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.

Friday, June 09, 2006

Anti-Darwinism strengthens outside Bible Belt

In the past, anti-Darwinism was strongest in the Bible Belt states because of its association with religion, particularly fundamentalism. However, intelligent design has loosened that association, which I think is the reason why we now see anti-Darwinism growing strong in other parts of the country.

Until the Pennsylvania case of Kitzmiller v. Dover, all of the most important court cases involving governmental public-education rules banning Darwinism, disclaiming Darwinism, or promoting criticisms of Darwinism originated in the Bible Belt of the South. The first was the famous Scopes "monkey" trial in Tennessee in 1925. Since then there have been the following important evolution-education cases from Bible Belt states of the South (the year of the final or latest decision is given, followed by the highest federal court to decide the case -- SC for Supreme Court, App.Ct. for appeals court, and Dist.Ct. for district court):

Arkansas -- Epperson v. Arkansas (1968-SC), McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982-Dist.Ct.)
Louisiana -- Edwards v. Aguillard (1987-SC), Freiler v Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education (2000-App.Ct.)
Georgia -- Selman v. Cobb County (2006--Appt.Ct. remanded to Dist.Ct. -- still pending)

A few significant court cases involving evolution education in the public schools originated outside the Bible Belt, but all of these other cases were anti-Darwinist lawsuits.

Also, the Discovery Institute noted growing state-level support for teaching criticism of evolution in the public schools, and a lot of this support is outside the Southern Bible Belt states --

Columbia, SC – The South Carolina Education Oversight Committee (EOC) will vote Monday, June 12, on whether to give final approval to science standards for biology that require students to summarize how scientists “investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.” The standards were approved unanimously by the South Carolina Board of Education on May 31. Four other states (Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Kansas, and New Mexico) already have science education standards encouraging critical analysis of evolution.

Note: An article in Panda's Thumb disputes the above statement about South Carolina, but concedes, "Edited to add: It was brought to my attention that the science curriculum does actually contain one sentence about 'critical analysis' that was added a year ago, so the DI press release isn’t technically untrue."

Of the four states listed in the above DI press release, Kansas is arguably a Bible Belt state, but it is outside the South. One of the states listed above, Pennsylvania, is Judge Jones' own state, bearding the lion in his den. Other states outside the Bible Belt -- e.g., Ohio and Michigan -- have also had efforts to create state education standards encouraging critical analysis of evolution.

Despite the Darwinists' claim that the Kitzmiller decision was the coup de grace to the anti-Darwinist movement, that movement is still very much alive, as was Mark Twain when he said, "The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated." It is good to see that there are lots of public officials with enough backbone to stand up to the threats of lawsuits against education standards that encourage critical analysis of evolution. A member of the Ohio Board of Education said, "let them sue us." Now that's the spirit!

Labels:

218 Comments:

Anonymous Ben said...

"It is good to see that there are lots of public officials with enough backbone "

Backbone, maybe. Do they show any detectable brain activity, though?


"to stand up to the threats of lawsuits against education standards that encourage critical analysis of evolution."

So tell me, why single evolution out? And why do you think that kids aren't taught to critically analyse things in school anyway?


"A member of the Ohio Board of Education said, "let them sue us." Now that's the spirit!"

Wasting time and money which could be better spent elsewhere in an attempt to cast doubt on science because it clashes with your religious belief?

Saturday, June 10, 2006 1:24:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Ben said ( 6/10/2006 01:24:43 AM ) --

>>>>>Backbone, maybe. Do they show any detectable brain activity, though?<<<<<<

It shows that they are against dogma and censorship. And it shows that they are not willing to let a stupid activist judge in Pennsylvania do their thinking for them.

>>>>>>So tell me, why single evolution out?<<<<<

Who made this rule that evolution may not be criticized unless some other scientific theory is criticized at the same time?

Evolution is probably the most questionable of the few theories that are taught to K-12 students -- K-12 students learn far more scientific laws than theories.

Anyway, this is not a constitutional reason for banning criticism of evolution from public schools.

>>>>> And why do you think that kids aren't taught to critically analyse things in school anyway?<<<<<

They're not? And if they're not, shouldn't they be?

>>>>>Wasting time and money which could be better spent elsewhere in an attempt to cast doubt on science because it clashes with your religious belief? <<<<<<

My religious belief? I never questioned Darwinism because of religious belief. It was only when Darwinism was challenged in scientific terms that I began to question it.

Saturday, June 10, 2006 3:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Ben said...

"It shows that they are against dogma and censorship."

Where is this dogma? Or is it (as I rather suspect) something you see because ID is failing to impress scientists?

And if IDers are being censored, why restrict it to censorship in schools anyway? Wouldn't it be more effective and practical to completely censor them so you never hear of a 'controversy'?


"And it shows that they are not willing to let a stupid activist judge in Pennsylvania do their thinking for them."

As with the 'dogma' claim, is 'activist judge' merely a convenient label to dismiss Judge Jones with for making the 'wrong' decision?


"Who made this rule that evolution may not be criticized unless some other scientific theory is criticized at the same time?"

No such rule. Just interest in why evolution is claimed to be so flawed and shaky, and why those demanding 'critical analysis' are so often fundamentalists or connected to fundamentalists.


"Evolution is probably the most questionable of the few theories that are taught to K-12 students -- K-12 students learn far more scientific laws than theories.

Anyway, this is not a constitutional reason for banning criticism of evolution from public schools."

But the fact that the criticism of evolution is because it's critics have religious motives is a constitutional reason. And let's not pretend that it isn't a religiously motivated thing. Can you point me to one scientist (hell, I'll even take Dembski or Behe) who's never revealed a religious motivation for pushing ID/criticising evolution?


">>>>> And why do you think that kids aren't taught to critically analyse things in school anyway?<<<<<

They're not? And if they're not, shouldn't they be?"

Of course they should! Can we critically analyse the Bible in comparative religion, history, philosophy, or literature classes, then? Anyone else think that the people attacking evolution would backpedal faster than you can say 'critical analysis' if that was suggested to them? ;-)


"I never questioned Darwinism because of religious belief. It was only when Darwinism was challenged in scientific terms that I began to question it. "

So which *scientists* are challenging "Darwinism"? What papers have they published? What research have they done?

Saturday, June 10, 2006 3:08:00 PM  
Blogger LarryFarfarafararman said...

Let them sue us! And then I'll complain about how many lawyers they have when we lose! Everyone thinks I'm completely bonkers, here in my little condo!

Saturday, June 10, 2006 4:08:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>Let them sue us! And then I'll complain about how many lawyers they have when we lose! <<<<<<

I would not wait until after the judgment to complain. In Kitzmiller v. Dover, there were at least five plaintiffs' attorneys in the courtroom on every day of a six-week trial! What did people think when they saw that?

Saturday, June 10, 2006 11:26:00 PM  
Blogger Rob Serrano said...

>> >>>>>Let them sue us! And then I'll complain about how many lawyers they have when we lose! <<<<<< <<

>> I would not wait until after the judgment to complain. In Kitzmiller v. Dover, there were at least five plaintiffs' attorneys in the courtroom on every day of a six-week trial! What did people think when they saw that? <<

They probably thought they were watching a trial. You know one of those things where attorneys are supposed to be in the courtroom. Better that they saw five attorney's than one guy who keeps proclaiming everything he says and does to be genius. But enough about you, Larry.

Sunday, June 11, 2006 1:51:00 AM  
Blogger johndarius said...

Ben said...

So which *scientists* are challenging "Darwinism"? What papers have they published? What research have they done?

---

Go to this site for a list of 514 PhD scientists that challenge "Darwinism". The 514 includes 154 Biologists:

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

You can download the list in PDF format.

Sunday, June 11, 2006 7:03:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Ben said ( 6/10/2006 03:08:20 PM ) --

>>>>>>"It shows that they are against dogma and censorship."

Where is this dogma? Or is it (as I rather suspect) something you see because ID is failing to impress scientists?<<<<<<

It's dogma because a lot of Darwinists are intolerant of those who disagree with it.

>>>>>>And if IDers are being censored, why restrict it to censorship in schools anyway? Wouldn't it be more effective and practical to completely censor them so you never hear of a 'controversy'?<<<<<<

The establishment clause provides a supposedly constitutional means of censoring ID in public schools. There is no constitutional means of censoring ID outside of public schools.

>>>>>"And it shows that they are not willing to let a stupid activist judge in Pennsylvania do their thinking for them."

As with the 'dogma' claim, is 'activist judge' merely a convenient label to dismiss Judge Jones with for making the 'wrong' decision?<<<<<

Some people, such as Phyllis Schlafly, might dismiss Jones just for making a "wrong" decision. But many people -- including myself -- are not criticizing Jones just for ruling against the defendants, but are criticizing him for the way he ruled against them -- see, for example, my article titled "Traipsing into breathtaking inanity -- absurd rulings in the Dover Intelligent Design case". It was widely anticipated that Jones was going to rule against the defendants because of their religious motivations, and if he had just done that on narrow grounds, a lot of people who are now criticizing him would not be criticizing him. I feel that the religious motivations of the school board members should not have been a factor, but these motivations were a factor under the widely used Lemon test, and that is just the way it is.

>>>>>"Who made this rule that evolution may not be criticized unless some other scientific theory is criticized at the same time?"
No such rule. Just interest in why evolution is claimed to be so flawed and shaky, and why those demanding 'critical analysis' are so often fundamentalists or connected to fundamentalists.<<<<<<

There certainly seems to be such a rule, because a lot of people keep bringing up the issue. As for your statement about fundamentalists and those connected to fundamentalists, that is just guilt by association.

>>>>>>>"Evolution is probably the most questionable of the few theories that are taught to K-12 students -- K-12 students learn far more scientific laws than theories.

Anyway, this is not a constitutional reason for banning criticism of evolution from public schools."


But the fact that the criticism of evolution is because it's critics have religious motives is a constitutional reason. And let's not pretend that it isn't a religiously motivated thing. Can you point me to one scientist (hell, I'll even take Dembski or Behe) who's never revealed a religious motivation for pushing ID/criticising evolution?<<<<<<

It's still just guilt by association. The idea of guilt by association is something new in establishment clause cases, and I don't think it is valid.

>>>>>>Can we critically analyse the Bible in comparative religion, history, philosophy, or literature classes, then? Anyone else think that the people attacking evolution would backpedal faster than you can say 'critical analysis' if that was suggested to them? ;-)<<<<<

A lot of the criticism of Darwinism is scientific -- it is not just religion, philosophy, etc..

>>>>>>So which *scientists* are challenging "Darwinism"? What papers have they published? What research have they done?<<<<<<

Here are some examples.

Sunday, June 11, 2006 8:07:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

> It's dogma because a lot of Darwinists are intolerant of those who disagree with it. <

They are intolerant of people who want to give science and superstition equal weight. Of course you are not one of them. You want only superstition.

> As for your statement about fundamentalists and those connected to fundamentalists, that is just guilt by association. <

That is just a fact. Why are you dodging this by pretending to misunderstand it?

> It's still just guilt by association. <

It isn't guilt by association. Saying that IDiots and the insane are two groups with a lot of overlap is just an honest observation.

Sunday, June 11, 2006 8:54:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Rob Serrano said ( June 11, 2006 1:51:59 AM ) --

>> I would not wait until after the judgment to complain. In Kitzmiller v. Dover, there were at least five plaintiffs' attorneys in the courtroom on every day of a six-week trial! What did people think when they saw that? <<

>>>>>They probably thought they were watching a trial. You know one of those things where attorneys are supposed to be in the courtroom.<<<<<<

Yeah, some of them were just "watching" the trial -- with each of these spectators charging $300 an hour or more to be there! (of course, we all know that the plaintiffs gave the defendants a big bargain by giving them a discount on an exorbitant bill for attorney fees)

Sunday, June 11, 2006 10:38:00 AM  
Blogger LarryFarfarafararman said...

Mike Dunford on the Dishonesty Institute's 'list of peer reviewed publications' that some credulous idiot linked to above:


The Discovery Institute and publications


In responding to a recent New York Times article (already discussed in detail here and here), the Discovery Institute's John West once again points to the Discovery Institute's list of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited publications" as evidence that the Discovery Institute really does do science.

That document, like so much that the Discovery Institute puts out, does not paint an accurate picture of what is actually going on. The list has been available in one form or another for quite a while now, and individual entries on the list have been critiqued in a number of locations. I'm going to address the list as a whole here. I will briefly comment on some of the individual entries in the process, but I am not going to take the time to address all of them. For the most part, I will assume, FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT ONLY, that the articles are more or less what they claim to be.

The list contains, by my count, 34 entries. However, upon closer examination it turns out that some of the publications listed in the "Featured Articles" section at the top are duplicated in other places on the list, bringing the number of unique entries down to 31. An additional three books are listed in a section titled, "Books Supportive of Intelligent Design Published by Prominent Trade Presses." These three are neither peer-reviewed nor peer-edited, and therefore should not have been included in the list. This reduces the total to 28.

At this point, it is probably worth discussing the "peer-edited" component of the list. "Peer-edited" is not a term that is in common usage in the sciences. Nobody that I know of considers "peer-editing" to be a meaningful distinction, and it is certainly not viewed as equivalent to peer-review. The use of "peer-edited" serves only to give the Discovery Institute an excuse to increase the number of listed publications slightly.

We will ignore, for the moment, the distinction between peer-reviewed and "peer-edited." We will ignore the fact that the compilers of the list decided to further inflate their numbers by first listing Campbell and Meyer's book Darwinism, Design, and Public Education as a "peer-reviewed book" and then listing each of the book's five chapters as a separate listing. We will even ignore the fact that five of the articles are listed as appearing in "peer-reviewed philosophy journals," rather than in science journals, and that two of those actually appear in books, not journals.

If we do in fact ignore all of the major complaints with the list, and assume that the Discovery Institute folks can actually claim 28 legitimate publications, what does that say for their academic status?

The answer, unsurprisingly, is not much.

To put that figure into perspective, I took a look at the publication lists for two members of my department's graduate faculty: Rob Toonen and Brian Bowen. Both are relatively new faculty, and have been in the department for less than five years. Between the two of them, they have authored 26 peer-reviewed articles since 2000. That's just two fewer articles than the entire body of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" work claimed as supporting Intelligent Design, and it is five more articles than the ID folks claim for that period of time.

That figure of 26 articles doesn't count book chapters or popular publications. It doesn't count "peer-edited" material. That's just what's appeared in peer-reviewed journals. I didn't pick these two professors because they have authored an unusually high number of articles, either. I picked them because I happened to still have their lab homepage up in a browser tab when I started writing this. In fact, these particular professors had to get their lab set up and running over the last couple of years, which probably reduced their output a bit.

To sum up, the Discovery Institute's list of articles supporting Intelligent Design can best be described as pitiful by any measure. The list includes things that don't belong there, lists some entries twice, inflates the number of publications, adds philosophical articles to the scientific ones, and still fails to match the output from two professors over a five year period. That's why nobody considers them to be serious scientists. If they want scientific respect, they need to set up labs, do research, and get serious about producing and publishing real results.

Sunday, June 11, 2006 12:36:00 PM  
Blogger Rob Serrano said...

>> Ben said...

So which *scientists* are challenging "Darwinism"? What papers have they published? What research have they done? <<

>> ---

Go to this site for a list of 514 PhD scientists that challenge "Darwinism". The 514 includes 154 Biologists:

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

You can download the list in PDF format. <<

And it is still the same list that has been refuted time and time again. Try the Steves list -- A list of scientists named Steve who support evolution. There are more signers to that list than there are on your list. But more to the point, 514 PhDs, only 146 of them actually being biologists, out of what, tens of thousands of scientists in the world. That's not a controversy, that's a very small blip.

And when you look at the actual papers that have been published against evolution, there's nothing there. It's just a whole lot of empty.

Sunday, June 11, 2006 7:24:00 PM  
Blogger Rob Serrano said...

>> >> I would not wait until after the judgment to complain. In Kitzmiller v. Dover, there were at least five plaintiffs' attorneys in the courtroom on every day of a six-week trial! What did people think when they saw that? <<

>>>>>They probably thought they were watching a trial. You know one of those things where attorneys are supposed to be in the courtroom.<<<<<< <<

>> Yeah, some of them were just "watching" the trial -- with each of these spectators charging $300 an hour or more to be there! (of course, we all know that the plaintiffs gave the defendants a big bargain by giving them a discount on an exorbitant bill for attorney fees) <<

And your point would be what, exactly? Should the attorneys simply not show up on some days? The plaintiffs are entitled to representation, no matter what you may think. And has already been addressed elsewhere, neither the size of their legal team, nor the attorneys' fees were what could be considered exorbitant. You're basically just mad because your side lost and you've devoted yourself to screaming till you're blue in the face that you wuz robbed. Well, you weren't, so get over it.

Sunday, June 11, 2006 7:30:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

From June 11, 2006 12:36:46 PM --

>>>>>Mike Dunford on the Dishonesty Institute's 'list of peer reviewed publications' that some credulous idiot linked to above<<<<<<

That "credulous idiot" was me.

>>>>>At this point, it is probably worth discussing the "peer-edited" component of the list. "Peer-edited" is not a term that is in common usage in the sciences. Nobody that I know of considers "peer-editing" to be a meaningful distinction, and it is certainly not viewed as equivalent to peer-review. The use of "peer-edited" serves only to give the Discovery Institute an excuse to increase the number of listed publications slightly.<<<<<

So, what is the difference between "peer-review" and "peer-editing"? Is not editing a form of review? Editing could be considered to be just the act of correcting objective errors, but why couldn't an editor also express an opinion that differs from the article's? If an editor thinks that the author misinterpreted the data, would the editor not be obligated to say so? Also, I think that the most important word here is "peer" -- i.e., another scientist in the same field.

>>>>>If we do in fact ignore all of the major complaints with the list, and assume that the Discovery Institute folks can actually claim 28 legitimate publications, what does that say for their academic status?<<<<<

Many Darwinists claim that there are zero peer-reviewed ID publications, and 28 is a darn sight better than that!

Dunford ignores the fact that scientists face an uphill battle in trying to get ID articles published in mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals because the publishers of most of those journals are hostile to ID.

Also, the Discovery Institute list does not include peer-reviewed articles that attempt to counter ID. These articles do give some legitimacy to ID by recognizing ID as a significant challenge to Darwinism. Scientists who claim that there is no real controversy about Darwinism should not waste their time doing research and writing papers that seek to counter challenges to Darwinism.

An amicus brief submitted by 85 scientists in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case pointed out that ID, even if wrong, serves the useful purpose of forcing scientists to confront weaknesses in evolution theory. The same is true of other challenges to evolution theory.

=============================

Dear National Science Foundation:

I would like a grant of one billion dollars for a research program to show that intelligent design is so absurd that even a five-year-old can easily see through it.

Sincerely,

Prof. Charles Darwin

Sunday, June 11, 2006 7:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

> That "credulous idiot" was me. <

That fits.

> the publishers of most of those journals are hostile to ID. <

As they are hostile to claims of witchcraft.

> These articles do give some legitimacy to ID by recognizing ID as a significant challenge to Darwinism. <

Showing the IDiocy of a theory whose main adherents are institutionalized give a legitimacy to that IDiocy?

Sunday, June 11, 2006 8:29:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Rob Serrano said in another thread ( 6/11/2006 05:51:34 PM ) --

(This item is from an old thread, so I am moving it up here -- I really wish that blogger.com would add the feature of displaying a list of the latest comments posted anywhere on the blog. The original comment is here.)

>>>>>>Larry said --
Can you find anywhere in the case records -- the briefs, oral arguments, the trial testimony, the expert witness reports, the depositions, the exhibits, or anywhere else -- where these issues that were major factors in Jones' decision -- i.e., the "true religion" of the founding fathers, his belief that this "true religion" was their major if not sole motivation for adding the establishment clause, and the issue of whether those two issues should be considered at all -- were discussed? Indeed, Jones does not even discuss these issues in the opinion! Should Jones' decision have been influenced by considerations that were extraneous to the case? If the Dover decision had been appealed, could the school board have cited Jones' commencement speech statements as a reason to overturn the decision? Maybe judges themselves should be put on the witness stand to determine their biases and prejudices. <<

Rob answered --
I don't need to find anything, Larry, since I've already refuted your claim. Maybe you should take a remedial course in logic, it would probably do wonders for you.

To clear things up for you, YOU made the claim about Judge Jones' motiviations with no evidence supporting it. <<<<<<<<<

Wrong. My claim was supported by his own words. Here again were his words, from his commencement speech at Dickinson College:

The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state. (emphasis added)

I said that "something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible" represents organized religion, so Jones was saying that according to the founding fathers whom he worshiped, no organized religion could be a "true" religion. So I said that Jones showed a bias against organized religion. This is a perfectly reasonable interpretation. Even if it is not the only interpretation, it is still a reasonable interpretation. Jones should not have said anything that could reasonably be interpreted as showing a bias against organized religion, because such a bias would tend to predispose him to rule against the defendants in any establishment clause case. Also, I cannot help wondering why he bothers to go to church. Speaking of his church attendance, why is it OK to cite his church attendance as evidence that he is not biased against organized religion while it is not OK for me to cite his above statement about religion as evidence that he is biased against organized religion?

Another issue that I raised here was not who was correct in interpreting Judge Jones' statements in his commencement speech at Dickinson College. This other issue is my claim that the ideas that he spoke of in that speech -- the founding fathers' alleged "true religion" and the original intent of the establishment clause -- should not have been used as factors in his Dover decision, especially considering that these ideas were apparently not debated or discussed anywhere in the case, not even in his own official opinion. Also, if the case had been appealed, could this commencement speech have legitimately been considered to be an issue in the appeal?

As for your statements about computers and the Internet, they are so full of crap that I am not even going to bother answering them. For example, you said that a persistent cookie is a "longer term" session cookie. You also said that blogger.com "displayed" your password, then said that showing a string of asterisks counted as "displaying" your password.

Monday, June 12, 2006 3:49:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In The Urbanness said...

<<<<<<> the publishers of most of those journals are hostile to ID. <

As they are hostile to claims of witchcraft.>>>>>>>

If ID is like witchcraft, then what is the point of arguing that peer-reviewed scientific journals have no or few articles that support ID? Would people who reject witchcraft argue that one of the reasons for that rejection is that peer-reviewed scientific journals have no or few articles that support witchcraft?

BTW, does the name "Voice In the Urbanness" have anything to do with the term "urban legend"?

Monday, June 12, 2006 4:09:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You're basically just mad because your side lost and you've devoted yourself to screaming till you're blue in the face that you wuz robbed. Well, you weren't, so get over it."

Larry is incapable of getting over things. He has, according to his brother and as evidenced by his behavior here and elsewhere, some pretty significant mental problems.

Monday, June 12, 2006 6:15:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

> If ID is like witchcraft, then what is the point of arguing that peer-reviewed scientific journals have no or few articles that support ID? <

What is the possible connection?

> BTW, does the name "Voice In the Urbanness" have anything to do with the term "urban legend"? <

Yes. The name was chosen in honor of you.

Monday, June 12, 2006 6:31:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

ViW,

We are anxiously awaiting your return. I have been trying to keep the home fires burning in your absense. I hope you will appreciate my efforts.

I have a question for you.

Were you connected with Larry's smog fee case (on either side)? I realize that those on his side may be even more frustrated with him than those on the opposing side.

Monday, June 12, 2006 6:37:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In the Urbanness said --

<<<<<> If ID is like witchcraft, then what is the point of arguing that peer-reviewed scientific journals have no or few articles that support ID? <

What is the possible connection?<<<<<<

I already explained the connection, moron. People normally do not go around saying that one of their reasons for rejecting witchcraft is that articles supporting it are not published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Monday, June 12, 2006 6:56:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

> I already explained the connection, moron. <

You pathetic asshole.

You really believe that repeating nonsense makes it meaningful? That is why everyone is laughing at you.

