I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Sunday, May 21, 2006

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,

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:

13 Comments:

Anonymous PvM said...

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 :-)

Sunday, May 21, 2006 11:02:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

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.

Sunday, May 21, 2006 11:49:00 AM  
Anonymous Ed Brayton said...

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.

Sunday, May 21, 2006 3:22:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

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.

Sunday, May 21, 2006 4:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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!

Sunday, May 21, 2006 4:36:00 PM  
Blogger Jim said...

"My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer."

--Larry Fafarman

Sunday, May 21, 2006 5:48:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

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.

Sunday, May 21, 2006 6:34:00 PM  
Blogger Beaming Visionary said...

"If you have anything to say on this matter, you ought to post it on your own blog."

This is certainly a novel approach to the weblog medium. If person A and person B both have blogs, and person A posts about something related to person B, person B should not respond using the comment feature on person A's blog, but should do so on his own blog?

Right now, "A Night at the Roxbury" is being shown on TBS. The level of inanity of this entire exchange makes this film seem as deep as a Ludlum novel.

Sunday, May 21, 2006 11:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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.

Monday, May 22, 2006 4:55:00 PM  
Blogger Beaming Visionary said...

"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."

Well, if person B gets plenty of hits on his blog without concerning hinmself with whether person A even exists, what motivation does person B have to popularize the views of person A, to whom person B owes nothing? Person B has no motivation to usher person A into the limelight.

Monday, May 22, 2006 8:50:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

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)

Friday, June 02, 2006 10:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This site is one of the best I have ever seen, wish I had one like this.
»

Thursday, July 20, 2006 12:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find some information here.

Saturday, July 22, 2006 12:34:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home