown trial now and there will be expert witnesses and a full examination of the role of defamation law in the blogosphere.  This is of critical importance to any Canadian who operates a website where visitors are allowed to post comments.  If the law stands as it is, anyone who operates such a site should have $50,000 in the bank so that they can defend themselves when Spockluver sues CaptKirkFan for defaming his online persona.’