Monday, June 12, 2006 8:34:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

> I already explained the connection, moron. <

You pathetic asshole.

You really believe that repeating nonsense makes it meaningful? That is why everyone is laughing at you.

Monday, June 12, 2006 8:35:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

> I already explained the connection, moron. <

You pathetic asshole.

You really believe that repeating nonsense makes it meaningful? That is why everyone is laughing at you.

Monday, June 12, 2006 9:06:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

I suppose that the dumbshit will blame me for the multiple postings on his defective blog.

If you know where to look, you can find out the status of Blogger's problems. Of course with very little knowledge of computers and even less of programming, Larry will be lost.

Monday, June 12, 2006 9:10:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous said --

<<<<<<"You're basically just mad because your side lost and you've devoted yourself to screaming till you're blue in the face that you wuz robbed. Well, you weren't, so get over it."<<<<<<

Where did you Darwinist fatheads get this stupid "your side lost, get over it" shit? You want to see how stupid you sound?

To Darwinists after Scopes trial -- "Your side lost. Get over it."

To Texans after the Alamo -- "Your side lost. Get over it."

To US government after Custer's Last Stand -- "Your side lost. Get over it."

To Greeks after Thermopylae -- "Your side lost. Get over it."

To abortion opponents after Roe v. Wade -- "Your side lost. Get over it."

Ad infinitum.

Actually, I am really glad that Jones ruled the way he did. As a mere district court decision, the case is nearly worthless as precedent, but the opinion is so badly flawed that it does the Darwinists more harm than good.

Monday, June 12, 2006 12:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

> the opinion is so badly flawed that it does the Darwinists more harm than good. <

Do you believe that if you say that often enough, it will be true?

Monday, June 12, 2006 1:24:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In the Urbanass said --

<<<<<<> I already explained the connection, moron. <

You pathetic asshole.

You really believe that repeating nonsense makes it meaningful? That is why everyone is laughing at you. <<<<<<

The laughs on you.

You are just frustrated because I came back with the perfect retort to your attempt to equate ID and witchcraft by saying that the publishers of peer-reviewed scientific journals are hostile to witchcraft as well as ID.

If you ask people why they reject witchcraft, probably most people would not say that one of the reasons is that publishers of peer-reviewed scientific journals are hostile towards it. Witchcraft is so unscientific that probably most people feel that they do not need the supporting opinions of those publishers when giving reasons for rejecting it. So maybe most people think that there is more to ID than there is to witchcraft.

>>>>>I suppose that the dumbshit will blame me for the multiple postings on his defective blog.<<<<<

I am only enjoying the delicious irony that this accidental multiple posting happened to your post on the subject of repeated nonsense.

BTW, moron, this blog is not defective. The multiple posting is the fault of blogger.com, not this blog.

BTW, dumbo, if you would only register a username on blogger.com, you could scoop your own poop rather than leave it to me to clean up your mess after you.

Voice In the Urbanass is just a fart.

Monday, June 12, 2006 2:28:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In The Urbanass said...

<<<<<<<> the opinion is so badly flawed that it does the Darwinists more harm than good. <

Do you believe that if you say that often enough, it will be true?>>>>>>

And do you believe that if you say that Judge Jones is a good judge often enough, it will be true?

The many flaws of the Dover decision are discussed on "Traipsing into breathtaking inanity -- absurd rulings in Dover Intelligent Design Case".

Monday, June 12, 2006 4:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

> You are just frustrated because I came back with the perfect retort to your attempt to equate ID and witchcraft by saying that the publishers of peer-reviewed scientific journals are hostile to witchcraft as well as ID. <

Perfect retort? It only shows your irrationality. You have yet to show why the reluctance of peer-reviewed scientific journals to publish garbage supports ID or damages Darwinism.

Please don't just repeat yourself and pretend that you have come up with a new argument. You are only showing your stupidity.

> If you ask people why they reject witchcraft, probably most people would not say that one of the reasons is that publishers of peer-reviewed scientific journals are hostile towards it. <

A triumph of irrelevance!

> Witchcraft is so unscientific that probably most people feel that they do not need the supporting opinions of those publishers when giving reasons for rejecting it. <

Much like ID.

> if you would only register a username on blogger.com, you could scoop your own poop rather than leave it to me to clean up your mess after you. <

Why should I spend my effort to make your blog look better, asshole?

Monday, June 12, 2006 5:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

Lardass Fafarman said...

> And do you believe that if you say that Judge Jones is a good judge often enough, it will be true? <

You just don't get it. Repeating something that is false, as you do, repeatedly will not make it true. In contrast, whether or not we say that Judge Jones is a good judge, he will remain so.

> The many flaws of the Dover decision are discussed on "Traipsing into breathtaking inanity -- absurd rulings in Dover Intelligent Design Case". <

It doesn't discuss the flaws. It just demonstrates your lack of comprehension.

You are losing it, Lardass.

Monday, June 12, 2006 7:44:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In the Urbanass said --

>>>>>>Perfect retort? It only shows your irrationality. You have yet to show why the reluctance of peer-reviewed scientific journals to publish garbage supports ID or damages Darwinism.<<<<<<

I never tried to show that, moron.

<<<<<> Witchcraft is so unscientific that probably most people feel that they do not need the supporting opinions of those publishers when giving reasons for rejecting it. <

Much like ID.<<<<<<

Not at all like ID. One of the first things people will mention when criticizing ID is that there are no or few articles supporting it in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

<<<<<> if you would only register a username on blogger.com, you could scoop your own poop rather than leave it to me to clean up your mess after you. <

Why should I spend my effort to make your blog look better, asshole?<<<<<<<

You were the one who was concerned that I would blame you for malicious multiple posting. And frankly, I wouldn't put it past you.

Monday, June 12, 2006 8:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

I had a nice weekend but I missed the entertainment of seeing Larry twist in the wind. I want to thank ViU for stepping in for me. I would have a tough time telling his posts from mine. The real prizes should go to Kevin and Rod. They have Larry neatly treed and all he has to respond is personal attack. It is interesting to see how closely Larry has come to resemble that which he claims to despise.

Let me think a bit before giving my next clue. Of course I want to win, but I don't want to end the game too soon. The next clue will have some meat in it.

Unless I missed something there is only one question waiting for an answer "Were you connected with Larry's smog fee case (on either side)?"

My answer to this provides a free clue. I was not a litigant on either side of this case, but I was involved in a case in one of the same courts and had a chance to overhear some comments by an attorney involved in the case. He was quite happy to see Larry's filings because they provided a degree of comic relief. He was enjoying the discomfort of those on Larry's side who were not as entertained. They considered him a bull in a china shop and a complete embarrasment.

I feel especially generous tonight. I will further clarify the fact that I am not an attorney. I was representing myself in a case against the government. The difference between my case and Larry's is that I won.

Monday, June 12, 2006 9:21:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Scary Larry wrote --
> And do you believe that if you say that Judge Jones is a good judge often enough, it will be true? <

Voice In the BurblingAss replied --
>>>>You just don't get it. Repeating something that is false, as you do, repeatedly will not make it true. In contrast, whether or not we say that Judge Jones is a good judge, he will remain so.<<<<<<

Who doesn't get it? This blog presented twenty criticisms of the Dover decision and several criticisms of public speeches that Jones has made since the decision. You have not even attempted to counter a single one of these criticisms -- not one. You are just a big bag of fart gas.

"Scary Larry" is an old nickname that other commenters gave me on the AOL evolution message boards in recognition of my superior debating ability, and I am going to start using the nickname here where appropriate.

Monday, June 12, 2006 9:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

ViU, Mr. Holmes,

In court you never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer. On this blog you might also ask a question to which you know the answer but for a different purpose.

I might, for instance, ask Larry if he is in idiot but this is not the point of my clue.

Monday, June 12, 2006 9:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

Who doesn't get it? This blog presented twenty criticisms of the Dover decision and several criticisms of public speeches that Jones has made since the decision. > > You have not even attempted to counter a single one of these criticisms -- not one. <

Repeating one basic criticism twenty times is not twenty criticisms. Ignoring responses doesn't mean that they have not been made.

> "Scary Larry" is an old nickname that other commenters gave me on the AOL evolution message boards in recognition of my superior debating ability <

Delusional again. It was not because they had any misconceptions of your inferior debating ability. They gave you that name because they saw that you were insane and started wondering when you might hurt yourself.

Monday, June 12, 2006 9:31:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's summarize.

Larry is unable to understand what he reads.

Larry is delusional.

Larry believes that repetition is truth.

Larry believes that if he doesn't agree with something, it wasn't said.

Ergo, Larry is insane.

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 12:07:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In the Wilderness said --

>>>>>Ignoring responses doesn't mean that they have not been made.<<<<<

You are full of shit, VIW. I don't ignore rebuttals -- I answer them directly. And there have been no rebuttals at all to most of my criticisms of the Dover decision and Judge Jones.

>>>>>I was not a litigant on either side of this case, but I was involved in a case in one of the same courts and had a chance to overhear some comments by an attorney involved in the case.<<<<<<

You are full of shit, VIW. There were no oral hearings in my smog impact fee cases. And even if by some miraculous coincidence you had happened to be at such an oral hearing, how could you remember it? This litigation was around ten years ago.

>>>>>The difference between my case and Larry's is that I won. <<<<<<

Describe the case that you won, liar. Furthermore, if you knew something about the law and the courts, you would know that losing a case does not necessarily show that one is a bad attorney or pro se litigant.

>>>>>In court you never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer. <<<<<

VIW, you are so full of shit it is coming out your ears.

In questioning witnesses, attorneys are always asking questions that the attorneys themselves and the court don't know the answers to -- that is why the attorneys ask the questions.

In oral arguments and in briefs, attorneys (or pro se litigants) are always making arguments or asking questions where they themselves do not know of any valid answer or rebuttal. And often the opposing side comes up with answers or rebuttals that are unexpected. A real dilemma is when you know that there is an answer that can really hurt your case -- should you make the argument anyway in the hope that the other side won't think of the answer? If you know of a rebuttal to that answer, should you bring up the answer yourself for the purpose of making the rebuttal, in the hope that the court will accept the rebuttal? If you don't bring up the answer yourself and take the risk that the opposing side will think of the answer, you may not get a chance to rebut the answer because the opportunities to make replies in the courts are often limited. I know all of this stuff because I am an experienced pro se litigant, whereas you are just a bag of hot air.

>>>>>Delusional again. It was not because they had any misconceptions of your inferior debating ability. They gave you that name because they saw that you were insane and started wondering when you might hurt yourself.<<<<<<

Nope. Calling me "Scary Larry" was sincere. I don't see anyone on this blog giving me an impressive nickname in an effort to prevent me from hurting myself. What's the matter, don't you care about my well-being?

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 12:51:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> You are full of shit, VIW. There were no oral hearings in my smog impact fee cases. <

Again you show that you cannot read. Try again. Read my post and see where I say anything about oral hearings. Even if there were such hearings, is this the sort of thing that would be discussed at them? If it were a part of a hearing, would I have used the word "overhear"? You have your head so far up your ass that you forgot what daylight looks like.

> Describe the case that you won, liar. <

That would blow the contest, asshole.

> you would know that losing a case does not necessarily show that one is a bad attorney or pro se litigant. <

Losing one case, no. Losing all of your cases, yes. You have an unbroken record of losses. I have an unbroken record of wins.

> In questioning witnesses, attorneys are always asking questions that the attorneys themselves and the court don't know the answers to <

Only on Perry Mason. If they really didn't know the answer, they would have asked in discovery or at other pretrial meetings.

> that is why the attorneys ask the questions. <

Attorneys ask questions to elicit the types of testimony that they believe would benefit their case. If they don't believe that it would, they don't ask. If they don't know the answer, they certainly don't ask during a trial.

> In oral arguments and in briefs, attorneys (or pro se litigants) are always making arguments or asking questions where they themselves do not know of any valid answer or rebuttal. <

An attorney might ask a question where they were sure that there was no valid answer or rebuttal but they would already have asked the same question in pretrial so as not to be surprised by the answer. With a pro per litigant, they may well shoot themselves in the foot, as you often do. There are a great many times on this blog that you supply links or references that actually disprove your case. Now I can see why.

> A real dilemma is when you know that there is an answer that can really hurt your case <

That is not a dilemma. No sane litigant would ask that question. You, in contrast, might.

> you may not get a chance to rebut the answer because the opportunities to make replies in the courts are often limited. <

They are not that limited. You will nearly always get a chance to rebut new material. If you try to repeat yourself endlessly, as you do on this blog, the judge will cut you off quickly.

> I know all of this stuff because I am an experienced pro se litigant <

With an unbroken record of losses. You have been laughed out of court every time. Your discussion here shows that you know nothing about law or court procedure.

> Calling me "Scary Larry" was sincere. <

Of course it was. But not for the reason you believe.

> I don't see anyone on this blog giving me an impressive nickname <

You consider "Scary Larry" an impressive nickname? You must think Dumbshit is really impressive.

> in an effort to prevent me from hurting myself. <

Can't read again? Did I say that the name was to prevent you from hurting yourself? Would a sane person have made such a connection?

> What's the matter, don't you care about my well-being? <

Not really, beyond the entertainment that you give me with your blog. If you were to get well, your blog would lose its value.

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 7:09:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> You are full of shit, VIW. There were no oral hearings in my smog impact fee cases. <

Again you show that you cannot read. Try again. Read my post and see where I say anything about oral hearings. Even if there were such hearings, is this the sort of thing that would be discussed at them? If it were a part of a hearing, would I have used the word "overhear"? You have your head so far up your ass that you forgot what daylight looks like.

> Describe the case that you won, liar. <

That would blow the contest, asshole.

> you would know that losing a case does not necessarily show that one is a bad attorney or pro se litigant. <

Losing one case, no. Losing all of your cases, yes. You have an unbroken record of losses. I have an unbroken record of wins.

> In questioning witnesses, attorneys are always asking questions that the attorneys themselves and the court don't know the answers to <

Only on Perry Mason. If they really didn't know the answer, they would have asked in discovery or at other pretrial meetings.

> that is why the attorneys ask the questions. <

Attorneys ask questions to elicit the types of testimony that they believe would benefit their case. If they don't believe that it would, they don't ask. If they don't know the answer, they certainly don't ask during a trial.

> In oral arguments and in briefs, attorneys (or pro se litigants) are always making arguments or asking questions where they themselves do not know of any valid answer or rebuttal. <

An attorney might ask a question where they were sure that there was no valid answer or rebuttal but they would already have asked the same question in pretrial so as not to be surprised by the answer. With a pro per litigant, they may well shoot themselves in the foot, as you often do. There are a great many times on this blog that you supply links or references that actually disprove your case. Now I can see why.

> A real dilemma is when you know that there is an answer that can really hurt your case <

That is not a dilemma. No sane litigant would ask that question. You, in contrast, might.

> you may not get a chance to rebut the answer because the opportunities to make replies in the courts are often limited. <

They are not that limited. You will nearly always get a chance to rebut new material. If you try to repeat yourself endlessly, as you do on this blog, the judge will cut you off quickly.

> I know all of this stuff because I am an experienced pro se litigant <

With an unbroken record of losses. You have been laughed out of court every time. Your discussion here shows that you know nothing about law or court procedure.

> Calling me "Scary Larry" was sincere. <

Of course it was. But not for the reason you believe.

> I don't see anyone on this blog giving me an impressive nickname <

You consider "Scary Larry" an impressive nickname? You must think Dumbshit is really impressive.

> in an effort to prevent me from hurting myself. <

Can't read again? Did I say that the name was to prevent you from hurting yourself? Would a sane person have made such a connection?

> What's the matter, don't you care about my well-being? <

Not really, beyond the entertainment that you give me with your blog. If you were to get well, your blog would lose its value.

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 7:10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> You are full of shit, VIW. I don't ignore rebuttals -- I answer them directly. <

Is this a new policy? When will it begin? So far I only see insults and personal attacks in response to rebuttals.

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 7:14:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In the Wilderness said --

>>>>>>Repeating one basic criticism twenty times is not twenty criticisms. <<<<<<

I missed this statement when I made my last reply to VIW.

VIW, your claim that my critique of the Dover decision repeated the same criticism twenty times is outrageous. It is now obvious that you have no credibility at all. Go ahead and rant and rave all you want. I have no reason to waste my time responding to any more of your crap. On most other blogs, your crap would just be deleted.

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 7:44:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> VIW, your claim that my critique of the Dover decision repeated the same criticism twenty times is outrageous. <

Perhaps it was only nineteen times.

You have failed to answer about your absurd misinterpretation of what I said about your legal case and your demonstrated ignorance of law and court procedure. I assume that is an admission of your error. No apology is necessary.

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 8:16:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

P.S.

I don't care if you are the Emperor of France. Your unsupported proclamations that you are right carry no weight here.

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 8:19:00 AM  
Anonymous sherlock holmes said...

ViU, Dr. Watson -- what do you guys think? --

http://www.videotechnology.com/services/JonathanPost.html

http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/003134.html

Hey, Larry -- methinks it'd be an honor to be roasted by this guy. :-}

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:12:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

> ViU, Dr. Watson -- what do you guys think? <

Incredible! What a resume. This guy may even be as bright as Dave. All the pieces fit.

I would almost give you the prize even before hearing from VIW.

How can he have this much time to waste?

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 12:10:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In The Urbanness said ( 6/13/2006 12:10:36 PM ) --

>>>>>Incredible! What a resume.<<<<<

Resumes and credentials don't count for anything on this blog. What counts here is the principle, "you'll have to show me."

Also, people with resumes like this are a dime-a-dozen -- this resume will impress hardly anyone.

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 12:38:00 PM  
Anonymous my 2 cents said...

< What counts here is the principle, "you'll have to show me."

Also, people with resumes like this are a dime-a-dozen >

OK -- show me.

Since I'm tossing in my 2 cents, that should get me two similar resumes, but I'll settle for one. (Maybe next time I'll go for the quantity discount.)

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 12:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

> Resumes and credentials don't count for anything on this blog. <

We weren't talking to you. We know about your credentials, a certificate from a junior college.

> What counts here is the principle, "you'll have to show me." <

You have failed to show anyone anything.

> Also, people with resumes like this are a dime-a-dozen <

See if you can find just one which is similar. I'm sure that you can't.

> this resume will impress hardly anyone. <

I think it will impress anyone who is sane. That, of course, excludes you.

You really blew all credibility with your blather about questions in court cases. And your wild assumption that ViW was talking about oral arguments. When we said that you only had half a brain, we were being too generous.

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 1:09:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

<<<<<<> Also, people with resumes like this are a dime-a-dozen <

See if you can find just one which is similar. I'm sure that you can't.<<<<<<

Who cares, besides you and your fellow trolls on this blog?

You are now officially on IGNORE.

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 1:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

LARRY ADMITS DEFEAT!

> You are now officially on IGNORE. <

I guess that means that you are officially admitting that you were full of crap about what you think you know about law since you have totally failed to Show Me (or anyone else).

Let's face it, you have no answer.

It is good that you will be dropping out of this. You were not part of the conversation and most of it was going over your head anyway.

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 2:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

Mr. Holmes,

Are you any relation to the brilliant Aaron Fafarman? I would think that he is far too bright to be a relative of Larry's.

Where should I ship the acorns?

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 3:32:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

Mr. Holmes,

Please note that for understandable reasons I am not necessarily saying that you are right.
I am pleading "no contest".

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 3:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

I also want to commend Larry for admitting total defeat. I know that it was difficult for him but confession is good for the soul.

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 6:44:00 PM  
Blogger Rob Serrano said...

Rob Serrano said in another thread ( 6/11/2006 05:51:34 PM ) --

>> (This item is from an old thread, so I am moving it up here -- I really wish that blogger.com would add the feature of displaying a list of the latest comments posted anywhere on the blog. The original comment is here.) <<

Owing to your history of rampant dishonesty, Larry, the more likely explanation is that you wanted to make it slightly more difficult to reinsert the context that you have such a penchant for snipping since it pretty much universally demolishes your claims.

>> >>>>>>Larry said --
Can you find anywhere in the case records -- the briefs, oral arguments, the trial testimony, the expert witness reports, the depositions, the exhibits, or anywhere else -- where these issues that were major factors in Jones' decision -- i.e., the "true religion" of the founding fathers, his belief that this "true religion" was their major if not sole motivation for adding the establishment clause, and the issue of whether those two issues should be considered at all -- were discussed? Indeed, Jones does not even discuss these issues in the opinion! Should Jones' decision have been influenced by considerations that were extraneous to the case? If the Dover decision had been appealed, could the school board have cited Jones' commencement speech statements as a reason to overturn the decision? Maybe judges themselves should be put on the witness stand to determine their biases and prejudices. << <<

>> Rob answered --
I don't need to find anything, Larry, since I've already refuted your claim. Maybe you should take a remedial course in logic, it would probably do wonders for you.

To clear things up for you, YOU made the claim about Judge Jones' motiviations with no evidence supporting it. <<<<<<<<< <<

>> Wrong. My claim was supported by his own words. Here again were his words, from his commencement speech at Dickinson College:

The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state. (emphasis added)

I said that "something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible" represents organized religion, so Jones was saying that according to the founding fathers whom he worshiped, no organized religion could be a "true" religion. So I said that Jones showed a bias against organized religion. This is a perfectly reasonable interpretation. Even if it is not the only interpretation, it is still a reasonable interpretation. Jones should not have said anything that could reasonably be interpreted as showing a bias against organized religion, because such a bias would tend to predispose him to rule against the defendants in any establishment clause case. Also, I cannot help wondering why he bothers to go to church. Speaking of his church attendance, why is it OK to cite his church attendance as evidence that he is not biased against organized religion while it is not OK for me to cite his above statement about religion as evidence that he is biased against organized religion? <<

You know the funny part, you still haven't demonstrated anything here besides your inability to realize that you assertions, are not truth. You're not so much reading the passages as you are injecting your spiteful dislike of Judge Jones into them. Or, to put it another way, you're simply wrong, Larry. That's really about as simple as it can get. You don't like Judge Jones, since he ruled against your side (something about your side being prone to the same dishonesty that you are prone to, to the point of lying about the nature of their little "movement"), so you cherry pick any little thing you can find that you can possibly twist to support your hatred. It doesn't work, though, because it is obvious what you are doing.

>> Another issue that I raised here was not who was correct in interpreting Judge Jones' statements in his commencement speech at Dickinson College. This other issue is my claim that the ideas that he spoke of in that speech -- the founding fathers' alleged "true religion" and the original intent of the establishment clause -- should not have been used as factors in his Dover decision, especially considering that these ideas were apparently not debated or discussed anywhere in the case, not even in his own official opinion. Also, if the case had been appealed, could this commencement speech have legitimately been considered to be an issue in the appeal? <<

Again, pure assertion. YOU make your claim without any shred of support that you are correct. Your argument basically boils down to this, Larry: "I hate Judge Jones. Judge Jones must be wrong at all times. Therefore, Judge Jones, even though he said X, really meant Y." This is your pattern, I've seen precious little to indicate that you are capable of actual argument.



>> As for your statements about computers and the Internet, they are so full of crap that I am not even going to bother answering them. For example, you said that a persistent cookie is a "longer term" session cookie. You also said that blogger.com "displayed" your password, then said that showing a string of asterisks counted as "displaying" your password. <<

Apparently, Larry, you still haven't learned how to read anything that has been written. The blogger cookies that I was specifically writing about are in effect, longer-term session cookies. Not that I expect YOU to realize the difference, since you know nothing about cookies or how they work.

As to the second part of your would-be indictment of my knowledge of computers and internet, I suggest, once again that you learn to read. I explained how Blogger wasn't doing anything and you choose to pretend that I said that blogger was displaying my login information. Shows much more about the adled state of your mind than it does about any lack of knowledge on my part. Yet another reason you chose to move your response to this thread, without mention which thread the original had been in.

