well, when you do a google.com web search with the parameters >maloney quack<, you get these first-page results:
#6. 2010-02-17 - "Christopher Maloney Is A Quack.  But Maybe Not Censorious" at Popehat;
#10. 2010-02-18 - "Christopher Maloney is a Quack – For SHAME WordPress. Epic Fail" at One Furious Llama.
Note: and it goes on and on.
I don't even rank in the top 100! I have seven Naturocrit pages regarding Maloney, by the way [this is the eighth], and I never called him a quack therein. I cited those who did, surely.
I take it that Myers will not be gifting ND Maloney this holiday season with his desired 'cease and desist': the deadline was the 2010-12-14 if you use Myer's posting date of 2010-12-07, or it was 2010-12-07 if you use the letter's as written date of 2010-11-30.
I must also add, Maloney called Atwood a quack [by post title] regarding Atwood's Medline piece, and engaged in quite obvious ad hominem. The Medline papers are rock solid, in my view, and Atwood didn't get into the pigpen -- in terms of ungrounded personal attacks on competence and integrity. But Maloney went the muddy way -- possibly libeling Atwood's "level of knowledge within his own area" -- and doesn't seem to have even read the entire Medline Atwood-published arc.
The irony is killing me: NCNM ND -- a place that irrationally labels the science-exterior and the science-interior as all the some kind of science stuff [a level of knowledge akin to forth grade?] -- who claims defamation, apparently doesn't have a problem dishing it out.