Good Ol' Ed Brayton, Part 2
Since I am banned on Ed Brayton's blog, I have to answer him here.
This is an update of my previous article, "Ed Brayton wrong again on Dover mootness issue"
In a new article, "Good Ol' Larry Fafarman, Part 2", Good Ol' Ed Brayton says,
You are the one with poor reading comprehension. I said that you did not post a link to this blog -- not that you did not post a link to my article, "Ed Brayton wrong again on Dover mootness issue." You could have posted a link to this blog without waiting for me to post that article first. And I have noticed that Panda's Thumb has not had a single article containing comments about the blog of PT's favorite troll. I have posted about 20 substantial articles here and I am wondering why PT has been in no hurry to attack a single one of them.
Anyway, Ed goes on to say,
Well, you must be pretty dense, too, Ed, because you did not note this alleged "difference" in your original article, "A New Case on Mootness". In fact, according to what you said in that original article, the plaintiffs never asked for nominal damages at all. You said, "There was no request for nominal damages in the UNC case," which as you now indicate is untrue, because there was a request for nominal damages in the plaintiffs' unsuccessful motion to amend the complaint. And the judge also did not note this alleged "difference" between original and amended complaints in regard to nominal-damage claims -- the judge only said, "...... the court in its discretion will not allow the continuation of a lawsuit merely to allow Plaintiffs to seek nominal damages, which, even if proven, would be limited to one dollar." There is no reason to believe that his decision to declare the nominal-damages claim to be moot would have been any different if the claim had been in the original complaint.
Ed, why don't you take your arguments to Dover and use them to campaign for re-election of the Dover school board members, and see how far you get.
Banning me from your blog, Ed, shows that you do not believe in the free exchange of ideas. That attitude is not going to help any of your causes.
This is an update of my previous article, "Ed Brayton wrong again on Dover mootness issue"
In a new article, "Good Ol' Larry Fafarman, Part 2", Good Ol' Ed Brayton says,
Now Larry, I know that reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, nor is thinking for that matter. But even you must be able to recognize that I can't link to a post until after it's been posted.
You are the one with poor reading comprehension. I said that you did not post a link to this blog -- not that you did not post a link to my article, "Ed Brayton wrong again on Dover mootness issue." You could have posted a link to this blog without waiting for me to post that article first. And I have noticed that Panda's Thumb has not had a single article containing comments about the blog of PT's favorite troll. I have posted about 20 substantial articles here and I am wondering why PT has been in no hurry to attack a single one of them.
Anyway, Ed goes on to say,
the man is so dense that he doesn't see the difference between a judge not allowing an amended complaint to ask for damages after the grievance has been redressed and a judge not mooting a case in which nominal damages had been part of the original complaint
Well, you must be pretty dense, too, Ed, because you did not note this alleged "difference" in your original article, "A New Case on Mootness". In fact, according to what you said in that original article, the plaintiffs never asked for nominal damages at all. You said, "There was no request for nominal damages in the UNC case," which as you now indicate is untrue, because there was a request for nominal damages in the plaintiffs' unsuccessful motion to amend the complaint. And the judge also did not note this alleged "difference" between original and amended complaints in regard to nominal-damage claims -- the judge only said, "...... the court in its discretion will not allow the continuation of a lawsuit merely to allow Plaintiffs to seek nominal damages, which, even if proven, would be limited to one dollar." There is no reason to believe that his decision to declare the nominal-damages claim to be moot would have been any different if the claim had been in the original complaint.
Ed, why don't you take your arguments to Dover and use them to campaign for re-election of the Dover school board members, and see how far you get.
Banning me from your blog, Ed, shows that you do not believe in the free exchange of ideas. That attitude is not going to help any of your causes.
Labels: Ed Brayton (2 of 2)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 5/21/2006 05:35:00 AM
9 Comments:
Sigh, Larry, you were wrong Ed was right. You even have to admit such when you mention that the defendents tried to amend the original claim.
You are no match for people like Ed and when discussing issues related to law it seems you are only minimally familiar with the prevailing judicial rulings, the rules, the law etc. Nothing wrong with that of course, makes for a good opportunity to educate the people as to how not to argue.
I remember the good 'old' days when I got to educate Larry on issues of law when he tried to explain his confused arguments as to why Judge Jones was wrong.