Dishonest, desperate, pathetic. Yeah, that about covers you, Larry.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 2:59:00 AM  
Blogger Rob Serrano said...

Oh, yeah, the thread that my post was originally contained in is "Judge Jones flunks history and philosophy as well as law and science." I really want to believe that your omission of the thread name was an inadvertant, though honest, slip up on your part, but owing to the complete lack of honesty you've demonstrated, I have my doubts.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 3:15:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Rob Serrano said...

>>>>>Oh, yeah, the thread that my post was originally contained in is "Judge Jones flunks history and philosophy as well as law and science." I really want to believe that your omission of the thread name was an inadvertant, though honest, slip up on your part, but owing to the complete lack of honesty you've demonstrated, I have my doubts.<<<<<<

What is the matter with you? I gave a direct link to your post that I was quoting! There was no "slip up."

BTW, it seems that I am the only one here who usually gives a date and time for the comment that was quoted (it was not necessary in this case because my comment immediately follows yours and because I copied your whole comment) in order to help readers find that comment to see the context of the quote (and also to help follow the string of comments in a discussion).

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 4:07:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> to help follow the string of comments in a discussion <

Your interest is in people not following a string of comments. You disrupt logical discussions with insults and personal attacks so people will be less likely to see the inconsistencies in your posts. Then when you are clearly losing, you hide your head in the sand and hope nobody will notice that you have not answered questions or disputed things that show how wrong you are.

It doesn't work, Larry. Everyone can see what you are doing. You Lose.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 6:17:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

Rob Serrano said to Larry ...

> You know the funny part, you still haven't demonstrated anything here besides your inability to realize that you assertions, are not truth. <

This is the amazing thing. He makes a completely unsupported statement, then believes that repeating it is logical support.

> It doesn't work, though, because it is obvious what you are doing. <

Larry really believes that he is getting away with it! Everyone here can see through his antics.

> Apparently, Larry, you still haven't learned how to read anything that has been written. <

It is amazing what he reads into things that are not there. His off the wall interpretation of what Judge Jones "really meant" for example. In recent times this propensity was illustrated by his claim that I meant, or even implied that things that I clearly said that I had overheard, were stated in oral arguments in open court. At least in this case he has realized his error and ducked further discussion of it.

> Dishonest, desperate, pathetic. Yeah, that about covers you, Larry. <

While there have been numerous examples of gross dishonesty, I think that the most blatant were his manufactured quotes purported to be from his brother Dave, followed by his attempts to impersonate him on this and other blogs. His pretense not to know Bill Carter become obvious by his always putting a question mark after the name when he answers. He apparently has no such question as to the identity of Thomas Jefferson or Sherlock Holmes. He has not questioned my identity. He probably associates it with the voices that he hears in his head.

What is interesting is to watch the progress of his mental deterioration. Every day he gets more desperate.

The full moon has passed for this month. Possibly he will get better but that will be only temporary at best.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 6:45:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Farfignugen said...

I'm right.
I'm right.
I'm right.
I'm right.
I'm right.

People say that I don't support my positions. I have just given five reasons why I believe that Darwinism is flawed.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 6:57:00 AM  
Blogger johndarius said...

Ben said...

>And it is still the same list that has been refuted time and time again.<

How does one refute a ‘list’? Anyway, the list of scientists is valid. Six of them are from Rice University here in Houston, one of the country’s top universitys in the sciences.

>Try the Steves list -- A list of scientists named Steve who support evolution. There are more signers to that list than there are on your list.<

I am familiar with the Steves list. The ‘list’ is not about numbers. The question was asked, “So which *scientists* are challenging “Darwinism”? What papers have they published? What research have they done?” Therefore the list was provided by Larry and myself. If you want to dig further, you can find where some have websites, books or articles refuting the theory of evolution, Darwinism or abiogenesis. You can also find their publishings in other scientific fields.

>But more to the point, 514 PhDs, only 146 of them actually being biologists, out of what, tens of thousands of scientists in the world.<

I don’t have any data on “tens of thousands of scientists in the world”. I doubt that there are near that many that accept evolution, and many of those that do, do so with serious reservations. Most proponents of the ToE on the internet are amateurs, some with little science background.

>That's not a controversy, that's a very small blip.<

Probably not as small a number as one might think, especially if you count the non PhD scientists and researchers across the world. You’d be surprised.

>And when you look at the actual papers that have been published against evolution, there's nothing there. It's just a whole lot of empty.<

I think you better look again. Read the following book to get started:

Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth by by Søren Løvtrup, an embryologist.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 7:03:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Rob Serrano said ( 6/14/2006 02:59:39 AM ) --

<<<<<<>> (This item is from an old thread, so I am moving it up here -- I really wish that blogger.com would add the feature of displaying a list of the latest comments posted anywhere on the blog. The original comment is here.) <<

Owing to your history of rampant dishonesty, Larry, the more likely explanation is that you wanted to make it slightly more difficult to reinsert the context that you have such a penchant for snipping since it pretty much universally demolishes your claims.<<<<<<<

Then why is it that I am usually the only one here who gives the date and time of the comment that was quoted, in order to help readers see the contexts of the quotes?

>>>>> You're not so much reading the passages as you are injecting your spiteful dislike of Judge Jones into them.<<<<<<

Yes, I dislike Judge Jones. His statements and actions are just so bad that I can't help but dislike him. But I can't argue that my criticisms of his statements and actions are correct just because I dislike him.

>>>>>Or, to put it another way, you're simply wrong, Larry.<<<<<<

You say that I am "simply wrong," but can't give a reason other than my dislike of Judge Jones. That is not a valid reason. You are just a bag of hot air.

>>>>>You don't like Judge Jones, since he ruled against your side <<<<<<

No, that is not why I don't like Judge Jones. I dislike him because he is an activist judge, a megalomaniac, and a general crackpot.

>>>>>>you cherry pick any little thing you can find that you can possibly twist to support your hatred.<<<<<<

I don't quote Jones out of context or twist what he says. My interpretations of his Dickinson College commencement speech are perfectly reasonable.

>>>>>Judge Jones must be wrong at all times.<<<<<<

Wrong. I agree with his statement that politics should be kept out of the courts. But I said that this statement of his was hypocritical because his own Dover opinion was highly political in nature -- see "Judge Jones the hypocrite".

And when I agree with him (which isn't often), there is usually no need for me to say so.

>>>>>The blogger cookies that I was specifically writing about are in effect, longer-term session cookies.<<<<<<

By definition, session cookies end when the session ends. There is no such thing as a "longer-term" session cookie that extends beyond the end of the session.

>>>>>>I explained how Blogger wasn't doing anything and you choose to pretend that I said that blogger was displaying my login information.<<<<<<

You said that Blogger displays your password.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 8:54:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> But I can't argue that my criticisms of his statements and actions are correct just because I dislike him. <

But you give them no other support.

> You say that I am "simply wrong," but can't give a reason other than my dislike of Judge Jones. <

He has given a great number of reasons. You are the bag of hot air.

> I dislike him because he is an activist judge, a megalomaniac, and a general crackpot. <

But you are a megalomaniac and a general crackpot. Perhaps that is why you dislike yourself so much.

Please note Webster's definition of megalomaniac - a delusional mental disorder that is marked by infantile feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur. Witness your delusion about your knowledge of law or the belief that "Scary Larry" was a complement. How about your belief that you can make things true just by proclaiming them to be so?

> I don't quote Jones out of context or twist what he says. <

Of course you do. You are always trying to tell "what he meant" and you are always guessing wrong.

> My interpretations of his Dickinson College commencement speech are perfectly reasonable. <

Not to the sane.

> I agree with his statement that politics should be kept out of the courts. <

And he has done so.

> By definition, session cookies end when the session ends. <

Wrong as usual. A session cookie remains until the browser is closed. Many people who are using DSL (like your brother Dave), or cable (like Bill Carter), leave their browsers on at all times and the session cookies may never be lost from memory.

It looks like you don't know any more about cookies than you do about law.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 10:06:00 AM  
Anonymous Larry Fafarman said...

You are all committing lèse majesté. I am the Emperor of France.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 10:09:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In the Wilderness said ( 6/14/2006 10:06:51 AM ) --

<<<<<> You say that I am "simply wrong," but can't give a reason other than my dislike of Judge Jones. <

He has given a great number of reasons.<<<<<<

Wrong. For example, he never tried to rebut my claim that Jones' Dickinson College commencement speech showed hostility towards organized religion. All he said was, "You have yet to demonstrate that this supposed 'hostility' on Judge Jones towards religion even exists except in your bizarro-world fantasies." -- from this comment.

Also, I reargued my case by pointing out that it does not matter whether my interpretation of Jones' speech is the best interpretation -- all that matters is that it is a reasonable interpretation, because my interpretation showed Jones as hostile towards organized religion and biased in establishment clause cases. Rob Serrano had no answer.

If you think that my interpretation of Jones' speech is unreasonable, then tell me what you think would have happened if, say, the speech had been reworded slightly to say the following: "The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by an ayatollah or contained in a Koran, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry."

Also, if Jones did not believe what he said, then his statements were just pandering.

>>>>>Please note Webster's definition of megalomaniac - a delusional mental disorder that is marked by infantile feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur.<<<<<<

A perfect description of Judge Jones. He thinks that his Dover decision is the last word on intelligent design and irreducible complexity.

<<<<<<> I don't quote Jones out of context or twist what he says. <

Of course you do. You are always trying to tell "what he meant" and you are always guessing wrong.<<<<<<

I don't guess at what Jones is saying -- I interpret literally what he is saying.

<<<<<> I agree with his statement that politics should be kept out of the courts. <

And he has done so. <<<<<<

Wrong. He is an activist, demagogic, pandering judge.

<<<<<> By definition, session cookies end when the session ends. <

Wrong as usual. A session cookie remains until the browser is closed.<<<<<<

Tell me, moron, why are they called "session cookies" if they don't end when the session ends? And I could not even find a consistent definition of "session." One definition of session is the time of continuous connection to a particular website. Another definition of session is the time of continuous connection to the Internet. Yet another definition might be the time between opening and closing the browser. But "session cookie" was also defined as a cookie without an expiration time, in contrast to a "persistent cookie," which has an expiration time. So if a "session cookie" has no expiration time, how can there be such a thing as a "longer-term" session cookie?

>>>>> Many people who are using DSL (like your brother Dave), or cable (like Bill Carter), leave their browsers on at all times and the session cookies may never be lost from memory.<<<<<

How do you know how fake Dave and apocryphal Bill run their computers? Did you ask them? And why would anyone leave a browser on at all times? And don't they ever shut off their computers?

>>>>>>It looks like you don't know any more about cookies than you do about law. <<<<<<

Which is one hell of a lot on both subjects.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 2:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> For example, he never tried to rebut my claim that Jones' Dickinson College commencement speech showed hostility towards organized religion. <

Arguments may be rebutted. Bald unsupported pronouncements don't require or deserve rebuttal.

> all that matters is that it is a reasonable interpretation <

But it was not a reasonable interpretation.

> If you think that my interpretation of Jones' speech is unreasonable, then tell me what you think would have happened if, say, the speech had been reworded slightly to say the following: "The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by an ayatollah or contained in a Koran, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry." <

What is the difference? Jones still would not be supporting a specific religion.

> Also, if Jones did not believe what he said, then his statements were just pandering. <

Jones believed what he said. I doubt that he would believe what you reinterpreted that he said. As to saying things you don't believe, how about you claiming that posts that came from your brother Dave were not from him while at the same time badgering your mother to call him and get him to stop posting?

> I don't guess at what Jones is saying -- I interpret literally what he is saying. <

What he says is literally what he says. Your interpretations are guesses. So far they have been uniformly bad guesses.

> He is an activist, demagogic, pandering judge. <

He has kept politics out of his decisions despite pressure from nut groups to bring it in.

> Tell me, moron, why are they called "session cookies" if they don't end when the session ends? <

Well, asshole, you will have to take that up with Webopedia.

> How do you know how fake Dave and apocryphal Bill run their computers? <

You are fake Dave. You use a dialup through your mother's phone. The real Dave uses SBC DSL as is indicated by his known e-mail address. The real Bill Carter also has a known e-mail address that indicates he has cable. I can confirm that this is the Bill Carter who is posting here, as you could if you knew how. His e-mail address is public information through at least three sites that I have found, but I will not tell you how I got it and you are too dumb to figure it out yourself. I would assume that you have it anyway and therefore know that it must be cable.

> And why would anyone leave a browser on at all times? <

So they could quickly check something on the Internet. Why would they close it down?

> And don't they ever shut off their computers? <

Many people do not shut off their computers. Hard drives last longer if they are not started and stopped and other components last longer if they are not heat cycled. A modern computer draws very little power when it is idling.

>>>>>>It looks like you don't know any more about cookies than you do about law. <<<<<<

> Which is one hell of a lot on both subjects. <

You haven't learned as much about cookies as a reasonable person could find in ten minutes of research. In contrast, it would take some time to gather the amount of misinformation you have about law.

I have spread around your claim that attorneys actually ask questions in court to which they don't already have the answers. Many people are getting a good laugh about that one. Do you have any more gems?

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 3:31:00 PM  
Blogger Dave Fafarman said...

< And why would anyone leave a browser on at all times? >

At work I find it convenient to password-lock the entire computer if I step away. That way, when I return all of my browser (and other) windows are still pointing where I left off. At home I don't even bother doing that -- any sites that are sensitive (e.g., bank account, ETrade) time themselves out anyway.

< And don't they ever shut off their computers? >

Not if I can help it. I find it a huge nuisance to have to log off or reboot. But sometimes there's no alternative.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 4:05:00 PM  
Blogger Rob Serrano said...

Larry Fafarman said...

>> Voice In the Wilderness said ( 6/14/2006 10:06:51 AM ) --

<<<<<> You say that I am "simply wrong," but can't give a reason other than my dislike of Judge Jones. <

He has given a great number of reasons.<<<<<<

Wrong. For example, he never tried to rebut my claim that Jones' Dickinson College commencement speech showed hostility towards organized religion. All he said was, "You have yet to demonstrate that this supposed 'hostility' on Judge Jones towards religion even exists except in your bizarro-world fantasies." -- from this comment. <<

And again, you have as yet failed to elevate the "bizarro-world fantasy" realm in which they now reside. Your entire assertion of Judge Jones' "hostility toward religion" (which is a mighty funny thing for a Christian to have), has been supported by nothing more than your (rather tortured) reading of what Judge Jones' said. Unfortunately, you seem utterly incapable of discerning where the line is between what Judge Jones actually said and what you want to believe he said. There are worlds of difference between the two, and that differenec reflects more on you than on Judge Jones.

>> Also, I reargued my case by pointing out that it does not matter whether my interpretation of Jones' speech is the best interpretation -- all that matters is that it is a reasonable interpretation, because my interpretation showed Jones as hostile towards organized religion and biased in establishment clause cases. Rob Serrano had no answer. <<

It is not a matter of whether you (fantastical) interpretation is the best. What matters is that your "interpretation" is not mired in the least little way with any supporting evidence that it is a valid interpretation. You just point and scream "See that, he's hostile toward religion," without actually supporting what you've said. You simply point to your previous interpretation, which is in itself unsupported and want everyone to believe that unsupported + unsupported somehow equals supported. Sorry, it doesn't work that way, and it never has.

>> If you think that my interpretation of Jones' speech is unreasonable, then tell me what you think would have happened if, say, the speech had been reworded slightly to say the following: "The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by an ayatollah or contained in a Koran, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry." <<

And, what? Is this supposed to actually mean something, or is it yet another one of your patheric attempts at deflecting attention away from your lack of garb? Is there some actual argument you're trying to make with this? Or are you trying to claim that Islam is NOT an organized religion? Wait a minute. That must be it, right, Larry. Your whole claptrap "argument" isn't really about "organized religion," is it, Larry? The whole "organized religion" was just a ruse to distract from the fact that it is "Christianity" that you want to make believe that Judge Jones (a Christian himself) is hostile to? Since at the moment you are pandering to your Christian apologist masters over at Uncommon Descent, and they, along with most of their IDC compatriots are currently in full-blown whine mode because us non-Christians are still allowed to live in the United States. Victim-fetishism is not appealing, nor is it a reflection on reality. But then, neither is most of the drivel that you write.

>> Also, if Jones did not believe what he said, then his statements were just pandering. <<

I'm certain he believes what he said. I doubt very much, though, that Judge Jones believe what you want to believe he said. Maybe with some maturity, you'll learn the difference.

>> >>>>>Please note Webster's definition of megalomaniac - a delusional mental disorder that is marked by infantile feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur.<<<<<< <<

>> A perfect description of Judge Jones. He thinks that his Dover decision is the last word on intelligent design and irreducible complexity. <<

Ooh, wow, what a clever (yawn) retort. Unfortunately, though, the only thing around here that exhibits signs of megalomania would be you. Everything you've said about Judge Jones has already been shown to have been made whole-cloth out of your fantasies.

>> <<<<<<> I don't quote Jones out of context or twist what he says. <

Of course you do. You are always trying to tell "what he meant" and you are always guessing wrong.<<<<<< <<

>> I don't guess at what Jones is saying -- I interpret literally what he is saying. <<

Calling what you do "interpretation" is rather akin to calling what astrologers do astronomy. An interpreter takes what is said by one party and translates it into a form discernible by another party. Beyond possibly translating some idiomatic structures this usually means a straight translation. What you are doing is not interpretation. You are spinning statements to attempt to make them fit with your dislike of Judge Jones. You are projecting on Judge Jones, the very base, childish drives that lie at the core of your being. The simple fact of the matter is that your "interpretation" is little more than a lie that you have attempted to foist upon this world as if it were the truth. And that makes you a liar, and nothing more.

>> <<<<<> I agree with his statement that politics should be kept out of the courts. <

And he has done so. <<<<<< <<

>> Wrong. He is an activist, demagogic, pandering judge. <<

According to you, and I think we've already seen how far your honesty goes (see above).

>> <<<<<> By definition, session cookies end when the session ends. <

Wrong as usual. A session cookie remains until the browser is closed.<<<<<< <<

>> Tell me, moron, why are they called "session cookies" if they don't end when the session ends? And I could not even find a consistent definition of "session." One definition of session is the time of continuous connection to a particular website. Another definition of session is the time of continuous connection to the Internet. Yet another definition might be the time between opening and closing the browser. But "session cookie" was also defined as a cookie without an expiration time, in contrast to a "persistent cookie," which has an expiration time. So if a "session cookie" has no expiration time, how can there be such a thing as a "longer-term" session cookie? <<

Ah, Little Larry, still trying to pretend that you have knowledge about which you are plainly ignorant. So let's try this little experiment. Go to a web site that uses session and login. In that same browser window, go to another web-site without logging off of the first one. Without using the back button go back to the original web-site. What happens? It entirely depends on the web-site and how long you've been gone. Banking sites will kill the session after a certain period of inactivity (say 5 minutes), so these session cookies plainly expire before the strict end of session (the secret the client-side cookie doesn't expire, but the server-side cookie does, rendering the client-side cookie invalid). Other sites will keep you logged on almost indefinitely, since the session doesn't end until you log off. This works because session cookies are usually not deleted by the browser, except as part of the normal cleanup routines performed when the browser starts up or shuts down, they just get recycled. It's fairly rare that you'll ever see a site that explicitly destroys a session as soon as you leave the site, because, in practice, it's really nearly impossible to do, and there's really very little reason to attempts to do so because it basically makes for wasted resources and unhappy customers. Some sites have "watchdog" cookies that are set to expire at a predefined time (say 24 hrs) after the beginning of a session, to prevent the session from just sitting there forever.

Some sites, such as blogger, provide an option for an extended session concept for those who would rather not have to log in every time they visit the site, and who don't use the autofill feature on their browsers. The data in these cookies is used solely for the purposes of reconnecting to a session, which is why I refer to them as longer-term session cookies. Functionally, though, despite what you want to believe, their is no great difference between the different types of cookies. The browser treats them all the same, they can contain the same data, they are placed in the same places. Persistent cookies contain data that is meant to be persistent, that is, it is valid between different connections to a site. Session cookies, on the other hand, contain data that is valid only for a single connection, normally a reference to the server-side session id. If I set an expiration time for a session cookie and the server agrees not to tear down the session until that expiration time, have I made the session cookie into a persistent cookie? No, because if, for some reason, the server-side session cookie is removed (as can happen if the server is reset for some reason), the session is destroyed and my session cookie again is made invalid, the data in it being of no use for anything. Hence your problem, Larry. You look things up, but you haven't the knowledge to judge what it is that you are reading. You try to cherry pick quotes, but you don't actually comprehend what they say. You get all huffy and puffy when you are contradicted (which is often, given that you are usually wrong), but you lack the fundamental honesty to debate. You are, by and large, wrong in so many fundamental ways that it's embarrassing to have to keep going after you about them all.

>> >>>>> Many people who are using DSL (like your brother Dave), or cable (like Bill Carter), leave their browsers on at all times and the session cookies may never be lost from memory.<<<<< <<

>> How do you know how fake Dave and apocryphal Bill run their computers? Did you ask them? And why would anyone leave a browser on at all times? And don't they ever shut off their computers? <<

Some of us have always on connections and I, personally, leave my computers on most of the time, sometimes for days on end.

>> >>>>>>It looks like you don't know any more about cookies than you do about law. <<<<<< <<

>> Which is one hell of a lot on both subjects. <<

Well, since it's been shown that you know NOTHING about cookies, I guess, then that your sterling record of losses on the law front shouldn't be terribly surprising either. Your "knowledge" of cookies is based on what appears to be an extremely limited breadth and depth of research on the topic. I'll bet you haven't even looked at the contents of the cookies that you do have, have you? So please, Larry, before you try declaring yourself knowledgeable, maybe you should try learning something, first.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 4:38:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Rob Serrano said ( 6/14/2006 04:38:24 PM ) --

<<<<<>> If you think that my interpretation of Jones' speech is unreasonable, then tell me what you think would have happened if, say, the speech had been reworded slightly to say the following: "The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by an ayatollah or contained in a Koran, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry." <<

And, what? Is this supposed to actually mean something, or is it yet another one of your patheric attempts at deflecting attention away from your lack of garb? Is there some actual argument you're trying to make with this? Or are you trying to claim that Islam is NOT an organized religion?<<<<<

No, moron. I was putting Jones' statement in perspective by showing how it would sound if he made the same statement about Islam that he made about Christianity.

If Jones thinks that his ideas about the establishment clause are so great, then why didn't he put those ideas into his Dover opinion in an effort to help support his rulings?

>>>>>>The whole "organized religion" was just a ruse to distract from the fact that it is "Christianity" that you want to make believe that Judge Jones (a Christian himself) is hostile to? <<<<<<

Actually, I never thought that religion should have been brought into the debate in the first place. The Darwinists are largely responsible for that by insisting that ID is just a religious concept.

And so what if Judge Jones is a "Christian"? (I don't agree that he is)

>>>>>>Banking sites will kill the session after a certain period of inactivity (say 5 minutes), so these session cookies plainly expire before the strict end of session (the secret the client-side cookie doesn't expire, but the server-side cookie does, rendering the client-side cookie invalid).<<<<<<

Yes, I was aware that session cookies sometimes do not even last the length of a session. So a more precise definition of "session cookies" would be cookies that do not extend beyond the end of a session, however "session" is defined, and there are different definitions of the word "session."

Dictionaries or glossaries will often give different definitions of the same term, and people familiar with a term will often have their own definitions. But saying as you did that blogger.com remembers users by means of "longer-term session cookies" is just going too far.

>>>>>>You look things up, but you haven't the knowledge to judge what it is that you are reading. You try to cherry pick quotes, but you don't actually comprehend what they say.<<<<<

People who don't have the knowledge to judge what they are reading are going to accept what they are reading, and people who do have the knowledge to judge what they are reading are going to come up with their own different definitions or interpretations. So your point is -- ?

>>>>>>Some of us have always on connections and I, personally, leave my computers on most of the time, sometimes for days on end.<<<<<<

I usually leave my computer running too, but I often have to disconnect from the Internet because I share a line with a voice phone. Also, I often have to do hot restarts and even cold restarts because pdf files often cause my computer to freeze up.

>>>>>>Well, since it's been shown that you know NOTHING about cookies, I guess, then that your sterling record of losses on the law front shouldn't be terribly surprising either.<<<<<<

LOL You are just trying to cover up your utter failure to rebut my legal arguments by citing what you think my court record mignt be, you stupid fathead.

Furthermore, moron, you know so little about the courts that you don't know that in the courts, winning is often not the only thing. Often just having your case accepted for review by the Supreme Court is itself an enormous legal victory -- you can become instantly famous and get support that you otherwise could not have gotten. I feel I had my own little legal victory when my very first answering brief in my first lawsuit in the regular courts (i.e., not counting small claims courts) was so airtight that the California attorneys did not even attempt to rebut it -- I wonder how many attorneys can make such a boast.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 6:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> No, moron. I was putting Jones' statement in perspective by showing how it would sound if he made the same statement about Islam that he made about Christianity. <

You pathetic asshole. What Rod and I have been trying to get through your cast iron skull is that changing from Christianity to Islam in the example is quite irrelevant.

> If Jones thinks that his ideas about the establishment clause are so great, then why didn't he put those ideas into his Dover opinion in an effort to help support his rulings? <

He probably thought that unnecessary. Why gild the lily?

> The Darwinists are largely responsible for that by insisting that ID is just a religious concept. <

They are insisting on the truth.

> Dictionaries or glossaries will often give different definitions of the same term, and people familiar with a term will often have their own definitions. <

None of them would agree with your definition which seems to vary from post to post.

> But saying as you did that blogger.com remembers users by means of "longer-term session cookies" is just going too far. <

Since you obviously know less about this subject than does the average Papuan cannibal, had you considered just hiding from the subject until it goes away as you have with many of the issues that I have brought up?

> people who do have the knowledge to judge what they are reading are going to come up with their own different definitions or interpretations. <

Those using different definitions have no hope of understanding what they are reading, as you obviously don't. As for interpretations, coloring what someone says with your own prejudices does not show knowledge. It shows an inability to read objectively.

> I often have to disconnect from the Internet because I share a line with a voice phone. <

And sometimes your mother needs to use her phone.

> Also, I often have to do hot restarts and even cold restarts because pdf files often cause my computer to freeze up. <

This is an easy problem to solve. Ask one of the neighborhood kids how to do it.

> LOL You are just trying to cover up your utter failure to rebut my legal arguments by citing what you think my court record mignt be, you stupid fathead. <

We know what your court record is, dumbshit, and you have demonstrated your ignorance of court procedures.

> winning is often not the only thing. <

Then you must have a lot of the only thing. You have an unbroken record of failure.

> Often just having your case accepted for review by the Supreme Court is itself an enormous legal victory <

Having the same issue on which you failed presented by someone else and then and accepted for review by anyone can't be considered a victory.

> you can become instantly famous and get support that you otherwise could not have gotten. <

The famous Larry Fafarman? - More evidence of delusion.

> I feel I had my own little legal victory when my very first answering brief in my first lawsuit in the regular courts (i.e., not counting small claims courts) was so airtight that the California attorneys did not even attempt to rebut it <

It was so absurd that they felt no need to rebut. It was laughed out of court.

> I wonder how many attorneys can make such a boast. <

Any real attorney would know that is not something to boast about. They would try to hide their shame.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 7:58:00 PM  
Blogger Rob Serrano said...

larry fafarman said...

>> Rob Serrano said ( 6/14/2006 04:38:24 PM ) --

<<<<<>> If you think that my interpretation of Jones' speech is unreasonable, then tell me what you think would have happened if, say, the speech had been reworded slightly to say the following: "The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by an ayatollah or contained in a Koran, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry." <<

And, what? Is this supposed to actually mean something, or is it yet another one of your patheric attempts at deflecting attention away from your lack of garb? Is there some actual argument you're trying to make with this? Or are you trying to claim that Islam is NOT an organized religion?<<<<< <<

>> No, moron. I was putting Jones' statement in perspective by showing how it would sound if he made the same statement about Islam that he made about Christianity. <<

Since Judge Jones didn't say anything about Christianity, you are simply proving my point. Not that you've ever demonstrated the ability to actually follow a train of thought. But it would be awfully nice if you'd make the attempt. At least then I wouldn't feel like I'm shooting sardines in a tin.

>> If Jones thinks that his ideas about the establishment clause are so great, then why didn't he put those ideas into his Dover opinion in an effort to help support his rulings? <<

Perhaps ecause his ruling was about the facts presented at the trial. You know FACTS such as the fact the ID's primary textbook had been reedited to expurgate references to Creationism and replace them with Intelligent Design. The FACT that at least one of the school board members responsible for the policy had an avowedly religious motivation for pushing it. The FACT the under exam Behe was forced to admit that, by his definitions, astrology qualifies as science. Beyond these, though, how about the FACT the ID is nothing more than Religious Apologetics trying to glean for itself the respectability of science. Or the FACT the ID has produced no scientific output (peer-edited != peer-reviewed, peer-review means that you give your research and methodology to your peers, and they try to see if your results are reproducible). How about the FACT that, for a supposedly non-religious idea, ID's adherents are certainly not shy about throwing the word atheist at everyone who criticized their movement. At its heart, ID is nothing more than a shoddy excuse for a philosophy. It is an anti-intellectual exercise designed to destroy science by telling children the lie that if you can't explain it God must have done it. ID is the emperor walking down the street and you are nothing more than a peasant happily proclaiming how beautiful the vestments you cannot see are.

>> >>>>>>The whole "organized religion" was just a ruse to distract from the fact that it is "Christianity" that you want to make believe that Judge Jones (a Christian himself) is hostile to? <<<<<< <<

>> Actually, I never thought that religion should have been brought into the debate in the first place. The Darwinists are largely responsible for that by insisting that ID is just a religious concept. <<

Sorry if the truth hurts you. ID is religious apologetics and nothing more. It is certainly not science. It has no substance, it has produced no research, put forward no theories, etc. In fact if you actually were to try to examine what ID actually has produced, besides mounds and mounds of hubris from people like you who desperately want to believe that somehow your ignorance of science is not a failing on your part, it is, instead because the answers to everything you don't understand is that God did it.

>> And so what if Judge Jones is a "Christian"? (I don't agree that he is) <<

And the reason that anyone should care about whether you agree he's a Christian or not is... What exactly? He goes to church and before his ruling, the right wing was all atwitter about how this religious judge was going to strike a blow for Intelligent Design by ruling based on his beliefs. Then, when Judge Jones actually ruled against all the lies and bullshit that make up the totality of what is called ID, suddenly he became the son of Satan getting ready to push Lee Remick of the balcony. They were upset, not because Judge Jones supposedly ruled in the abscence, but because he ruled solely on the facts of the case, and not on any supposed sense of blind loyalty to the religionists. The facts are the facts, no matter how many ways you try to spin them. But then, given that yours is a history of trying to respin facts to make them support your assertions, this is not really a surprise.

>> >>>>>>Banking sites will kill the session after a certain period of inactivity (say 5 minutes), so these session cookies plainly expire before the strict end of session (the secret the client-side cookie doesn't expire, but the server-side cookie does, rendering the client-side cookie invalid).<<<<<< <<

>> Yes, I was aware that session cookies sometimes do not even last the length of a session. So a more precise definition of "session cookies" would be cookies that do not extend beyond the end of a session, however "session" is defined, and there are different definitions of the word "session." <<

First, I doubt very much that you were aware of any such thing. It's just not something you've exhibited. As long as the server-side part of the session is intact the session still exists. It's too bad if you don't accept that, but that's just the way things work. Now, once again, if I set a session cookie with an expiration date that is, say, two weeks, into the future, have I somehow magically changed this cookie from a session cookie? Not really, the data contained in the cookie is still only valid for the session in question, if the session dies, the cookie is made invalid. And it still doesn't mean that Blogger is not a password-based system, which was your original claim, remember? Oh yeah, I know, I should really stop holding you accountable for what you say, since you don't seem to remember it half the time, anyway.

>> Dictionaries or glossaries will often give different definitions of the same term, and people familiar with a term will often have their own definitions. But saying as you did that blogger.com remembers users by means of "longer-term session cookies" is just going too far. <<

And considering the fact that you have NO first-hand knowledge of what I am speaking, I'm supposed to take you as an authority on when someone's use of a term goes to far? That's pretty funny, even given your history. So have you actually looked at the contents of your cookies, yet? Do you have any idea what's in them? Offhand, my guess would be no, since curiosity doesn't seem to be one of your strong suits.

>> >>>>>>You look things up, but you haven't the knowledge to judge what it is that you are reading. You try to cherry pick quotes, but you don't actually comprehend what they say.<<<<< <<

>> People who don't have the knowledge to judge what they are reading are going to accept what they are reading, and people who do have the knowledge to judge what they are reading are going to come up with their own different definitions or interpretations. So your point is -- ? <<

You just proved my point. Thank you, Larry for one of your few, though I'm sure entirely accidental adventures into truth-land. But beyond that, Larry, the problem with your argument is that you, being utterly ignorant of the way cookies work presented something, webopedia, to be an authority, and challenged me to answer to it, even though it is apparently very simplified, to accomodate people like you. But YOU are not the one who gets to decide what is and is not accepted use of language. Your knowledge of cookies is, at BEST, extremely limited, and yet you would pose as an expert on the topic, though you are not. Your utter ignorance, in fact, prevents you from realizing just how limited your knowledge is. It also precludes you from being able to judge the sources you are using as reference, although you would dearly want to be seen as an expert on the topic, instead of the fool that you know show yourself for.

>> >>>>>>Some of us have always on connections and I, personally, leave my computers on most of the time, sometimes for days on end.<<<<<< <<

>> I usually leave my computer running too, but I often have to disconnect from the Internet because I share a line with a voice phone. Also, I often have to do hot restarts and even cold restarts because pdf files often cause my computer to freeze up. <<

Maybe if your computer wasn't a museum piece, you wouldn't have that problem. Let me guess, Windows 95/98/Me running on a PC running at about 1Ghz (probably around 700-800Mhz). If PDF files are causing your computer to lock up, you need to update Acrobat Reader, and possibly your IE. Make sure your drivers are as up to date as possible. Make sure your virus-blocker is as up-to-date as possible. Check yourself for spyware. Also, consider very strongly defragmenting you hard drive and scanning it for bad sectors, both of which can cause symptons that look very much like a system freeze. I regularly keep my computers running for weeks at a time. The only times I reboot them or shut them down is when updates require it or when I'm going to be gone for a couple of days. But then, I also have a strict maintenance and performance-tuning regimen.

>> >>>>>>Well, since it's been shown that you know NOTHING about cookies, I guess, then that your sterling record of losses on the law front shouldn't be terribly surprising either.<<<<<< <<

>> LOL You are just trying to cover up your utter failure to rebut my legal arguments by citing what you think my court record mignt be, you stupid fathead. <<

Ooh, I hit another Larry nerve. Hey, it's alright, Larry, I'm sure it must be embarrassing to be a loser, which explains your need to throw around insults whenever the wind blows against you.

>> Furthermore, moron, you know so little about the courts that you don't know that in the courts, winning is often not the only thing. Often just having your case accepted for review by the Supreme Court is itself an enormous legal victory -- you can become instantly famous and get support that you otherwise could not have gotten. I feel I had my own little legal victory when my very first answering brief in my first lawsuit in the regular courts (i.e., not counting small claims courts) was so airtight that the California attorneys did not even attempt to rebut it -- I wonder how many attorneys can make such a boast. <<

Yeah, Larry, you're a regular Anna Nicole Smith, aren't you? Oh wait, she actually won her appeal in front of the Supreme Court, didn't she, Larry. And still she isn't stumbling around the internet proclaiming herself to be a great legal scholar. So I guess you're no Anna Nicole Smith, then, are you. You're just a bitter legal loser.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 9:03:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In the Wilderness said ( 6/14/2006 03:31:08 PM ) --

>>>>>>Arguments may be rebutted. Bald unsupported pronouncements don't require or deserve rebuttal.<<<<<<

Like your pronouncements. And some arguments -- particularly mine -- are airtight. That's why I get so few rebuttals.

<<<<<<> If you think that my interpretation of Jones' speech is unreasonable, then tell me what you think would have happened if, say, the speech had been reworded slightly to say the following: "The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by an ayatollah or contained in a Koran, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry." <

What is the difference? Jones still would not be supporting a specific religion.<<<<<<

Of course not. It would be denouncing -- not supporting -- another specific religion.

>>>>>Jones believed what he said.<<<<<<

It doesn't matter -- what he said was bad whether he believed it or not.

>>>>>>I can confirm that this is the Bill Carter who is posting here, as you could if you knew how. <<<<<<

"Bill Carter" is likely an alias of Ed Brayton.

>>>>>>His e-mail address is public information through at least three sites that I have found, but I will not tell you <<<<<<

Blogger.com does not reveal or even know the email addresses of commenters who post here, moron, except for the email addresses that registered users leave on their profiles.

>>>>>I have spread around your claim that attorneys actually ask questions in court to which they don't already have the answers. Many people are getting a good laugh about that one. <<<<<<

You stupid fathead, the laughs on you.

In questioning witnesses in court, attorneys are always asking questions that they do not know the answers to, for the following reasons --

(1) A lot of court cases -- particularly low-budget ones (unlike the Dover case) -- have little or no pretrial discovery.

(2) Courtroom testimony may go in unexpected directions.

(3) New questions may have arisen since discovery ended.

(4) Direct examination may raise new questions to be asked on cross-examination.

If the attorneys already know all the answers, there would be no point in conducting the trial, would there be?

As for written documents, attorneys are always making points that they may not know all the answers to.

As for the Dover trial, expert witness testimony should not have been held at all, because -- as was said in Edwards v. Aguillard -- this testimony was just a "Monday morning battle of the experts" that did nothing to illuminate the Dover school board's purpose in enacting the ID policy. Also, deposing the expert witnesses was completely unnecessary, as they had left long paper trails of publications that could have been used to prepare questions to ask them.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 9:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> And some arguments -- particularly mine -- are airtight. <

You make few arguments. You mostly make pronouncements. The few things you say that could be considered arguments are full of holes. They are often refuted but you pretend not to see these refutations.

>>>>>Jones believed what he said.<<<<<<

> It doesn't matter -- what he said was bad whether he believed it or not. <

The point, other than the one on your head, is that unlike you, he did believe what he said. You had said he was pandering because he did not believe what he said. You are the one who says many things that you know to be false.

> "Bill Carter" is likely an alias of Ed Brayton. <

That is a timely example. You know exactly who Bill Carter is. All that is unclear is whether he has known you for 50 years as he claims, or only 49+ as your brother claims.

>>>>>>His e-mail address is public information through at least three sites that I have found, but I will not tell you <<<<<<

> Blogger.com does not reveal or even know the email addresses of commenters who post here, moron, <

Nor did I say that they did, idiot. I said three sites, I did not say Blogger.com. This is a common type of mental disconnect for you and may reveal why you are such a poor reader.

> In questioning witnesses in court, attorneys are always asking questions that they do not know the answers to <

Only losers like yourself.

> A lot of court cases -- particularly low-budget ones (unlike the Dover case) -- have little or no pretrial discovery. <

In which an attorney would be even less likely to ask a question to which he doesn't know the answer.

> If the attorneys already know all the answers, there would be no point in conducting the trial, would there be? <

Other than the obvious? Attorneys in the real world are debaters, not detectives. They are asking questions to elicit a series of responses that they believe will tend to strengthen their cases. They are not feeling around in the dark.

> As for written documents, attorneys are always making points that they may not know all the answers to. <

Written pleadings are a completely different issue. If a litigant made the broad baseless accusations that are common in written pleadings, he would be thrown out of court. Perhaps that is what happened to you?

> Also, deposing the expert witnesses was completely unnecessary, as they had left long paper trails of publications that could have been used to prepare questions to ask them. <

Were they under oath when they constructed the long paper trails?

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 10:06:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In The Wilderness said ( 6/14/2006 07:58:08 PM ) --

<<<<<<> If Jones thinks that his ideas about the establishment clause are so great, then why didn't he put those ideas into his Dover opinion in an effort to help support his rulings? <

He probably thought that unnecessary. Why gild the lily?<<<<<<

When have you heard of a judge leaving out of a published opinion something that he thought would greatly improve it? Furthermore, the Dover opinion does not carry much weight as precedent because it is just a district court opinion, so one would think that Jones would have gone out of his way to try to improve it.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 10:13:00 PM  
Blogger Rob Serrano said...

larry fafarman said...

>> Voice In the Wilderness said ( 6/14/2006 03:31:08 PM ) --

>>>>>>Arguments may be rebutted. Bald unsupported pronouncements don't require or deserve rebuttal.<<<<<< <<

>> Like your pronouncements. And some arguments -- particularly mine -- are airtight. That's why I get so few rebuttals. <<

Your "arguments?" "Airtight?" A whiffle ball is more airtight than your "arguments," Larry. Otherwise you would feel to need to call names all the time.

>> <<<<<<> If you think that my interpretation of Jones' speech is unreasonable, then tell me what you think would have happened if, say, the speech had been reworded slightly to say the following: "The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by an ayatollah or contained in a Koran, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry." <

What is the difference? Jones still would not be supporting a specific religion.<<<<<< <<

>> Of course not. It would be denouncing -- not supporting -- another specific religion. <<

Actually it was neither. But thanks for playing the reality boat, Larry. We have some lovely consolation prizes backstage.

>> >>>>>Jones believed what he said.<<<<<< <<

>> It doesn't matter -- what he said was bad whether he believed it or not. <<

At the very worst, what he said was neutral. It's just that you're obsessed with the notion that Judge Jones is the Devil and will try to cast whatever aspersions you can on him, no matter how dishonest you have to be to do so. But then, honesty's not really one of your big selling points, is it, Larry?

>> >>>>>>I can confirm that this is the Bill Carter who is posting here, as you could if you knew how. <<<<<< <<

>> "Bill Carter" is likely an alias of Ed Brayton. <<

Barring any actual evidence of this assertion, I'll just leave this as another one of your pathetic attempts at pretending that everyone plays your game.

>> >>>>>>His e-mail address is public information through at least three sites that I have found, but I will not tell you <<<<<< <<

>> Blogger.com does not reveal or even know the email addresses of commenters who post here, moron, except for the email addresses that registered users leave on their profiles. <<

AND?

>> >>>>>I have spread around your claim that attorneys actually ask questions in court to which they don't already have the answers. Many people are getting a good laugh about that one. <<<<<< <<

>> You stupid fathead, the laughs on you. <<

Ah, yes, Larry once again proves that he knows how to say things like "fathead."

>> In questioning witnesses in court, attorneys are always asking questions that they do not know the answers to, for the following reasons -- <<

Attorneys, in my experience, NEVER want to ask a question they don't know the answer to. They want to know what the answer is going to be to any question they ask, because otherwise they risk having their entire presentation derailed by unexpected revelations. They also need to be able to know when witnesses are likely purjoring themselves. They can do none of this is they haven't any idea what "the answer" to their questions is.

Attorneys at trial are not trying to determine the facts of the case. They are trying to convince the judge (or jury, depending on the type of trial) that their version of the facts is the correct one. It's called the adversarial system. They want all of their ducks in a row BEFORE they get to trial. That's why we have cross-examination, too.

>> (1) A lot of court cases -- particularly low-budget ones (unlike the Dover case) -- have little or no pretrial discovery. <<

And? So this is supposed to mean that the lawyers just go into the courtroom and say: "La-dee-dah. So you say you saw my client rob the bank? Yes? Oh okay, thank you for your time."

>> (2) Courtroom testimony may go in unexpected directions. <<

Which is why witness lists are exchanged. A great deal of interviewing of the witnesses is done before the case even gets to trial. And when a witness radically changes testimony on the stand from the pretrial interviews, you can bet they are going to be cross-examined as to the inconsistency.

>> (3) New questions may have arisen since discovery ended. <<

And you really think that an attorney doesn't already have a plan on when to ask these questions and what answers their likely to get? You think that the attorney's just going to walk into court with a brand-spanking new question and ask a witness without any idea of what the answer might be? That may be how you operate, but real attorneys try to be prepared BEFORE they step foot inside the courtroom. In the adversarial system, they simply can't afford to ask a question in court that may damage their case, especially if they have no effective way of rebutting it, which they don't if they just wander in without preparation.

>> (4) Direct examination may raise new questions to be asked on cross-examination. <<

If these questions are so new that they couldn't have been anticipated through any other means, then the attorneys usually will request more time to prepare.

>> If the attorneys already know all the answers, there would be no point in conducting the trial, would there be? <<

The trials are not for the attorneys. The attorneys are arguing for their clients, they're not really investigating things beyond what they need to do to prepare to make their client's case.

>> As for written documents, attorneys are always making points that they may not know all the answers to. <<

???

>> As for the Dover trial, expert witness testimony should not have been held at all, because -- as was said in Edwards v. Aguillard -- this testimony was just a "Monday morning battle of the experts" that did nothing to illuminate the Dover school board's purpose in enacting the ID policy. Also, deposing the expert witnesses was completely unnecessary, as they had left long paper trails of publications that could have been used to prepare questions to ask them. <<

Actually the expert testimony seems to have done a great deal in this case, despite you "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" of the decision to let it in. Face it, Larry, the only reason you now say you didn't want the expert testimony allowed is because of how badly the IDist came off on the stand (Behe's "astrology is science, by my standards" and Dembski's not being called), and because of how well the experts for the plaintiffs presented their case. It's the usual self-serving claptrap from you, Larry. But then, I doubt anyone was expecting more.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 10:44:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In The Wilderness said (6/14/2006 10:06:06 PM ) --

<<<<<<> Blogger.com does not reveal or even know the email addresses of commenters who post here, moron, <

Nor did I say that they did, idiot. I said three sites, I did not say Blogger.com. <<<<<<

So -- those three sites would do me no more good than Blogger.com.

You and that jerk Rob Serrano say that you have all these secret Internet sleuthing methods, but you are just bags of hot air.

<<<<<> A lot of court cases -- particularly low-budget ones (unlike the Dover case) -- have little or no pretrial discovery. <

In which an attorney would be even less likely to ask a question to which he doesn't know the answer.<<<<<<<<

If they don't get the answers, then they are certain to lose -- so they are going to take their chances by trying to get answers.

>>>>>>Attorneys in the real world are debaters, not detectives. They are asking questions to elicit a series of responses that they believe will tend to strengthen their cases. They are not feeling around in the dark.
<<<<<<

"Elicit a series of responses"? You stupid fathead. The attorneys cannot follow a script, because the courtroom testimony can go in unexpected directions.

Attorneys do what they have to do -- whether it is debating or detective work.

<<<<<<> As for written documents, attorneys are always making points that they may not know all the answers to. <

Written pleadings are a completely different issue. If a litigant made the broad baseless accusations that are common in written pleadings, he would be thrown out of court.<<<<<<

I don't even understand what you are saying here -- which is not surprising.

>>>>>> Also, deposing the expert witnesses was completely unnecessary, as they had left long paper trails of publications that could have been used to prepare questions to ask them. <

Were they under oath when they constructed the long paper trails? <<<<<

What kind of credibility are they going to have if their courtroom testimony is not consistent with their writings?

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 11:03:00 PM  
Blogger Rob Serrano said...

larry fafarman said...

>> Voice In The Wilderness said (6/14/2006 10:06:06 PM ) --

<<<<<<> Blogger.com does not reveal or even know the email addresses of commenters who post here, moron, <

Nor did I say that they did, idiot. I said three sites, I did not say Blogger.com. <<<<<< <<

>> So -- those three sites would do me no more good than Blogger.com. <<

And if they could do him more good, Larry still wouldn't know how to use them.