Ahhh, those were the days :-)
Posted by PvM ( 5/21/2006 11:02:20 AM ) --
>>>>Sigh, Larry, you were wrong Ed was right. You even have to admit such when you mention that the defendents tried to amend the original claim.<<<<<
I beg your pardon. I do not have to admit anything. In his initial post, Ed said, "There was no request for nominal damages in the UNC case," which is obviously untrue because the plaintiffs made such a request in their unsuccessful motion to amend their complaint. I got that part right -- Ed did not. Anyway, I am arguing that whether the claim for nominal damages was in the original complaint or in the motion to amend the complaint is inconsequential because the judge did not use that difference as a factor in his decision to dismiss this claim. I presume that if he had considered this to be a factor, he would have mentioned it in the opinion. The only reason that the judge gave for dismissing this claim was, "...... the court in its discretion will not allow the continuation of a lawsuit merely to allow Plaintiffs to seek nominal damages, which, even if proven, would be limited to one dollar." I went over all this already in my opening post.
Tell you what, PvM. If you are so confident that you guys are right, then why don't you post a Panda's Thumb article rebutting these two articles, "Ed Brayton wrong again about Dover mootness" and "Good Ol' Ed Brayton, Part 2," along with links to these articles.
Okay Larry, I'll type this slowly so you can understand. This is what I said in my email to you when you threatened to expose the fact that I'd banned you (a fact that I had already exposed myself, by the way, making your threat both idiotic and pointless):
Larry, if you think anything you say can harm my reputation, or that I would possibly care, you're more delusional than I thought. You go right ahead and note on your new blog that I banned you from commenting on mine. Hell, I'll even link to it so others can see it.
I said that I would link to your post "exposing" that I had banned you; I can't do that until after you post it. Hence, my comment about your lack of reading comprehension skils was exactly on point. I did exactly what I said I would do, link to your "note" about me banning you. Now, if you really think this is going to hurt my reputation - or that I care - you're even more a fucking moron than you've already revealed yourself to be.
P.S. to PvM --
BTW, PvM, my blog has been in existence for over a month and now has about 20 controversial articles dealing with the evolution controversy, but no Panda's Thumb article has yet taken a swipe at this blog. How do you explain that if I am supposed to be such a big crackpot? Saying that my articles are not worthy of notice is no excuse, because that statement implies that other articles that PT responds to are worthy of notice.
How do you explain that if I am supposed to be such a big crackpot?
The fact that you're being ignored proves you're not a crackpot?
That in itself is perhaps the most crackpot-ish thing I've ever read!
"My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer."
--Larry Fafarman
Ed Brayton said ( 5/21/2006 03:22:56 PM ) --
>>>>>I said that I would link to your post "exposing" that I had banned you; I can't do that until after you post it.<<<<<<
For starters, Ed, you have some rotten nerve cluttering up my blog with your crap while you ban me from commenting on your blog. If you have anything to say on this matter, you ought to post it on your own blog.
Now, in answer to your comment -- OK, I had forgotten that nitpicking little detail in the email you sent me, and I am now 'fessing up to it. But I thought that you were threatening to expose my supposedly stupid little blog, so I was surprised that your article "Good Ol' Larry Fafarman" had no link to it.
Meanwhile, you have never 'fessed up to your own errors, like your statement, "There was no request for nominal damages in the UNC case." This is not a matter of opinion -- this statement is just plain wrong. You then contradicted yourself by calling me "dense" because I didn't "see the difference between a judge not allowing an amended complaint to ask for damages after the grievance has been redressed and a judge not mooting a case in which nominal damages had been part of the original complaint" (BTW, even the judge himself apparently did not see the difference).
>>>>Now, if you really think this is going to hurt my reputation - or that I care - you're even more a fucking moron than you've already revealed yourself to be. <<<<<
If you don't care about your image and credibility, birdbrain, that is your problem and not mine.
If person A's blog gets a small fraction of the traffic that person B's blog does, that's certainly a reason that person A might have for wanting person B to take up commenting about stuff on person A's blog.
This is to announce that I have posted my first response in the "Traipsing into Breathtaking Inanity" thread. It addresses the first of Larry's 20 complaints with the Dover decision. I will continue to write more responses as time permits. (to get to the thread, go to the April archives - it is the second from the bottom)
Post a Comment
<< Home