>> You and that jerk Rob Serrano say that you have all these secret Internet sleuthing methods, but you are just bags of hot air. <<

Who said anything about "secret" sleuthing methods. All of the information I can find on public resources. You're e-mail address is well known, which means that I know how to get in touch with the abuse desk of you ISP (AOL) if you decide to try playing any games. If I were the type to take offense at stupid crap like the childish non-sense you pull here, I could very easily complain to AOL's complaints people. The only problem with your little paranoid fantasy world is that, no one really cares enough about you to try to search you out. You're just a cranky unemployed old man who so lonely you have to incite arguments just to get other people to talk to you. And even at that, you still find the need to pretend to be a chorus for your side.

<<<<<> A lot of court cases -- particularly low-budget ones (unlike the Dover case) -- have little or no pretrial discovery. <

>> In which an attorney would be even less likely to ask a question to which he doesn't know the answer.<<<<<<<< <<

>> If they don't get the answers, then they are certain to lose -- so they are going to take their chances by trying to get answers. <<

Uh, NO. A lawyer who starts asking cold questions at trial is likely to LOSE. PERIOD. END OF STORY. The trial is about perception and neither side's lawyers is going to want to allow their case to look any weaker than their opponents'. They do not want the Perry Mason Moment. They prepare everything they do and say, what their clients wear and what they say and how they say it. They are NOT going to just walk up to a new witness unprepared. In fact this is exactly why the whole pretrial process is designed the way it is and why last minute witnesses, unless they are EXTREMELY pertinent to the case and unless the the lateness of introduction is beyond anyones control, are usually rejected.

>> >>>>>>Attorneys in the real world are debaters, not detectives. They are asking questions to elicit a series of responses that they believe will tend to strengthen their cases. They are not feeling around in the dark.
<<<<<< <<

>> "Elicit a series of responses"? You stupid fathead. The attorneys cannot follow a script, because the courtroom testimony can go in unexpected directions. <<

And yet attorneys do try to follow a script. The script is fairly detailed. They are all (attorneys, jury, judges, witnesses) playing roles and the courtroom is the stage. The attorneys rehearse their witnesses on everything they are going to say and how they are going to say it. In every case they try to make their client more believable and/or sympathetic to the jury. They do NOT, as you seem to want to believe just wander into the courtroom and start asking questions out of curiosity. The know the response they want from their own witnesses, and they know how to impugn their opponents under cross-examination. What? Did you think that they just picked a random sampling who might know what happened and introduced them as witnesses without so much as having talked to them?

>> Attorneys do what they have to do -- whether it is debating or detective work. <<

Attorneys are there to argue their case. They have staff or outside investigators to do investigation.


>> >>>>>> Also, deposing the expert witnesses was completely unnecessary, as they had left long paper trails of publications that could have been used to prepare questions to ask them. <

Were they under oath when they constructed the long paper trails? <<<<< <<

>> What kind of credibility are they going to have if their courtroom testimony is not consistent with their writings? <<

So what's the big deal? You can't cross-examine a piece of paper. That's the reason that Dembski was taken off the defense witness list (that, and apparently the rebuttal witness was too competent for Dembski's tastes), and why they then attempted to replace his testimony with a written statement, so that plaintiff attorneys couldn't cross examine him. This is also why Judge Jones squashed that attempted end-run around the rules. Because let's face it, when it comes down to a contest between the experts for both sides, the defendants come off looking like the con-men that they are. Especially Michael "Astrology would count as a science under my definition of science" Behe's testimony, which was sort of the icing on the cake as far as showing the vacuity of ID.

Thursday, June 15, 2006 2:30:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Reply to Rob Serrano ( 6/14/2006 10:44:59 PM ) --

Again, Rob Serrano tries to show what a big crackpot I am by devoting so much of his time to trying to refute my arguments. But he is the real crackpot, so I am going to limit my replies to him because I have better things to do with my time.

>>>>>>At the very worst, what he said was neutral. It's just that you're obsessed with the notion that Judge Jones is the Devil and will try to cast whatever aspersions you can on him, no matter how dishonest you have to be to do so.<<<<<<<

You are just frustrated because I showed how ridiculous Jones' statement was by substituting "ayatollah" and "Koran" for "church" and "Bible."

>>>>>Attorneys, in my experience, NEVER want to ask a question they don't know the answer to.<<<<<<

Of course they never "want" to ask a question that they don't know the answer to -- but they often have to.

<<<<<<>> (1) A lot of court cases -- particularly low-budget ones (unlike the Dover case) -- have little or no pretrial discovery. <<

And? So this is supposed to mean that the lawyers just go into the courtroom and say: "La-dee-dah. So you say you saw my client rob the bank? Yes? Oh okay, thank you for your time."<<<<<<

Litigants who have to pay their own way (unlike the Dover plaintiffs) often cannot afford luxuries like pretrial discovery.

<<<<<<>> (2) Courtroom testimony may go in unexpected directions. <<

Which is why witness lists are exchanged.<<<<<<

That does not prevent trial testimony from going in unexpected directions. Also, trials sometimes last for weeks or months, and after a while the attorneys forget what they were trying to prove.

>>>>>And you really think that an attorney doesn't already have a plan on when to ask these questions and what answers their likely to get?<<<<<<

Attorneys often have no idea what answers they are going to get. They just ask the questions and let the chips fall where they may.

>>>>>You think that the attorney's just going to walk into court with a brand-spanking new question and ask a witness without any idea of what the answer might be?<<<<<

After the discovery period is over, there is no opportunity to get previews of the witnesses' answers.

>>>>>If these questions are so new that they couldn't have been anticipated through any other means, then the attorneys usually will request more time to prepare.<<<<<

In the Dover trial, cross-examination immediately followed direct examination. There was no time to prepare questions raised by the direct examinations.

>>>>>Face it, Larry, the only reason you now say you didn't want the expert testimony allowed is because of how badly the IDist came off on the stand.<<<<<<

There you go, jumping to conclusions again. How do you know what I thought or said before about the expert testimony? At the time of the trial, I was not aware of the Edwards v. Aguillard precedent where the district court judge refused to hear a "Monday morning battle of the experts" that would not illuminate the purpose of the public officials.

Thursday, June 15, 2006 2:59:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Rob Serrano said ( 6/15/2006 02:30:29 AM ) --

>>>>>Who said anything about "secret" sleuthing methods. All of the information I can find on public resources.<<<<<<

Try Googling "Bill Carter" and "William Carter" and see how many hits you get.

>>>>>You're e-mail address is well known,<<<<<<

Of course it is well known, moron, it is right in my Blogger profile.

>>>>>which means that I know how to get in touch with the abuse desk of you ISP (AOL) if you decide to try playing any games. If I were the type to take offense at stupid crap like the childish non-sense you pull here, I could very easily complain to AOL's complaints people.<<<<<

LMAO.

>>>>>A lawyer who starts asking cold questions at trial is likely to LOSE. PERIOD. END OF STORY.<<<<<

"END OF STORY"! LOL The purpose of a trial is to determine the truth. In fact, I heard that at one point in the Dover trial, Judge Jones himself asked questions of one of the defendants. Attorneys often have little control over the outcomes of trials. If attorneys could control the outcome, then both sides would win.

>>>>>Did you think that they just picked a random sampling who might know what happened and introduced them as witnesses without so much as having talked to them? <<<<<<

Attorneys have little or no control over witnesses that are picked by the opposing side. In the Dover case, the selection of Barbara Forrest as an expert witness was challenged. Also, it was agreed that Jeffrey Shallit would be permitted to testify only if Dembski's ideas were introduced into the case.

>>>>>You can't cross-examine a piece of paper. That's the reason that Dembski was taken off the defense witness list (that, and apparently the rebuttal witness was too competent for Dembski's tastes), and why they then attempted to replace his testimony with a written statement, so that plaintiff attorneys couldn't cross examine him. This is also why Judge Jones squashed that attempted end-run around the rules.<<<<<<

Judge Jones rejection of a Discovery Institute's amicus brief on the grounds that it was a "back door" method of inserting Dembski's "unrebutted" ideas into the case record was really stupid. For one thing, an amicus brief carries much less weight than trial testimony. Also, Judge Jones accepted a reply brief answering the DI amicus brief. So there was no advantage to using this "back door" approach.

One more thing -- sensible readers here would not be interested in the history of my smog impact fee cases. Your ad hominem attacks against me in regard to those cases only make you look foolish.

Thursday, June 15, 2006 3:53:00 AM  
Blogger Rob Serrano said...

larry fafarman said...

>> Reply to Rob Serrano ( 6/14/2006 10:44:59 PM ) --

Again, Rob Serrano tries to show what a big crackpot I am by devoting so much of his time to trying to refute my arguments. But he is the real crackpot, so I am going to limit my replies to him because I have better things to do with my time. <<

Ah yes, it is time, once again for Larry's favorite game "Everyone's a crackpot but Me." You're pathetic, Larry. Have I told you that, yet?

>> >>>>>>At the very worst, what he said was neutral. It's just that you're obsessed with the notion that Judge Jones is the Devil and will try to cast whatever aspersions you can on him, no matter how dishonest you have to be to do so.<<<<<<< <<

>> You are just frustrated because I showed how ridiculous Jones' statement was by substituting "ayatollah" and "Koran" for "church" and "Bible." <<

Not really, all you showed was that you still can't grasp the difference between what you want to be true and what is true. And you made yourself look like a religious bigot, all at the same time. You showed your true colors. I couldn't have asked for anything more from you.

>> >>>>>Attorneys, in my experience, NEVER want to ask a question they don't know the answer to.<<<<<< <<

>> Of course they never "want" to ask a question that they don't know the answer to -- but they often have to. <<

Define "often." You've already said they do it all the time, so give us an estimate of exactly how often they ask questions cold at trial.

>> <<<<<<>> (1) A lot of court cases -- particularly low-budget ones (unlike the Dover case) -- have little or no pretrial discovery. <<

And? So this is supposed to mean that the lawyers just go into the courtroom and say: "La-dee-dah. So you say you saw my client rob the bank? Yes? Oh okay, thank you for your time."<<<<<< <<

>> Litigants who have to pay their own way (unlike the Dover plaintiffs) often cannot afford luxuries like pretrial discovery. <<

And therefore, what? Discovery is not the only preparation possibly. An attorney who doesn't make diligent preparation for a case is guilty of malpractice. I wonder if you could have sued yourself, since it sounds a lot like you didn't actually do any prep-work on your own behalf.

>> <<<<<<>> (2) Courtroom testimony may go in unexpected directions. <<

Which is why witness lists are exchanged.<<<<<< <<

>> That does not prevent trial testimony from going in unexpected directions. Also, trials sometimes last for weeks or months, and after a while the attorneys forget what they were trying to prove. <<

Maybe if the attorney is a non-attorney who is also a bit adle-brained. Attorneys are paid to know what the case is about. They know what they need to prove. Maybe you didn't, so much worse the reflection on you.

>> >>>>>And you really think that an attorney doesn't already have a plan on when to ask these questions and what answers their likely to get?<<<<<< <<

>> Attorneys often have no idea what answers they are going to get. They just ask the questions and let the chips fall where they may. <<

That would be the definition of a bad attorney. Trial is not a time to just "ask the questions and let the chips fall where they may." If they are, as you like to keep asserting, just blindly asking questions, they are not going to be able to their job, which is representing their clients' interests. They know what questions to ask, they know what responses to expect and they know what to do should an answer to a question go awry. Attorneys are not searching for a truth at trial, they are representing a client. In your scenario, your attorney could in the course of the trial actually cause harm to the client. Again, that may be the way you worked during your stint, but there wouldn't be any attorneys left in the world if they worked in the way you're suggesting: just throwing out blind questions and hoping that they get a good answer.

>> >>>>>You think that the attorney's just going to walk into court with a brand-spanking new question and ask a witness without any idea of what the answer might be?<<<<< <<

>> After the discovery period is over, there is no opportunity to get previews of the witnesses' answers. <<

By that point there is already a glut of written statements to go over so you already know what the witnesses are going to say and you already have what you need to impugn them if they say anything contrary to that.

An attorney's not going to just walk into court and ask questions blind.

>> >>>>>If these questions are so new that they couldn't have been anticipated through any other means, then the attorneys usually will request more time to prepare.<<<<< <<

>> In the Dover trial, cross-examination immediately followed direct examination. There was no time to prepare questions raised by the direct examinations. <<

They already had prepared. The defendants knew what the expert witnesses were going to talk about and what they were going to say. There were no huge revelations, so no delays were needed.

>> >>>>>Face it, Larry, the only reason you now say you didn't want the expert testimony allowed is because of how badly the IDist came off on the stand.<<<<<< <<

>> There you go, jumping to conclusions again. How do you know what I thought or said before about the expert testimony? <<

Because your behavior since then has been quite telling.

>> At the time of the trial, I was not aware of the Edwards v. Aguillard precedent where the district court judge refused to hear a "Monday morning battle of the experts" that would not illuminate the purpose of the public officials. <<

Hate to tell you this, Larry, but decisions set at the district court level are not precedents, so Judge Jones was not bound by what the Judge in Edwards said. In other words, Larry, you can't say that Judge Jones didn't follow this non-precedent, therefore he ruled incorrectly. But I'm sure that some day you might get something right and do at a time at which it is actually meaningful.

Thursday, June 15, 2006 4:33:00 AM  
Blogger Rob Serrano said...

larry fafarman said...

>> Rob Serrano said ( 6/15/2006 02:30:29 AM ) --

>>>>>Who said anything about "secret" sleuthing methods. All of the information I can find on public resources.<<<<<< <<

>> Try Googling "Bill Carter" and "William Carter" and see how many hits you get. <<

Using a name lookup? ROFLMAO! No one with a brain tries to do a name lookup except as a last resort. I swear, Larry, what with this and your faux expertise on computers, I can only say that you have to be the number one STUPIDEST person I have ever communicated with. Seriously, though, a name search, and on a common name. God the stupidity. Do you ever look in the mirror, Larry, and, just for a brief moment in time, regret making yourself look like an idiot by doing things like this?

Now, doing a Google search on "Larry Fafarman" (which is not a common name) yields a 272 results, many of which actually do lead to you and none of which seem to show you in a flattering light.

Doing a search on me yields, depending on what is being looked for, 36, 322, or 22400 pages (depending on whether I was looking for "Rob Serrano", "Robert Serrano", or "Roberto Serrano", respectively) the vast majority being other people with the same name.

The point is, name matches are useless. Next.

>> >>>>>You're e-mail address is well known,<<<<<< <<

>> Of course it is well known, moron, it is right in my Blogger profile. << <<

Hence, I wouldn't need any "secret sleuthing" stuff to find it. Nice of you to prove my point for me, though you apparently didn't see that that was what you were doing.

>> >>>>>which means that I know how to get in touch with the abuse desk of you ISP (AOL) if you decide to try playing any games. If I were the type to take offense at stupid crap like the childish non-sense you pull here, I could very easily complain to AOL's complaints people.<<<<< <<

>> LMAO. <<

You don't think that AOL would take a harassment or other abuse complaint seriously? The standard defines the addresses of the mailboxes that will be setup to receive such complaint e-mails, so its an address that EVERY ISP responds to. If I had been the folks at Panda's Thumb, that would have been one of my first steps after I saw you trying to get around your banishment. But then I forget, you are Larry and think that you are impervious to the consequences of your own inanity.

>> >>>>>A lawyer who starts asking cold questions at trial is likely to LOSE. PERIOD. END OF STORY.<<<<< <<

>> "END OF STORY"! LOL The purpose of a trial is to determine the truth. In fact, I heard that at one point in the Dover trial, Judge Jones himself asked questions of one of the defendants. Attorneys often have little control over the outcomes of trials. If attorneys could control the outcome, then both sides would win. <<

Uh no. The purpose of a trial is to convince either a jury or a judge that your side is right. Truth is really a side effect. If a defense attorney learns that their client is guilty, they don't (in fact can't) run to the judge and just declare their client's guilt. If "truth" was the primary purpose of a trial, this would be the case and it simply is not.

Judges have the discretion, at least in civil trials of asking questions of the witnesses.

No one said that lawyer control the "outcome" of the case, that's your new strawman. Lawyers are putting on a show for the jury (in jury trials), the side that proves able to put on the best show, wins.

>> >>>>>Did you think that they just picked a random sampling who might know what happened and introduced them as witnesses without so much as having talked to them? <<<<<< <<

>> Attorneys have little or no control over witnesses that are picked by the opposing side. In the Dover case, the selection of Barbara Forrest as an expert witness was challenged. Also, it was agreed that Jeffrey Shallit would be permitted to testify only if Dembski's ideas were introduced into the case. <<

But they do know what the opposing side's witnesses have said in the past. An attorney will know what responses to expect and will already know how to respond to them. Is this concept really THAT difficult for you to get?

Yes, the defense tried to prevent Barbara Forrest's testimony and that request was denied. No, Shallit was only on the witness list because he was to provide rebuttal testimony to Dembski. Dembski was removed from the Defense list so Shallit would have reason to testify.

>> >>>>>You can't cross-examine a piece of paper. That's the reason that Dembski was taken off the defense witness list (that, and apparently the rebuttal witness was too competent for Dembski's tastes), and why they then attempted to replace his testimony with a written statement, so that plaintiff attorneys couldn't cross examine him. This is also why Judge Jones squashed that attempted end-run around the rules.<<<<<< <<

>> Judge Jones rejection of a Discovery Institute's amicus brief on the grounds that it was a "back door" method of inserting Dembski's "unrebutted" ideas into the case record was really stupid. For one thing, an amicus brief carries much less weight than trial testimony. Also, Judge Jones accepted a reply brief answering the DI amicus brief. So there was no advantage to using this "back door" approach. <<

Dembski was being presented as an expert witness. To then withdraw him and introduce an amicus brief, with no possible rebuttal, would have been unfair to the prosecution. Dembski didn't leave because of some grave illness of family emergency, he simply didn't want to testify and have his testimony subject to both cross-examination and rebuttal. It was an attempt to garner special treatment for the defense and Judge Jones rightly saw through it. You simply choose not to see the events that were unfolding because reality interferes with your preconceptions.

>> One more thing -- sensible readers here would not be interested in the history of my smog impact fee cases. Your ad hominem attacks against me in regard to those cases only make you look foolish. <<

Sensible readers here would also have realized that you made your legal history a fair topic. Sensible readers also realize that you wouldn't know an ad hominem if it swam up and bit you in the butt, since you have consistently misapplied it here and elsewhere. Must be your big word for the day, eh, Larry. Speaking of looking foolish, though, Larry, tell me again how you tried to find information on Bill Carter by doing a Google Search on "Bill Carter"

Or, is that an ad hominem?

Sometimes its hard to tell, what with the rate at which the sands of your ignorance shift.

Thursday, June 15, 2006 5:41:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Rob Serrano said ( 6/15/2006 05:41:43 AM ) --

>>>>>>Using a name lookup? ROFLMAO! No one with a brain tries to do a name lookup except as a last resort.<<<<<<

I just wanted to show how many Bill Carters there are on the Internet.

>>>>>You don't think that AOL would take a harassment or other abuse complaint seriously? The standard defines the addresses of the mailboxes that will be setup to receive such complaint e-mails, so its an address that EVERY ISP responds to. If I had been the folks at Panda's Thumb, that would have been one of my first steps after I saw you trying to get around your banishment.<<<<<<

Do you think that AOL would even care what I did to Panda's Thumb? It's no fuzz off AOL's peach.

>>>>>>But they do know what the opposing side's witnesses have said in the past. An attorney will know what responses to expect and will already know how to respond to them. Is this concept really THAT difficult for you to get?<<<<<<

There is no way an attorney can predict what questions opposing attorneys are going to ask. That's ridiculous.

>>>>>Shallit was only on the witness list because he was to provide rebuttal testimony to Dembski. Dembski was removed from the Defense list so Shallit would have reason to testify.<<<<<<

I don't know why Dembski withdrew, but the reason you give is absurd.

>>>>>>Dembski was being presented as an expert witness. To then withdraw him and introduce an amicus brief, with no possible rebuttal, would have been unfair to the prosecution.<<<<<<

What do you mean, "no possible rebuttal"? A reply brief answering DI's amicus brief was allowed. Also, what if Dembski had never signed up to testify in the first place -- then how could the plaintiffs have tried to block his ideas from being presented in an amicus brief?

>>>>>Sensible readers here would also have realized that you made your legal history a fair topic.<<<<<<

I don't remember exactly how my smog impact fee cases came up, but that is irrelevant. They are not a fair topic so far as the following are concerned: (1) evading the issues here, and (2) claiming that my arguments here are automatically invalid.

Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:53:00 AM  
Anonymous proofreader said...

>>>>>Shallit was only on the witness list because he was to provide rebuttal testimony to Dembski. Dembski was removed from the Defense list so Shallit would have reason to testify.<<<<<<

< I don't know why Dembski withdrew, but the reason you give is absurd. >

Yes, it is absurd, which is why it should have been apparent to you (were you actually following Rob's argument) that Rob accidentally omitted "no" from the sentence, which was intended to read:

>>>>>Shallit was only on the witness list because he was to provide rebuttal testimony to Dembski. Dembski was removed from the Defense list, so Shallit would have no reason to testify.<<<<<<

Perhaps it is an imposition to suggest paying close enough attention to be able to read past blunders like this. The meaning of the sentence does indeed thereby change drastically, but in context your (or should I say "you're"? not!) interpretation is not possible.

Thursday, June 15, 2006 9:47:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

Larry said...

> When have you heard of a judge leaving out of a published opinion something that he thought would greatly improve it? <

By saying "greatly" you are going off on a tangent again. As to a judge leaving something out, they are often under severe time constraints and written opinions can be very short.

Rob Serrano said ...

> Attorneys at trial are not trying to determine the facts of the case. They are trying to convince the judge (or jury, depending on the type of trial) that their version of the facts is the correct one. <

You are talking about reality here, Rob. Larry is talking about Perry Mason. His posts on this subject illustrate why he was consistently laughed out of court.

Larry said...

> Blogger.com does not reveal or even know the email addresses of commenters who post here, moron, <

To which I said...

> Nor did I say that they did, idiot. I said three sites, I did not say Blogger.com. <

To which Larry came up with the incredibly stupid statement...

> So -- those three sites would do me no more good than Blogger.com. <

They would if they had email addresses. Do you believe that the online telephone directories (No. That isn't what I used.) leave out the phone numbers to insure anonymity?

> You and that jerk Rob Serrano say that you have all these secret Internet sleuthing methods <

They are not secret methods. They are well known to those even barely knowledgeable about the Internet. I am sure that Rob Serrano could have come up with the same information that I did if he wanted to. You, of course, don't have to. As an old ex-friend, you would know Bill Carter's email address unless it has changed recently.

> If they don't get the answers, then they are certain to lose <

Why?

> Attorneys do what they have to do -- whether it is debating or detective work. <

Those who do detective work in court appear only on TV.

> I don't even understand what you are saying here -- which is not surprising. <

You rarely understand what anyone is saying here -- which is not surprising.

> What kind of credibility are they going to have if their courtroom testimony is not consistent with their writings? <

Not all witnesses are credible. Some because they are not consistent with past statements, some because they have no basis for their statements. I have appeared as an expert witness numerous times and even though my background was known to both sides, there were the usual questions to confirm or establish my degree of expertise. Since you are not an expert in any subject, you would not have run into this.

Rob Serrano said...

> You're just a cranky unemployed old man who so lonely you have to incite arguments just to get other people to talk to you. And even at that, you still find the need to pretend to be a chorus for your side. <

That really presents the situation in a nutshell!

As for the chorus, it reminds me of the British comedy "Are You Being Served" where Mrs. Slocumb, after giving an opinion that is hers alone, always adds "and I am unanimous in this".

> Again, Rob Serrano tries to show what a big crackpot I am <

Actually Larry, you are the one who shows what a big crackpot you are.

> I am going to limit my replies to him because I have better things to do with my time. <

As an unemployed old man still depending on the charity of his aging parents, you have nothing else to do with your time. You are limiting your replies due to a lack of answers on your part.

> I showed how ridiculous Jones' statement was by substituting "ayatollah" and "Koran" for "church" and "Bible." <

No. You just showed your lack of understanding of the meaning of the statement.

> Litigants who have to pay their own way (unlike the Dover plaintiffs) often cannot afford luxuries like pretrial discovery. <

Then they must get free counsel somewhere. If they do no pretrial discovery, formal or otherwise, they are doomed to lose, as you always have.

> after a while the attorneys forget what they were trying to prove <

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! That is the best one yet! Do you go around with a sign on your back that says "Kick me"?

> Attorneys often have no idea what answers they are going to get. They just ask the questions and let the chips fall where they may. <

Again you are repeating nonsense in the hopes that it will become true.

> After the discovery period is over, there is no opportunity to get previews of the witnesses' answers. <

Which is why attorneys often will ignore new material even if it seems to have some support for their case. They perhaps would like to blind side a witness with newly developed information but if they also blind side the witnesses attorney, the question will most certainly be disallowed.

> Try Googling "Bill Carter" and "William Carter" and see how many hits you get. <

The name is not the only information that we have on this "Bill Carter". I will not elaborate on this in order to take you by the hand through the process. You will have to do your own research. Ask some of the neighborhood kids how this may be done. Of course you have no need to do research since you have known this particular Bill Carter for at least 49 years.

> Attorneys have little or no control over witnesses that are picked by the opposing side. -- it was agreed that Jeffrey Shallit would be permitted to testify only if Dembski's ideas were introduced into the case. <

So you are saying that attorneys have some control over who appears?

> The purpose of a trial is to determine the truth. <

Ha, ha, ha, ha! Larry, you are priceless!

> Judge Jones rejection of a Discovery Institute's amicus brief on the grounds that it was a "back door" method of inserting Dembski's "unrebutted" ideas into the case record was really stupid. <

Then you must believe that all court proceedings are stupid because Judge Jones' rejection falls under the rule of "Best Evidence". Any competent judge would do the same.

> sensible readers here would not be interested in the history of my smog impact fee cases. <

They would because they clearly demonstrate your lack of competence when it comes to legal issues.

> Your ad hominem attacks against me in regard to those cases only make you look foolish. <

You don't even seem to know what ad hominem means. Pointing out that everything you filed was laughed out of court is only stating a historical fact. Would you say that stating that Wellington won the Battle of Waterloo is an ad hominem attack on Napoleon? I realize that as the true Emperor of France you may take this personally.

> I just wanted to show how many Bill Carters there are on the Internet. <

But you presented it as if it were an answer to finding information on this Bill Carter, your old friend who has been posting here. Now you are just saying that you did a name search to fill your otherwise idle time. You need to get a real hobby, or a job.

> There is no way an attorney can predict what questions opposing attorneys are going to ask. That's ridiculous. <

An attorney certainly would have a good idea what questions the opposing attorneys are going to ask. To think otherwise would be ridiculous.

> I don't know why Dembski withdrew, but the reason you give is absurd. <

The reason that Rob gives is reasonable but the logic obviously went over your head. Most things do.

> I don't remember exactly how my smog impact fee cases came up, but that is irrelevant. They are not a fair topic so far as the following are concerned: <

They are a fair topic when it comes to showing your lack of legal expertise. Of course you are demonstrating your lack of legal expertise without needing to refer to those cases.

At end, let me tell you a little more about ad hominem attacks. Saying that everything you filed was laughed out of court is not an ad hominem attack. It is a statement of historical fact. Saying that you show no ability to understand what you read is not an ad hominem attack, it is a valid observation, as would a statement be that you present the qualities of a person who is delusional and severely mentally disturbed.

Saying that you are a ridiculous pathetic asshole might be considered an ad hominem attack even though it is true.

Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:14:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Rob Serrano said ( 6/15/2006 04:33:46 AM ) --

<<<<<<>> Of course they never "want" to ask a question that they don't know the answer to -- but they often have to. <<

Define "often." You've already said they do it all the time, so give us an estimate of exactly how often they ask questions cold at trial.<<<<<<<

I would have to take a poll of attorneys to find out how often they have to do it. But it should be fairly obvious that attorneys often have to ask questions that they don't know the answers to.

<<<<<<>>Litigants who have to pay their own way (unlike the Dover plaintiffs) often cannot afford luxuries like pretrial discovery. <<

And therefore, what? Discovery is not the only preparation possibly.<<<<<<

It is the only possibility if you want to find out what answers to expect in trial testimony.

>>>>>Trial is not a time to just "ask the questions and let the chips fall where they may."<<<<<<

OK, I exaggerated -- good attorneys are not going to ask questions that would obviously harm their clients. But they are often forced to ask questions that they do not know the answers to, particularly during cross-examination.

<<<<<<>> After the discovery period is over, there is no opportunity to get previews of the witnesses' answers. <<

By that point there is already a glut of written statements<<<<<<

What "glut of written statements"? You don't know what you are talking about.

<<<<<>> In the Dover trial, cross-examination immediately followed direct examination. There was no time to prepare questions raised by the direct examinations. <<

They already had prepared. The defendants knew what the expert witnesses were going to talk about and what they were going to say. There were no huge revelations, so no delays were needed.<<<<<<

Even if there had been a huge revelation, a delay probably would not have been granted. Delays are normally granted just to give new or replacement attorneys time to become familiar with a case.

<<<<<>> There you go, jumping to conclusions again. How do you know what I thought or said before about the expert testimony? <<

Because your behavior since then has been quite telling.<<<<<<

That's nice.

<<<<<>> At the time of the trial, I was not aware of the Edwards v. Aguillard precedent where the district court judge refused to hear a "Monday morning battle of the experts" that would not illuminate the purpose of the public officials. <<

Hate to tell you this, Larry, but decisions set at the district court level are not precedents, so Judge Jones was not bound by what the Judge in Edwards said.<<<<<<

If district court decisions are not precedents, then why the big hullaballoo over the Dover decision?

Anyway, the Supreme Court said that the district court had "properly concluded" that a 'Monday morning battle of the experts" should not be heard:

The District Court, in its discretion, properly concluded that a Monday morning "battle of the experts" over possible technical meanings of terms in the statute would not illuminate the contemporaneous purpose of the Louisiana Legislature when it made the law. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 596 (1987)

Now that's precedent.

Thursday, June 15, 2006 11:19:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

Rod Serrano said...

> Discovery is not the only preparation possibly.<

And then Larry further demonstrated his ignorance...

> It is the only possibility if you want to find out what answers to expect in trial testimony. <

Try to use a little more imagination, Larry.

> Delays are normally granted just to give new or replacement attorneys time to become familiar with a case. <

If I didn't know otherwise I would take this to be incontrovertible proof that Larry has never been in a courtroom. As it is, we can say that he has never been in a courtroom and conscious at the same time.

> If district court decisions are not precedents, then why the big hullabaloo over the Dover decision? <

And we see that Larry doesn't understand precedent. He also knows nothing about the relation of appellate courts to those where the litigation is originated.

Thursday, June 15, 2006 11:45:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

proofreader said ( June 15, 2006 9:47:17 AM ) --

>>>>>>< I don't know why Dembski withdrew, but the reason you give is absurd. >

Yes, it is absurd, which is why it should have been apparent to you (were you actually following Rob's argument) that Rob accidentally omitted "no" from the sentence, which was intended to read:

"Shallit was only on the witness list because he was to provide rebuttal testimony to Dembski. Dembski was removed from the Defense list, so Shallit would have no reason to testify."<<<<<<

It is still absurd. Dembski's withdrawal did not guarantee that Shallit would not testify. In fact, a special deal was later negotiated concerning conditions under which Shallit would be permitted to testify:

Shallit was originally to be a rebuttal witness for defense witness William Dembski. After Dembski withdrew from the trial, the defense had filed a motion to exclude Shallit on grounds that it was unfair to allow Shallit to testify since Dembski would not testify and they were not allowed to introduce a replacement witness. The opposing sides came to an agreement that the plaintiffs would not call Shallit but reserved the right to call him in rebuttal if Dembski's materials were used by the defense and the defense could make a challenge to any such use of Shallit. See the judge's September 22 order. William Dembski wrote in his blog that Shallit was withdrawn because "his obsessiveness against me and ID made him a liability to the ACLU." This brought angry responses from critics of intelligent design. -- from an article in Wikipedia (links in the original are not included here)

I feel that Shallit should have been allowed to testify anyway -- I don't feel that all expert witnesses need be rebuttal witnesses. So far as I know, there was no rebuttal witness for plaintiffs' expert witness Barbara Forrest. The defense opposed admission of Forrest as an expert witness because she is not a scientist -- see "Barbara Forrest and the Dover Decision"

Thursday, June 15, 2006 12:18:00 PM  
Blogger Rob Serrano said...

larry fafarman said...

>> Rob Serrano said ( 6/15/2006 04:33:46 AM ) --

<<<<<<>> Of course they never "want" to ask a question that they don't know the answer to -- but they often have to. <<

Define "often." You've already said they do it all the time, so give us an estimate of exactly how often they ask questions cold at trial.<<<<<<< <<

I would have to take a poll of attorneys to find out how often they have to do it. But it should be fairly obvious that attorneys often have to ask questions that they don't know the answers to.

In other words this is just another one of the many assertions that Larry has yet to figure out don't amount to anything resembling truth.

>> <<<<<<>>Litigants who have to pay their own way (unlike the Dover plaintiffs) often cannot afford luxuries like pretrial discovery. <<

And therefore, what? Discovery is not the only preparation possibly.<<<<<< <<

>> It is the only possibility if you want to find out what answers to expect in trial testimony. <<

Only if your firm does nothing but sit on its hands waiting for the other side to furnish you with everything. What? Are you saying that you didn't do any work at all on your case? And you wonder why you lost.

>> >>>>>Trial is not a time to just "ask the questions and let the chips fall where they may."<<<<<< <<

>> OK, I exaggerated -- good attorneys are not going to ask questions that would obviously harm their clients. But they are often forced to ask questions that they do not know the answers to, particularly during cross-examination. <<

Usually on cross-examination, an attorney already knows what place he wants the witness to go. He's not just reacting to what the witness said under direct, not just throwing out wild guesses.

>> <<<<<<>> After the discovery period is over, there is no opportunity to get previews of the witnesses' answers. <<

By that point there is already a glut of written statements<<<<<< <<

>> What "glut of written statements"? You don't know what you are talking about. <<

So, you're saying that NO witnesses are interviewed on the record, eh. There are no depositions, no nothing. Sounds a lot like little Larry didn't do any homework and expected to succeed anyway.

>> <<<<<>> In the Dover trial, cross-examination immediately followed direct examination. There was no time to prepare questions raised by the direct examinations. <<

They already had prepared. The defendants knew what the expert witnesses were going to talk about and what they were going to say. There were no huge revelations, so no delays were needed.<<<<<< <<

>> Even if there had been a huge revelation, a delay probably would not have been granted. Delays are normally granted just to give new or replacement attorneys time to become familiar with a case. <<

Among other reasons. Notice, though, Larry, how you're relying on a statement that centers on the word "probably" to make your case. You've presented no evidence to back up your claim.

>> <<<<<>> There you go, jumping to conclusions again. How do you know what I thought or said before about the expert testimony? <<

Because your behavior since then has been quite telling.<<<<<< <<

>> That's nice. <<

And true, too, which makes it all the better.

>> <<<<<>> At the time of the trial, I was not aware of the Edwards v. Aguillard precedent where the district court judge refused to hear a "Monday morning battle of the experts" that would not illuminate the purpose of the public officials. <<

Hate to tell you this, Larry, but decisions set at the district court level are not precedents, so Judge Jones was not bound by what the Judge in Edwards said.<<<<<< <<

>> If district court decisions are not precedents, then why the big hullaballoo over the Dover decision? <<

Because while not precedents, these decisions are likely to be the standard for other similar court cases. By the way, Larry, only the Supreme Court sets precedent.

>> Anyway, the Supreme Court said that the district court had "properly concluded" that a 'Monday morning battle of the experts" should not be heard:

The District Court, in its discretion, properly concluded that a Monday morning "battle of the experts" over possible technical meanings of terms in the statute would not illuminate the contemporaneous purpose of the Louisiana Legislature when it made the law. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 596 (1987)

Now that's precedent. <<

The only precedent here is your continuing your precedent of consistently demonstrating your inability to read or comprehend. First off, different case and different circumstances. Notice how the word "discretion" fits into the SC decision. Judges have the discretion to allow or disallow certain types of testimony. The judge in Edwards v Aguillar decided that the experts would be arguing over little more than "possible technical meanings of terms," and would, therefore, not be useful in ruling. In Kitmiller v Dover, the expert witnesses were testifying about the history of ID and the ID movement, the supposed "scientific" basis of ID, and a wide variety of things that go way beyond definitions of terms.

I know, I know, Larry, it is so mean of me to point out that you don't have the foggiest clue about what precedent actually is. Well, tough.

Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:18:00 PM  
Blogger Rob Serrano said...

larry fafarman said...

>> proofreader said ( June 15, 2006 9:47:17 AM ) --

>>>>>>< I don't know why Dembski withdrew, but the reason you give is absurd. >

Yes, it is absurd, which is why it should have been apparent to you (were you actually following Rob's argument) that Rob accidentally omitted "no" from the sentence, which was intended to read:

"Shallit was only on the witness list because he was to provide rebuttal testimony to Dembski. Dembski was removed from the Defense list, so Shallit would have no reason to testify."<<<<<< <<

>> It is still absurd. Dembski's withdrawal did not guarantee that Shallit would not testify. In fact, a special deal was later negotiated concerning conditions under which Shallit would be permitted to testify:

Shallit was originally to be a rebuttal witness for defense witness William Dembski. After Dembski withdrew from the trial, the defense had filed a motion to exclude Shallit on grounds that it was unfair to allow Shallit to testify since Dembski would not testify and they were not allowed to introduce a replacement witness. The opposing sides came to an agreement that the plaintiffs would not call Shallit but reserved the right to call him in rebuttal if Dembski's materials were used by the defense and the defense could make a challenge to any such use of Shallit. See the judge's September 22 order. William Dembski wrote in his blog that Shallit was withdrawn because "his obsessiveness against me and ID made him a liability to the ACLU." This brought angry responses from critics of intelligent design. -- from an article in Wikipedia (links in the original are not included here) <<

Still exhibiting that strange difficulty in reading what you cite, eh, Larry, here's the part of the order relating to Dr. Shallit:

"Inasmuch as the parties agreed at oral argument on Defendants’ previously
filed Motion for Summary Judgment, conducted on September 9, 2005, that
Plaintiffs will not present Dr. Shallit during Plaintiffs case-in-chief and will instead
reserve him as a rebuttal witness, if necessary, we will defer any further resolution
of the issues presented in this Motion, until and if they are reasserted by defense
counsel at the time of trial. We specifically note that Defendants reserve all
arguments with respect to the suitability of Dr. Shallit’s testimony as a rebuttal
witness, if so called by Plaintiffs, until the time of his trial testimony."

Contrary to your, rather bizarre interpretation of events, this statement plainly says that Shallit was being reserved as a rebuttal witness (to Dembski). This is simply a motion detailing who the defense wanted to exclude from testifying. Dr. Shallit's presence in the motion is perfunctory since attorneys are going to want even these bits of information in writing in case it comes into question later. Again, as a rebuttal witness, with nothing to rebut, since Dembski chickened out, Shallit would really have nothing to testify to. This is pretty much standard maneuvering, and nothing more.

>> I feel that Shallit should have been allowed to testify anyway -- I don't feel that all expert witnesses need be rebuttal witnesses. <<

Who said anything about "all expert witnesses need be rebuttal witnesses?" Or do you mean "need rebuttal witnesses?" There's a great difference between the two, but neither is actually a claim anyone has made. Shallit was called as a rebuttal witness only. With nothing to rebut, since Dembski ran home to his mommy, there was no reason for him to testify.

>> So far as I know, there was no rebuttal witness for plaintiffs' expert witness Barbara Forrest. The defense opposed admission of Forrest as an expert witness because she is not a scientist -- see "Barbara Forrest and the Dover Decision" <<

As I recall, Dr. Forrest was testifying about the history of ID/Creationism, including the changes made to the Creationist screed "Of Pandas and People" in the immediate wake of Edwards v Aguillar to replace Creationism with Intelligent Design, and the Wedge Document, the dirty little secret that pronounces that actual goals of the ID/Creationist movement. Maybe the defense didn't produce a rebuttal witness because they couldn't.

Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Bill Carter said...

Larry(?),

Why did you bother to run a name search on me? If you have any questions you could just call. My phone number has not changed. If you have lost the number, you could ask your real brother, Dave (not the fake one whom you have created).

Of course there are a great number of Bill Carters but with information already on this blog it would be very easy to find which one I am and a great deal about me. There would not likely be anything that you don't already know.

I have to confess. I made a gross exaggeration. I met Larry in 1957 at Wright Jr. High School. I met his brother Dave and their father later the same day. That is not quite 50 years ago.

Larry(?), You need to get your head out of your ass. There are many better ways of getting attention and proving your own existence than bleating on this blog and denying the obvious. Don't you realize that if you have to lie to support your case, you don't have much of a case?

Thursday, June 15, 2006 2:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

Bill Carter,

What is the deal? The idiot seems to dislike you even more than his brother. What happened to cause this?

Larry,

I am trying to determine which lie it is that you are trying to get across. That there is no Bill Carter who was your long time friend, or that this is not the real Bill Carter. Which is it?

Dave,

If the asshole doesn't answer this, perhaps the real Dave can clarify the situation.

Thursday, June 15, 2006 4:35:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Reply to Rob Serrano's posts of:
6/15/2006 01:45:37 PM
6/15/2006 01:18:32 PM
6/14/2006 9:03:23 PM

>>>>>>> If Jones thinks that his ideas about the establishment clause are so great, then why didn't he put those ideas into his Dover opinion in an effort to help support his rulings? <<

Perhaps ecause his ruling was about the facts presented at the trial.<<<<<<

Judicial opinions do not always just concern facts, but may also concern the judge's philosophy, and judges often put their philosophies in their opinions. Judge Jones' philosophy as expressed in his Dickinson College commencement speech is basically "orirginalism," which is discussed in an article in Wikipedia. For example, this article says, "original intent was seen as lacking good answers to three important questions: whether a diverse group such as the framers even had a single intent; if they did, whether it could be determined from two centuries distance; and whether the framers themselves would have supported original intent."

<<<<<>> I usually leave my computer running too, but I often have to disconnect from the Internet because I share a line with a voice phone. Also, I often have to do hot restarts and even cold restarts because pdf files often cause my computer to freeze up. <<

Maybe if your computer wasn't a museum piece, you wouldn't have that problem.<<<<<

This computer is a fairly basic model, but it is only about 2 years old, so should be perfectly capable of running basic Internet software. I recently restored the computer to the factory setup condition, so all the Internet software has been restored or re-installed, and I am still having problems with the pdf files. I am not going on any more wild goose chases to try to fix computer problems -- on a previous computer, I installed extra memory to try to solve a freeze-up problem, and it solved nothing.

>>>>>Still exhibiting that strange difficulty in reading what you cite, eh, Larry, here's the part of the order relating to Dr. Shallit:<<<<<<

I neither cited nor read the order relating to Shallit. All I read was what was in Wikipedia.

>>>>>Shallit was called as a rebuttal witness only. With nothing to rebut, since Dembski ran home to his mommy, there was no reason for him to testify.<<<<<<

Shallit could have rebutted Dembski in absentia, since Dembski is a well-known author in the field of ID.

>>>>>As I recall, Dr. Forrest was testifying about the history of ID/Creationism, including the changes made to the Creationist screed "Of Pandas and People" in the immediate wake of Edwards v Aguillar to replace Creationism with Intelligent Design, and the Wedge Document, the dirty little secret that pronounces that actual goals of the ID/Creationist movement. Maybe the defense didn't produce a rebuttal witness because they couldn't. <<<<<<

The publisher of Of People and Pandas, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, would have provided a rebuttal witness against Forrest, but FTE's motion to be admitted to the case as an intervenor was wrongly denied by Judge Jones -- see Item #6 in my article, "Traipsing into breathtaking inanity -- absurd rulings in Dover Intelligent Design case". Also, the Discovery Institute might have been willing and able to provide a rebuttal witness against Forrest.

>>>>>I would have to take a poll of attorneys to find out how often they have to do it. But it should be fairly obvious that attorneys often have to ask questions that they don't know the answers to.
In other words this is just another one of the many assertions that Larry has yet to figure out don't amount to anything resembling truth.<<<<<<

You have not provided any data to support your position either, so it is just your opinion against mine. My opinion makes more sense.

<<<<<<>> If district court decisions are not precedents, then why the big hullaballoo over the Dover decision? <<
Because while not precedents, these decisions are likely to be the standard for other similar court cases. By the way, Larry, only the Supreme Court sets precedent.<<<<<<

Wrong. about the SC.

There are two kinds of precedent -- binding precedent and non-binding precedent. Supreme Court opinions are nationally binding and published federal court of appeals opinions are binding within their circuits. District court opinions are generally non-binding, even if published (they are probably not binding even within their districts). A pending new national rule will allow unpublished opinions to be cited in all federal courts, but there will be no requirement that an unpublished opinion be treated as binding.

<<<<<>> Anyway, the Supreme Court said that the district court had "properly concluded" that a 'Monday morning battle of the experts" should not be heard:

"The District Court, in its discretion, properly concluded that a Monday morning 'battle of the experts' over possible technical meanings of terms in the statute would not illuminate the contemporaneous purpose of the Louisiana Legislature when it made the law." Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 596 (1987)

Now that's precedent.
<<

The only precedent here is your continuing your precedent of consistently demonstrating your inability to read or comprehend.<<<<<<<

Can't you ever discuss anything without putting someone down?

>>>>>> First off, different case and different circumstances. Notice how the word "discretion" fits into the SC decision.>>>>>>

The SC did not just say that the district court was exercising its "discretion," but also said that the district court had "properly concluded."

<<<<<>The judge in Edwards v Aguillar decided that the experts would be arguing over little more than "possible technical meanings of terms," and would, therefore, not be useful in ruling. In Kitmiller v Dover, the expert witnesses were testifying about the history of ID and the ID movement, the supposed "scientific" basis of ID, and a wide variety of things that go way beyond definitions of terms. <<<<<<<

The proposed expert testimony in Edwards went far beyond just "possible technical meaning of terms" -- the discussion of this proposed testimony covered over 30 pages of an appendix in the appellants' brief:

Appellants contend that affidavits made by two scientists, two theologians, and an education administrator raise a genuine issue of material fact, and that summary judgment was therefore barred. The affidavits define creation science as "origin through abrupt appearance in complex form," and allege that such a viewpoint constitutes a true scientific theory. See App. to Brief for Appellants A-7 to A-40. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 595 (1987)

Also, the important thing here was not the subject or the content of the proposed testimony, but was the fact that "none of the persons making the affidavits produced by the appellants participated in or contributed to the enactment of the law or its implementation" and that hence this testimony "would not illuminate the contemporaneous purpose of the Louisiana Legislature when it made the law." Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 595-596 (1987). The same kind of situation existed in Kitzmiller v. Dover -- none of the expert witnesses had participated in or contributed to the enactment of the ID policy or its implementation, and hence their testimony did not illuminate the Dover school board's purpose in enacting the ID policy.

Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:32:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> This computer is a fairly basic model, but it is only about 2 years old, so should be perfectly capable of running basic Internet software. <

And it is.

> on a previous computer, I installed extra memory to try to solve a freeze-up problem, and it solved nothing. <

You might have as well waved a dead chicken over it. Find someone who knows something about computers, even if they don't have a framed certificate from a junior college, and they will be able to solve this quickly.

> I neither cited nor read the order relating to Shallit. All I read was what was in Wikipedia. <

You are then citing second hand sources.

> Shallit could have rebutted Dembski in absentia, since Dembski is a well-known author in the field of ID. <

Not in most courts.

> You have not provided any data to support your position either, so it is just your opinion against mine. My opinion makes more sense. <

It is the opinion of nearly every practicing lawyer and everyone who knows something about law. Also your opinion makes no sense.

> Can't you ever discuss anything without putting someone down? <

From the one who insults people in every post! I almost forgot to remind you that you are a lunatic.

Thursday, June 15, 2006 7:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Bill Carter said...

ViW says...

> What is the deal? The idiot seems to dislike you even more than his brother. What happened to cause this? <

Larry, his brother Dave, and I were friends beginning in junior high school. Larry has always been a bit odd, but it is only in recent years that he has gotten this far out. He has not worked for over a decade, possibly two, I have lost track. He is virtually unemployable as his personal appearance is just as bizarre as his mental state as seen on this blog.

I used to go to a buffet with him every Saturday. His table manners would embarrass a drunken viking. By the time that he was half way through eating there may have been as much food on the floor around him and on the table, as was on his plate. If the amount in his hair were counted, there would be no question of it.

I think that a part of the problem has been that his elderly parents, while meaning well, have humored him and supported him to the point that he doesn't have to face reality. He now spends much of the time that he isn't on the computer, screaming at his mother and making her life as miserable as possible.

I have never been one to humor him. In the past we have had a great number of arguments but these seemed to blow over quickly. The problem in recent times has been his increasingly narrow tunnel vision and a need for meaning in his life leading him to charge a number of windmills. He seems to seek out those things that have the least significance, the maintenence of an almost unused bicycle track on an otherwise valuable piece of land on a college campus, the smog fee, and now this.

The first real trouble was when he got caught up on the smog fee suit. This had to do with an obscure and small fee for the registration of previously out of state vehicles. Larry turned all of his energy and every waking minute to the abolition of this tax. His legal work was not even up to the level of rationality seen on this board and as a result, every motion was thrown out of court.

His mother made things worse by claiming that he was the next Clarence Darrow and should have gone to law school because of his natural ability. As each case was thrown out, he blamed the judges. When the fee was finally overturned due to the work of others and the state's feeling that it wasn't worth the bother to persue, Larry claimed credit and became highly resentful that the general population was not beating a path to his door to congratulate him. He felt that he was an unappreciated hero. At one point I was at a restaurant with him and his mother, and was needling him a bit. He leaped up and started screaming at the other diners about how they had no appreciation for the great service that he had done for mankind.

A few years ago he seemed to have completely fallen off of the edge. He started having physical problems that seemed to have originated between his ears. At one time he was gasping for breath whenever anyone was willing to pay attention to him, and then going on screaming tirades that someone short of breath would be unable to sustain.

At one point, he got the idea that he was going to die within the next 48 hours. First he would become disabled. He pointed out which ligaments and tendons would be snapping within the next few minutes. So far none of them have snapped.

Next came the belief that the world was an illusion and that we were all in on the gag. He was furious that we would not admit it. One bit of evidence that he had was the belief that there were too few factories to produce all of the consumer goods that were on store shelves. They must be coming from some other source! Next was the World Almanac and the Los Angeles Times. He claimed that there was no possible way that they could obtain all of the information that they published without supernatural intervention. He was particularly skeptical about where they got the information for obituaries. He didn't think that it would be possible to obtain it in the limited time between the deaths and the appearance of the obituaries.

The final proof of the supernatural source of L.A. Times Info was an article they did on DuPar's Restaurant changing hands. How could the reporters have heard about it? Even more suspiciously, they claimed to have interviewed a bunch of regulars at the restaurant. Larry felt that the odds against actually finding regulars sitting around at a restaurant were astronomical.

His mother was no help. She would call me and ask what to do. When I would go over at her request to try to talk to him, if I said that anything he was doing was less than brilliant, she would leap to his defense and erupt almost as badly as he would. I finally had enough.

As for his problem with his brother, I am at a complete loss. Dave has always been supportive of Larry and is very upset about how things have gone. When Dave would call to talk to him he would either hand the phone immediately to his mother or if she were not there, he would cut any conversation short. His conversations with his father who also lives over 400 miles away are nearly as short despite the fact that Larry is dependant on him for support. The computer that Larry uses to post his rantings was a gift from his father. Without it he would have no contact with the outside world.

I really believe that Larry would benefit from some psychiatric help but there is little chance of him getting it. As a friend said, psychiatrists really love to see depressed people. They know they have a problem and they want to be cured. People like Larry don't see their own problems and believe that the real problem is that others are too stupid to recognize the true Emperor of France.

I used to be sympathetic towards him but that has worn out. Probably the best thing that could happen to him would be for him to be pushed over the edge to have a complete nervous breakdown. Then he would have to get help.

Thursday, June 15, 2006 9:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> Probably the best thing that could happen to him would be for him to be pushed over the edge to have a complete nervous breakdown. Then he would have to get help. <

Count on me, friend. I will do whatever I can to help expedite this. (I didn't realize that I was on a humanitarian mission.)

Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:18:00 PM  
Blogger Rob Serrano said...

larry fafarman said...

Reply to Rob Serrano's posts of:
6/15/2006 01:45:37 PM
6/15/2006 01:18:32 PM
6/14/2006 9:03:23 PM

>> >>>>>>> If Jones thinks that his ideas about the establishment clause are so great, then why didn't he put those ideas into his Dover opinion in an effort to help support his rulings? <<

Perhaps ecause his ruling was about the facts presented at the trial.<<<<<< <<

>> Judicial opinions do not always just concern facts, but may also concern the judge's philosophy, and judges often put their philosophies in their opinions. Judge Jones' philosophy as expressed in his Dickinson College commencement speech is basically "orirginalism," which is discussed in an article in Wikipedia. For example, this article says, "original intent was seen as lacking good answers to three important questions: whether a diverse group such as the framers even had a single intent; if they did, whether it could be determined from two centuries distance; and whether the framers themselves would have supported original intent." <<

Looking up in Wikipedia doesn't make your claims about what Judge Jones said true. Now, when you've actually supported your position a little better, you may be able to make a claim to validity. Till, then, though...

>> <<<<<>> I usually leave my computer running too, but I often have to disconnect from the Internet because I share a line with a voice phone. Also, I often have to do hot restarts and even cold restarts because pdf files often cause my computer to freeze up. <<

Maybe if your computer wasn't a museum piece, you wouldn't have that problem.<<<<< <<

>> This computer is a fairly basic model, but it is only about 2 years old, so should be perfectly capable of running basic Internet software. I recently restored the computer to the factory setup condition, so all the Internet software has been restored or re-installed, and I am still having problems with the pdf files. I am not going on any more wild goose chases to try to fix computer problems -- on a previous computer, I installed extra memory to try to solve a freeze-up problem, and it solved nothing. <<

Sounds like Acrobat didn't get installed properly. Of course, you don't actually describe the effects of your "freeze," since there are a wide range of things that are typically considered freezes. If the freezes are accompanied by an extreme amount of hard disk activity (thrashing) then your memory is overcommitted and the system is slowing to a crawl trying to find the right stuff to bring into memory at any time. This is especially likely if you are the bare minimum recommended amount of physical memory on the system. To run comfortably, Windows versions after 98 should really have at least 256Mb of RAM. If you are running one of the Win95 line (95, 98 or ME) you may simply be hitting the resource limitations of the system, in which case no amount of extra RAM will help you, since the Resource heaps on those systems are fixed and do not change (and are prone to fragmentation). Your hard disc could also be going bad, which can cause the computer to seemingly hang up while trying to read sectors that have gone bad. Or your hard disc could be badly fragmented, which causes the computer to churn while trying to seek around to all the parts of a file. All versions of Windows fragment file systems at the drop of a hat, and so they all need to be defragmented on a semi-regular basis (usually at least twice a year, more often if you install a lot of software). If your computer is locking up at random, it's very likely to be a heating issue or some other hardware failure. Tell me, have you tried blowing the dirt out of your computer?

>> >>>>>Still exhibiting that strange difficulty in reading what you cite, eh, Larry, here's the part of the order relating to Dr. Shallit:<<<<<< <<

>> I neither cited nor read the order relating to Shallit. All I read was what was in Wikipedia. <<

You linked to it, which implied that you knew something about what it said. I know, how SILLY of me to expect that you would actually read what you cite.

>> >>>>>Shallit was called as a rebuttal witness only. With nothing to rebut, since Dembski ran home to his mommy, there was no reason for him to testify.<<<<<< <<

>> Shallit could have rebutted Dembski in absentia, since Dembski is a well-known author in the field of ID. <<

You have yet to make the case that Shallit SHOULD have testified. Since the person whose testimony he was to have rebutted chickened out of testifying, why should Dr. Shallit then testify? You have given no resaon.

>> >>>>>As I recall, Dr. Forrest was testifying about the history of ID/Creationism, including the changes made to the Creationist screed "Of Pandas and People" in the immediate wake of Edwards v Aguillar to replace Creationism with Intelligent Design, and the Wedge Document, the dirty little secret that pronounces that actual goals of the ID/Creationist movement. Maybe the defense didn't produce a rebuttal witness because they couldn't. <<<<<< <<

>> The publisher of Of People and Pandas, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, would have provided a rebuttal witness against Forrest, but FTE's motion to be admitted to the case as an intervenor was wrongly denied by Judge Jones -- see Item #6 in my article, "Traipsing into breathtaking inanity -- absurd rulings in Dover Intelligent Design case". Also, the Discovery Institute might have been willing and able to provide a rebuttal witness against Forrest. <<

Since neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants in the case wanted to allow FTE to latch itself into the case as an intervenor, and the publisher was in no way a party to the trial, why should Judge Jones have allowed it. By the way, they did not offer to simpy provide a rebuttal witness, they wanted to become a third party in the case. And the Discovery Institute offer to provide rebuttal witnesses, so apparently they were not willling to provide such witnesses, contrary to your assertion.

>> >>>>>I would have to take a poll of attorneys to find out how often they have to do it. But it should be fairly obvious that attorneys often have to ask questions that they don't know the answers to.
In other words this is just another one of the many assertions that Larry has yet to figure out don't amount to anything resembling truth.<<<<<< <<

>> You have not provided any data to support your position either, so it is just your opinion against mine. My opinion makes more sense. <<

Uh, Larry. Once again just because you say your opinion makes more sense doesn't mean that it really does make more sense.

>> <<<<<<>> If district court decisions are not precedents, then why the big hullaballoo over the Dover decision? <<
Because while not precedents, these decisions are likely to be the standard for other similar court cases. By the way, Larry, only the Supreme Court sets precedent.<<<<<< <<

>> Wrong. about the SC.

There are two kinds of precedent -- binding precedent and non-binding precedent. Supreme Court opinions are nationally binding and published federal court of appeals opinions are binding within their circuits. District court opinions are generally non-binding, even if published (they are probably not binding even within their districts). A pending new national rule will allow unpublished opinions to be cited in all federal courts, but there will be no requirement that an unpublished opinion be treated as binding. <<

Wow, you are actually are correct about the SC and precedent. I guess that saying about stopped clocks really is true, and every once in a while obsessive Wikipedia referers will actually pick up the right reference. You still haven't shown any substantial similarity between the two cases on the point of expert witnesses. Nor was the Supreme Court statement on the "battle of the experts" general enough to be considered to be precedent. The SC was affirming that the Judge in Edwards had not improperly limited the witness list. Judge Jones, being on a different case was not obliged to blindly disallow expert testimony. He obviously felt that the expert testimony would shed light on things.

>> <<<<<>> Anyway, the Supreme Court said that the district court had "properly concluded" that a 'Monday morning battle of the experts" should not be heard:

"The District Court, in its discretion, properly concluded that a Monday morning 'battle of the experts' over possible technical meanings of terms in the statute would not illuminate the contemporaneous purpose of the Louisiana Legislature when it made the law." Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 596 (1987)

Now that's precedent. <<

The only precedent here is your continuing your precedent of consistently demonstrating your inability to read or comprehend.<<<<<<< <<

>> Can't you ever discuss anything without putting someone down? <<

You, he who is first with the insults, is complaining about me mocking you. Be happy that I have the vocabulary and the demeanor that I can mock you without having to resort to vulgarities all the time.

But to answer your question. I can and frequently to discuss things, even truly controversial things without having to put people down. Thus far, you are one of the few people I've communicated with who have proven, through your own lack of ability to debate without insults, to not be worthy of that consideration.

>> >>>>>> First off, different case and different circumstances. Notice how the word "discretion" fits into the SC decision.>>>>>> <<

>> The SC did not just say that the district court was exercising its "discretion," but also said that the district court had "properly concluded." <<

Even if they meant it in the way you think they meant it, it in no way means that Judge Jones had to disallow expert testimony. But they didn't mean it in the way you want them to have meant it. They meant that the Judge in Edwards was within his discretion in disallowing expert testimony because he did not find that that testimony would have provided nothing useful to the case.

>> <<<<<>The judge in Edwards v Aguillar decided that the experts would be arguing over little more than "possible technical meanings of terms," and would, therefore, not be useful in ruling. In Kitmiller v Dover, the expert witnesses were testifying about the history of ID and the ID movement, the supposed "scientific" basis of ID, and a wide variety of things that go way beyond definitions of terms. <<<<<<< <<

>> The proposed expert testimony in Edwards went far beyond just "possible technical meaning of terms" -- the discussion of this proposed testimony covered over 30 pages of an appendix in the appellants' brief:

Appellants contend that affidavits made by two scientists, two theologians, and an education administrator raise a genuine issue of material fact, and that summary judgment was therefore barred. The affidavits define creation science as "origin through abrupt appearance in complex form," and allege that such a viewpoint constitutes a true scientific theory. See App. to Brief for Appellants A-7 to A-40. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 595 (1987) <<

You mean the affidavits that were dismissed as such:

"We agree with the lower courts that these affidavits do not raise a genuine issue of material fact."

>> Also, the important thing here was not the subject or the content of the proposed testimony, but was the fact that "none of the persons making the affidavits produced by the appellants participated in or contributed to the enactment of the law or its implementation" and that hence this testimony "would not illuminate the contemporaneous purpose of the Louisiana Legislature when it made the law." Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 595-596 (1987). The same kind of situation existed in Kitzmiller v. Dover -- none of the expert witnesses had participated in or contributed to the enactment of the ID policy or its implementation, and hence their testimony did not illuminate the Dover school board's purpose in enacting the ID policy. <<

Apparently, Judge Jones, who was actually there, thought differently and believed that the expert witnesses did raise issues of material fact.

Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:47:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In The Wilderness said ( 6/15/2006 07:16:09 PM ) --

<<<<<> on a previous computer, I installed extra memory to try to solve a freeze-up problem, and it solved nothing. <

You might have as well waved a dead chicken over it. Find someone who knows something about computers, even if they don't have a framed certificate from a junior college, and they will be able to solve this quickly.<<<<<<<

Look, moron, a lot of fixing computers is just trial and error. Obviously you have not heard the joke about the way computer technicians replace flat tires: change one wheel at a time, test drive, and repeat until the problem goes away.

An article on PC problems said that insufficient memory could have been causing the problem, so that is why I added memory.

As for my current PC, I restored the computer to the factory setup, so all the Internet software has either been restored or re-installed, and that is all I can do, unless a know-it-all like you has some other suggestions. The pdf files are running a little better but still hang up frequently. Also, restoring the factory setup fixed my audio system, which was not working.

There is another joke about computers --
Bill Gates said that if the car industry were like the computer industry, cars would cost $100 apiece and get 1000 miles per gallon. But he forgot to add that the brakes would be very reliable, too -- they would work 99 percent of the time.

<<<<<> I neither cited nor read the order relating to Shallit. All I read was what was in Wikipedia. <

You are then citing second hand sources.<<<<<<<

Wikipedia is usually pretty reliable. On scientific subjects, Wikipedia was found to be about as accurate as the online version of the vaunted Encyclopedia Britannica. In this particular case, Wikipedia was accurate enough for my purposes. Also, many of the first-hand sources are pdf files and I have a lot of trouble with pdf files.

<<<<<> Shallit could have rebutted Dembski in absentia, since Dembski is a well-known author in the field of ID. <

Not in most courts.<<<<<<

What started this argument was the claim that Dembski withdrew to prevent Shallit from testifying, and I said that is ridiculous. If the plaintiffs had wanted Shallit to testify badly enough, they could have offered to accept a replacement for Dembski. According to Wikipedia, the defense wanted to appoint a replacement for Dembski but was not allowed to. If the plaintiffs had agreed to accept a replacement for Dembski, then I think that it would have been unreasonable to exclude Shallit just because Dembski bugged out. I could not imagine a court not allowing a witness to criticize the works of a particular author just because that author could not or would not be an expert witness in the trial.

Anyway, Judge Jones had no problem with trying and convicting FTE, the publisher of the Of People and Pandas book, in absentia. Jones denied FTE's motion to intervene -- see Item #6 of "Traipsing into breathtaking inanity -- absurd rulings in the Dover Intelligent Design case". Some people just insist on arguing that Judge Jones can do no wrong.

<<<<<<> You have not provided any data to support your position either, so it is just your opinion against mine. My opinion makes more sense. <

It is the opinion of nearly every practicing lawyer and everyone who knows something about law. Also your opinion makes no sense.<<<<<<<

The statement that attorneys never ask questions that they don't know the answer to is absurd on its face.

<<<<<> Can't you ever discuss anything without putting someone down?<

From the one who insults people in every post!<<<<<<<

I very rarely initiate the insults. Someone has to do something really stupid -- usually deliberately -- for me to do that.

Thursday, June 15, 2006 11:30:00 PM  
Blogger Rob Serrano said...

larry fafarman said...

>> Voice In The Wilderness said ( 6/15/2006 07:16:09 PM ) --

<<<<<> on a previous computer, I installed extra memory to try to solve a freeze-up problem, and it solved nothing. <

You might have as well waved a dead chicken over it. Find someone who knows something about computers, even if they don't have a framed certificate from a junior college, and they will be able to solve this quickly.<<<<<<< <<

>> Look, moron, a lot of fixing computers is just trial and error. Obviously you have not heard the joke about the way computer technicians replace flat tires: change one wheel at a time, test drive, and repeat until the problem goes away. <<

And you wonder why PC techs don't like you, Larry. You see, Larry, and again this is something that you wouldn't know, being that your computer knowledge is somewhat limited, but I am looking at a computer that is having some problem, I normally have a decent idea of what the problem is. Like, if the computer won't power on, the Power Supply is probably failing. Memory-related errors usually indicate a problem with the the memory sticks themselves. Random lockups are often caused by a failing fan somewhere in the system. It's not like we just go "I'll just explore everything until something works." Well that's what poseurs might do to pretend they are knowledgeable, but that's a different issue now, isn't it, Larry?

>> An article on PC problems said that insufficient memory could have been causing the problem, so that is why I added memory. <<

Insufficient memory can cause system instability only if it is extreme, as in exhausting the limits set on the swapfile or if the swapfile needs to expand but can't because there is no free room on the drive it is on. If you think you may be experiencing problems such as this, the easiest and cheapest way to test it is to make the swapfile larger, or move it to another drive that has more free space. If your computer no longer freezes, you've found your problem and you can go and buy extra memory. The thing is that Windows will start producing warnings if you start running out of VM space, so unless you have some bizarre program that just sits there allocating memory for itself so quickly that the messages don't get a chance to popup until after the sytem has entered the unstable state, you would know if you were experiencing VM exhaustion. If you're running one of the NT-based systems, the system will simply prevent you from allocating more memory after you've hit your limits, but the 95 series have much more limited memory management abilities.

Adding memory in and of itself will only improve performance, except in the extreme cases mentioned, allowing the system to run without swapping data to disk as much. If you are on a 95-series version of Windows and you are hitting the resource heap limits (2Mb in 95, I believe expanded slightly in 98 and ME), there is nothing you can do about the problem, unless you buy one of the heap managers that were popular around the time of 95's rollout. No amount of extra memory will help you get away from the resource limits. And no memory beyond 512Mb is usable by any of the Windows 95 line (and maybe not XP Home either, though I can't be sure about that one), XP Pro and 2000 and NT don't have limitations placed on the amount of physical memory they recognize.

>> As for my current PC, I restored the computer to the factory setup, so all the Internet software has either been restored or re-installed, and that is all I can do, unless a know-it-all like you has some other suggestions. The pdf files are running a little better but still hang up frequently. Also, restoring the factory setup fixed my audio system, which was not working. <<

So you used the system restore disk and you're sound card works. Wow, I'm SO impressed. Looking in the Hardware Manager would probably have told you why your sound card wasn't working, as would reinstalling the drivers for the sound card. Sound cards, historically have been fairly sensitive to hardware conflicts. And you still haven't actually solved you problem, so you've gained nothing from your escapade that you couldn't have accomplished without running your system restore disk. Personally, when I'm fixing up a machine, time being money, I try to avoid having to do things to the machine that I don't need to.

>> There is another joke about computers --
Bill Gates said that if the car industry were like the computer industry, cars would cost $100 apiece and get 1000 miles per gallon. But he forgot to add that the brakes would be very reliable, too -- they would work 99 percent of the time. <<

Don't quit your day job. By the way, Larry, Bill Gates has yet to produce anything that has close to 99 percent reliability.

>> <<<<<> I neither cited nor read the order relating to Shallit. All I read was what was in Wikipedia. <

You are then citing second hand sources.<<<<<<< <<

>> Wikipedia is usually pretty reliable. On scientific subjects, Wikipedia was found to be about as accurate as the online version of the vaunted Encyclopedia Britannica. In this particular case, Wikipedia was accurate enough for my purposes. Also, many of the first-hand sources are pdf files and I have a lot of trouble with pdf files. <<

The problem was, Larry, that, once again, you, by your own admission, didn't even read what you cited. So the accuracy of the Wikipedia entry is not at question here, since you didn't even read it.

>> <<<<<> Shallit could have rebutted Dembski in absentia, since Dembski is a well-known author in the field of ID. <

Not in most courts.<<<<<< <<

>> What started this argument was the claim that Dembski withdrew to prevent Shallit from testifying, and I said that is ridiculous. If the plaintiffs had wanted Shallit to testify badly enough, they could have offered to accept a replacement for Dembski. According to Wikipedia, the defense wanted to appoint a replacement for Dembski but was not allowed to. If the plaintiffs had agreed to accept a replacement for Dembski, then I think that it would have been unreasonable to exclude Shallit just because Dembski bugged out. I could not imagine a court not allowing a witness to criticize the works of a particular author just because that author could not or would not be an expert witness in the trial. <<

Once again, since you have such difficulty with this: Shallit was there to rebut Dembski's testimony. Without Dembski, there was NO reason for Shallit to testify. The defendants didn't offer a replacement for Dembski and, even if they had, WHY should the plaintiffs have accepted one?

>> Anyway, Judge Jones had no problem with trying and convicting FTE, the publisher of the Of People and Pandas book, in absentia. Jones denied FTE's motion to intervene -- see Item #6 of "Traipsing into breathtaking inanity -- absurd rulings in the Dover Intelligent Design case". Some people just insist on arguing that Judge Jones can do no wrong. <<

So, FTE was "convicted?" Which prison is it going to? Or, being a civil trial, how much are they being forced to pay out? Sorry, Larry, doesn't wash. They (FTE) were not a party to this suit, though they tried to make a show of making themselves one. They were rightly denied their request.

Seriously, Larry, do try to learn that just because you claim something is so, does NOT mean that it necessarily is so. All you've produced is your assertion that Judge Jones erred on excluding FTE from making themselves a party to the trial. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that Judge Jones is wrong.

>> <<<<<<> You have not provided any data to support your position either, so it is just your opinion against mine. My opinion makes more sense. <

It is the opinion of nearly every practicing lawyer and everyone who knows something about law. Also your opinion makes no sense.<<<<<<< <<

>> The statement that attorneys never ask questions that they don't know the answer to is absurd on its face. <<

Just because you fail to understand something does NOT mean that it is not true.

>> <<<<<> Can't you ever discuss anything without putting someone down?<

From the one who insults people in every post!<<<<<<< <<

>> I very rarely initiate the insults. Someone has to do something really stupid -- usually deliberately -- for me to do that. <<

Actually, Larry, you pretty much universally initiate the vulgarity on any given thread. It usually follows you realizing that you have no real answer to something (this usually occurs within the first 10 or so posts in a thread).

Friday, June 16, 2006 1:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> Look, moron, a lot of fixing computers is just trial and error. <

Particularly if you don't know what you are doing.

> An article on PC problems said that insufficient memory could have been causing the problem <

You are the type that would find a solution to another problem and think that it applies to your case. You probably think that Pepto Bismol can cure your dandruff. Then again you probably don't have dandruff seeing that you don't have much hair.

> As for my current PC, I restored the computer to the factory setup <

You probably think you did. I would bet that many changed dlls are still on it.

> Wikipedia is usually pretty reliable. <

For legal issues it is always best to go to the source.

> Wikipedia was found to be about as accurate as the online version of the vaunted Encyclopedia Britannica. <

On many issues it is more reliable. The Encyclopedia Britannica often repeats urban legend as fact. Wikipedia is less likely to do this.

> Also, many of the first-hand sources are pdf files and I have a lot of trouble with pdf files. <

As I said, get someone who knows something about computers to help you. This is a very solvable problem.

> If the plaintiffs had wanted Shallit to testify badly enough, they could have offered to accept a replacement for Dembski. <

The plaintiffs don't accept witnesses. The judge does.

> I could not imagine a court not allowing a witness to criticize the works of a particular author just because that author could not or would not be an expert witness in the trial. <

You probably can't imagine the sun rising in the East.

> The statement that attorneys never ask questions that they don't know the answer to is absurd on its face. <

It is rational and true. Of course you don't know anything about rationality.

> I very rarely initiate the insults. Someone has to do something really stupid -- usually deliberately -- for me to do that. <

Check back on your blog. You almost always are the one to initiate insults. That and repeating yourself seem to be the only answers you have.

I see that you have not answered Bill Carter. From your reaction to his posts we can take what he says to be gospel. You have never answered. Are you claiming that he is not the real Bill Carter who was your friend or are you saying that there is no Bill Carter? Which lie is it?

Friday, June 16, 2006 6:22:00 AM  
Anonymous Anteater said...

> I used to go to a buffet with him every Saturday. His table manners would embarrass a drunken viking. By the time that he was half way through eating there may have been as much food on the floor around him and on the table, as was on his plate. If the amount in his hair were counted, there would be no question of it. <

> He leaped up and started screaming at the other diners about how they had no appreciation for the great service that he had done for mankind. <

Had you considered selling tickets to these performances?

Friday, June 16, 2006 6:48:00 AM  
Blogger Dave Fafarman said...

Rob said:
< Insufficient memory can cause system instability only if it is extreme, as in exhausting the limits set on the swapfile or if the swapfile needs to expand but can't because there is no free room on the drive it is on. If you think you may be experiencing problems such as this, the easiest and cheapest way to test it is to make the swapfile larger, or move it to another drive that has more free space. If your computer no longer freezes, you've found your problem and you can go and buy extra memory. The thing is that Windows will start producing warnings if you start running out of VM space, so unless you have some bizarre program that just sits there allocating memory for itself so quickly that the messages don't get a chance to pop up until after the system has entered the unstable state, you would know if you were experiencing VM exhaustion. ... >

These (and subsequent) suggestions are apt and helpful (thanks, Rob).

I would point out, though, that it is common in C programs not to have any error handling on malloc failures, and ineffective recovery is even more prevalent. (QA suites generally don't provide for testing of behavior near heap runout -- but that would be very hard anyway due to the huge number of potential failure points in many programs.) If in C++, at least one gets the default error handling that is provided by the class constructor, but that may not be appropriate either in the context where it occurred.

In regard to the pdf problem, IIRC I have run into some instances of that bug but it was never troublesome enough for me to seek a general solution. It can be helpful to save the .pdf file locally and open it directly, which likely reduces the memory footprint. I think this got fixed in later versions of Acrobat.

Friday, June 16, 2006 8:27:00 AM  
Anonymous Bill Carter said...

Dave also has his eccentricities. He mistakenly believes that everyone is as brilliant and knowledgeable as he is. He might give the same level of explanation to someone he has just met in a bus. He is constantly surprised when they don't understand a word that he is talking about.

I do. That has always concerned me. ;-)

Friday, June 16, 2006 9:09:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Reply to Rob Serrano's posts of:
6/15/2006 10:47:04 PM
6/16/2006 01:58:55 AM

>>>>>>Looking up in Wikipedia doesn't make your claims about what Judge Jones said true. <<<<<<

On the contrary, the Wikipedia article on "originalism" is saying the same things that I have been saying about Jones' commencement speech at Dickinson College. For example, this article says about the doctrine of "original intent": "a number of problems inhere in intentionalism, and a fortiori when that theory is applied to the Constitution: most of the Founders did not leave discussions of what their intent was in 1787, and while a few did, there is no reason to think that they should be dispositive of what the rest thought." Compare that statement to Jones' following statement in his commencement speech:

".....this much is very clear. The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state." (emphasis added)

So Jones apparently thought that some of the Founders thought a particular way about "true religion," though I could find no evidence that any of them thought that way, and I found evidence to the contrary. He then assumed that all of them thought that way and that this "true religion" led them to create the establishment clause. And Jones said that this is all "very clear." Anyway, his idea of "free, rational inquiry" obviously does not apply to criticisms of evolution theory.

Maybe some people who think that Judge Jones is the greatest should form a Judge Jones Fan Club.

Some Supreme Court justices are or have been members of the originalist "Federalist Society," and it is has become very fashionable to claim to be an originalist. However, I think that originalism is a stupid concept, partly because it is impossible to be a pure originalist. Consider interstate commerce and the Commerce Clause, for example. There is nothing in the constitution expressly prohibiting states from burdening interstate commerce, so the courts fabricated what they call the "Dormant Commerce Clause", the idea that the Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce, implicitly prohibits the states from burdening interstate commerce without the express approval of Congress. Of course, if the states had unlimited power to burden interstate commerce, chaos would result -- e.g., California's abominable smog impact fee. Also, the Commerce Clause has been very broadly interpreted to give Congress some essential powers that the Founders could not have foreseen, like regulation of wireless communications (also, the Commerce Clause has been broadly applied in some unnecessary ways -- for example, it has been used to justify an attempt to pass a federal law prescribing prison terms for bus and cab drivers who transport females across state lines for the purpose of evading state parental notification/consent laws for abortions). So people don't talk about "originalism" or "strict construction" in regard to the Commerce Clause, except maybe when broad construction of the clause gets really out of hand. But an "originalist" interpretation of the establishment clause? "Fine," some people say. Basically, some hypocritical people are originalists or "strict constructionists" when convenient and "broad constructionists" when convenient.

>>>>>>The problem was, Larry, that, once again, you, by your own admission, didn't even read what you cited.<<<<<<

I never admitted that.

>>>>>You have yet to make the case that Shallit SHOULD have testified. Since the person whose testimony he was to have rebutted chickened out of testifying, why should Dr. Shallit then testify?<<<<<<

Because Dembski is regarded as one of the gurus of ID, people trying to discredit ID presumably would try to refute Dembski's ideas, even if in absentia.

>>>>Once again, since you have such difficulty with this: Shallit was there to rebut Dembski's testimony. Without Dembski, there was NO reason for Shallit to testify. The defendants didn't offer a replacement for Dembski and, even if they had, WHY should the plaintiffs have accepted one?<<<<<<

According to Wikipedia, the defendants wanted to appoint a replacement for Dembski. If the plaintiffs had wanted Shallit to testify badly enough, they would have accepted a replacement.

>>>>>Since neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants in the case wanted to allow FTE to latch itself into the case as an intervenor, and the publisher was in no way a party to the trial, why should Judge Jones have allowed it.<<<<<<

It is the judge who decides on whether to allow discretionary intervention. According to FRCP Rule 24, the judge does not have to allow discretionary intervention even if both sides support the motion to intervene (though it is doubtful that a judge would deny intervention in such a case).

At first, Of Pandas and People book publisher FTE was not aware that the book would be central to the Dover case, because the case was supposed to be about ID in general and not about a particular ID book that the school board just happened to choose. FTE first became aware of the book's centrality to the case when FTE received a subpoena from the plaintiffs. After that, FTE acted with reasonable speed, filing a motion to intervene about a month after receiving the subpoena (it took some time to gather enough information to justify a motion to intervene). The motion was filed a whopping 3-4 months before the start of the trial, but Judge Jones called the motion "untimely." That had something to do with the fact that the discovery phase of the trial was almost over, but intervention by FTE would not have required a lot of new discovery because the book was already central to the case. Jones also ruled that the economic interests of FTE were "uncertain" and "purely economic," but in the precedents he cited in support of that ruling, the rejected would-be intervenors were not directly targeted by the plaintiffs as was the situation for FTE in the Dover case, and FRCP Rule 24 actually indicates that "purely economic" interests are a reason for granting, not denying, intervention. As it turned out, the book was named 74 times in the Dover opinion, about half the time in regard to the book's contents and about half the time in regard to the school board's actions in choosing the book. A large part of the opinion was basically a negative book review of Pandas. When the defendant, the Dover school board, decided to not appeal, it became obvious that FTE's interests were not adequately protected by the original defendant. Further discussion is here.

<<<<<>So, FTE was "convicted?" <<<<<<

Figuratively speaking.

>>>>>By the way, they did not offer to simpy provide a rebuttal witness, they wanted to become a third party in the case.<<<<<<

As an intervenor, FTE could have introduced its own witness(es). But intervenor status would have given FTE other rights, all the same rights as the original defendant, e.g., to have its own attorney(s) participate in the courtroom proceedings, participate in the regular briefing, and file an appeal.

>>>>>And the Discovery Institute offer to provide rebuttal witnesses, so apparently they were not willling to provide such witnesses, contrary to your assertion.<<<<<

I think you are saying that DI did not offer to provide a replacement witness to rebut Shallit, but according to Wikipedia, DI did make such an offer.

>>>>>>Uh, Larry. Once again just because you say your opinion makes more sense doesn't mean that it really does make more sense.<<<<<<

That is a matter of opinion.

>>The SC did not just say that the district court was exercising its "discretion," but also said that the district court had "properly concluded." <<

>>>>>>Even if they meant it in the way you think they meant it, it in no way means that Judge Jones had to disallow expert testimony. But they didn't mean it in the way you want them to have meant it. They meant that the Judge in Edwards was within his discretion in disallowing expert testimony because he did not find that that testimony would have provided nothing useful to the case.<<<<<<

The SC said that the district court judge in Edwards v. Aguillard had "properly concluded" (emphasis added) that in an establishment clause case there should be no "Monday morning" expert testimony because such testimony does not illuminate the public officials' motives for enacting the alleged violation of the clause. What can be simpler than that?

>>>>> They meant that the Judge in Edwards was within his discretion in disallowing expert testimony because he did not find that that testimony would have provided nothing useful to the case.<<<<<

And what useful information did the expert testimony provide in the Dover case so far as the Lemon and endorsement tests are concerned?

Rob, it doesn't matter how many facts I introduce in support of my position or how explicitly I interpret my references -- you will never concede that I have a point. I am beginning to suspect that you are just playing the devil's advocate in an effort to extract information and ideas from me that support my position.

Friday, June 16, 2006 12:42:00 PM  
Anonymous Bill Carter said...

Still hiding, Larry?

Friday, June 16, 2006 1:12:00 PM  
Blogger Rob Serrano said...

larry fafarman said...

>> Reply to Rob Serrano's posts of:
6/15/2006 10:47:04 PM
6/16/2006 01:58:55 AM

>>>>>>Looking up in Wikipedia doesn't make your claims about what Judge Jones said true. <<<<<< <<

>> On the contrary, the Wikipedia article on "originalism" is saying the same things that I have been saying about Jones' commencement speech at Dickinson College. For example, this article says about the doctrine of "original intent": "a number of problems inhere in intentionalism, and a fortiori when that theory is applied to the Constitution: most of the Founders did not leave discussions of what their intent was in 1787, and while a few did, there is no reason to think that they should be dispositive of what the rest thought." Compare that statement to Jones' following statement in his commencement speech:

".....this much is very clear. The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state." (emphasis added) <<

Sorry to have to inform you of this, Larry, but any interpretation of the Constitution has "problems." But it is still only your assertion that Judge Jones in an intentionalist, a claim which you have still provided no evidence for. It is every bit as likely that he is using a textual reading of the 1st Amendment and you, thus far have provided no real evidence to support your version besides your assertion that Judge Jones is "hostile" to religion, which, if you'll recall, is the basis of your argument.

>> So Jones apparently thought that some of the Founders thought a particular way about "true religion," though I could find no evidence that any of them thought that way, and I found evidence to the contrary. He then assumed that all of them thought that way and that this "true religion" led them to create the establishment clause. And Jones said that this is all "very clear." Anyway, his idea of "free, rational inquiry" obviously does not apply to criticisms of evolution theory. <<

Once again, nothing more than assertion on your part. Nice try, though. Again learn to distinguish between what you want to believe is true and what actually is true.

>> Maybe some people who think that Judge Jones is the greatest should form a Judge Jones Fan Club. <<

And this should be considered anything other than a non sequitur because...? Since I've never stated or even implied that Judge Jones is "the greatest." This decision is impressive because Judge Jones displayed an unexpected amount of independence (considering that he was a W. appointee and the religious right was assuming he would side with them because of his religious beliefs), to come to the correct decision in this matter.

>> Some Supreme Court justices are or have been members of the originalist "Federalist Society," and it is has become very fashionable to claim to be an originalist. However, I think that originalism is a stupid concept, partly because it is impossible to be a pure originalist. Consider interstate commerce and the Commerce Clause, for example. There is nothing in the constitution expressly prohibiting states from burdening interstate commerce, so the courts fabricated what they call the "Dormant Commerce Clause", the idea that the Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce, implicitly prohibits the states from burdening interstate commerce without the express approval of Congress. Of course, if the states had unlimited power to burden interstate commerce, chaos would result -- e.g., California's abominable smog impact fee. Also, the Commerce Clause has been very broadly interpreted to give Congress some essential powers that the Founders could not have foreseen, like regulation of wireless communications (also, the Commerce Clause has been broadly applied in some unnecessary ways -- for example, it has been used to justify an attempt to pass a federal law prescribing prison terms for bus and cab drivers who transport females across state lines for the purpose of evading state parental notification/consent laws for abortions). So people don't talk about "originalism" or "strict construction" in regard to the Commerce Clause, except maybe when broad construction of the clause gets really out of hand. But an "originalist" interpretation of the establishment clause? "Fine," some people say. Basically, some hypocritical people are originalists or "strict constructionists" when convenient and "broad constructionists" when convenient. <<

Wow, talk about a tangent. Since I'm not a big fan of originalism or strict constructionism, what drove you to even go on this tangent? Strict Constructionists tend not to believe in things like the right to privacy, which I am very much a fan of.

>> >>>>>>The problem was, Larry, that, once again, you, by your own admission, didn't even read what you cited.<<<<<< <<

>> I never admitted that. <<

You were talking about the defense motion to exlude witnesses that pertained to Shallit. The logical conclusion, given that you linked to an article containing a link to the order was that you had actually read the order. But you admit that you didn't read the order, as seen below:
>> <<<<<> I neither cited nor read the order relating to Shallit. All I read was what was in Wikipedia. <

>>>>>You have yet to make the case that Shallit SHOULD have testified. Since the person whose testimony he was to have rebutted chickened out of testifying, why should Dr. Shallit then testify?<<<<<<

Because Dembski is regarded as one of the gurus of ID, people trying to discredit ID presumably would try to refute Dembski's ideas, even if in absentia.

>>>>Once again, since you have such difficulty with this: Shallit was there to rebut Dembski's testimony. Without Dembski, there was NO reason for Shallit to testify. The defendants didn't offer a replacement for Dembski and, even if they had, WHY should the plaintiffs have accepted one?<<<<<<

>> According to Wikipedia, the defendants wanted to appoint a replacement for Dembski. If the plaintiffs had wanted Shallit to testify badly enough, they would have accepted a replacement. <<

You don't normally get to play musical witnesses at trial. According to Wikipedia, if the defense had tried to introduce Dembski's work, Shallit would have been allowed to testify in rebuttal. But they didn't so he wasn't.

>> >>>>>Since neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants in the case wanted to allow FTE to latch itself into the case as an intervenor, and the publisher was in no way a party to the trial, why should Judge Jones have allowed it.<<<<<< <<

>> It is the judge who decides on whether to allow discretionary intervention. According to FRCP Rule 24, the judge does not have to allow discretionary intervention even if both sides support the motion to intervene (though it is doubtful that a judge would deny intervention in such a case). <<

Quoting from the Wikipedia article:
[quote]
In May 2005, the publisher of Of Pandas and People, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE), filed a motion seeking to intervene in the case. FTE argued that a ruling that "intelligent design" was religious would have severe financial consequences, citing possible losses of approximately half a million dollars. By intervening, FTE would have become a co-defendant with the Dover Area School Board, and able to bring its own lawyers and expert witnesses to the case. FTE's president Jon Buell implied that if allowed to intervene, FTE would bring William A. Dembski and Stephen C. Meyer as expert witnesses. In his decision on the motion, Judge John E. Jones III ruled that FTE was not entitled to intervene in the case because its motion to intervene was not timely, describing FTE's reasons for not trying to become involved earlier as "both unavailing and disingenuous". Judge Jones also held that FTE failed to demonstrate that it has "a significantly protectable interest in the litigation warranting intervention as a party" and that its interests will not be adequately represented by the defendants.
[/quote]

Nothing about the "Of Pandas and People," here. Basically FTE failed to present the motion in a timely manner and to adequately argue why it should be allowed to intervene in the case.

>> At first, Of Pandas and People book publisher FTE was not aware that the book would be central to the Dover case, because the case was supposed to be about ID in general and not about a particular ID book that the school board just happened to choose. FTE first became aware of the book's centrality to the case when FTE received a subpoena from the plaintiffs. After that, FTE acted with reasonable speed, filing a motion to intervene about a month after receiving the subpoena (it took some time to gather enough information to justify a motion to intervene). The motion was filed a whopping 3-4 months before the start of the trial, but Judge Jones called the motion "untimely." That had something to do with the fact that the discovery phase of the trial was almost over, but intervention by FTE would not have required a lot of new discovery because the book was already central to the case. Jones also ruled that the economic interests of FTE were "uncertain" and "purely economic," but in the precedents he cited in support of that ruling, the rejected would-be intervenors were not directly targeted by the plaintiffs as was the situation for FTE in the Dover case, and FRCP Rule 24 actually indicates that "purely economic" interests are a reason for granting, not denying, intervention. As it turned out, the book was named 74 times in the Dover opinion, about half the time in regard to the book's contents and about half the time in regard to the school board's actions in choosing the book. A large part of the opinion was basically a negative book review of Pandas. When the defendant, the Dover school board, decided to not appeal, it became obvious that FTE's interests were not adequately protected by the original defendant. Further discussion is here. <<

The book in question was evidence of the nature of the whole "Intelligent Design" assumption. FTE didn't want to intervene because their book would be threatened, most of the people who are going to read it will buy it regardless. What they wanted to do was attach themselves to the case because a ruling that Intelligent Design was fundamentally a religious argument would prevent them from being sold as textbooks in public schools. They were unable to show why they should be allowed to intervene in the case.

FTE knew full well what the prosecution would be saying right from the beginning BEFORE discovery had even begun. Well into the discovery process is not "timely," nor is it a minor burden on the parties of the case, since the intevenor becomes another party of the case, and can call witnesses, which does impact the discovery process.

Plus, there's the fact the FTE simply failed to provide adequate justification for them to be allowed to intervene.

>> <<<<<>So, FTE was "convicted?" <<<<<< <<

>> Figuratively speaking. <<

Not really.

>> >>>>>By the way, they did not offer to simpy provide a rebuttal witness, they wanted to become a third party in the case.<<<<<< <<

>> As an intervenor, FTE could have introduced its own witness(es). But intervenor status would have given FTE other rights, all the same rights as the original defendant, e.g., to have its own attorney(s) participate in the courtroom proceedings, participate in the regular briefing, and file an appeal. <<

Wow, you spend a lot of space agreeing with what I've already said, don't you? The difference is, you feel the need insert reams of irrelevant detail.

>> >>>>>And the Discovery Institute offer to provide rebuttal witnesses, so apparently they were not willling to provide such witnesses, contrary to your assertion.<<<<< <<

>> I think you are saying that DI did not offer to provide a replacement witness to rebut Shallit, but according to Wikipedia, DI did make such an offer. <<

Actually, it was the defense, not the DI, which it says wanted to provide a replacement for Dembski (Dembski was one of the witnesses provided by the DI, most of whom dropped out of the case). Since it was so late in the game by that time (well after the time that expert witness lists were supposed to have been submitted by both sides), it was not allowed. Hence the defense motion to exclude Shallit, since he was not originally listed as an expert witness but as a rebuttal witness (on that timeline). Which is why Shallit was not called, though the prosecution reserved the right to call him if the defense tried to introduce any of Dembski's work, which they didn't.

>> >>>>>>Uh, Larry. Once again just because you say your opinion makes more sense doesn't mean that it really does make more sense.<<<<<< <<

>> That is a matter of opinion. <<

Air ball attempt at humor.

>> >>The SC did not just say that the district court was exercising its "discretion," but also said that the district court had "properly concluded." <<

>>>>>>Even if they meant it in the way you think they meant it, it in no way means that Judge Jones had to disallow expert testimony. But they didn't mean it in the way you want them to have meant it. They meant that the Judge in Edwards was within his discretion in disallowing expert testimony because he did not find that that testimony would have provided nothing useful to the case.<<<<<< <<

>> The SC said that the district court judge in Edwards v. Aguillard had "properly concluded" (emphasis added) that in an establishment clause case there should be no "Monday morning" expert testimony because such testimony does not illuminate the public officials' motives for enacting the alleged violation of the clause. What can be simpler than that? <<

Let's take a look at the pertinent part of the SC ruling:

[quote]
The District Court, in its discretion, properly concluded that a Monday-morning "battle of the experts" over possible technical meanings of terms in the statute would not illuminate the contemporaneous purpose of the Louisiana Legislature when it made the law (20). We therefore conclude that the District Court did not err in finding that appellants failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact, and in granting summary judgment (21).
[/quote]

Again, the SC is addressing whether the district court judge had errer in excluded the expert witness testimony. If you had even a fraction of the clue you think you have, you would see that this is an affimation of the earlier decision, not a mandate placed on other judges. It was in Judge Jones' discretion to rule on the usefulness of expert witness testimony. There can be nothing found in the SC decision that says he had to reject such testimony.

>> >>>>> They meant that the Judge in Edwards was within his discretion in disallowing expert testimony because he did not find that that testimony would have provided nothing useful to the case.<<<<< <<

>> And what useful information did the expert testimony provide in the Dover case so far as the Lemon and endorsement tests are concerned? <<

Oh let me see, how about demonstrating the explicit religious nature of Intelligent Design, and its lack of scientific basis?

>> Rob, it doesn't matter how many facts I introduce in support of my position or how explicitly I interpret my references -- you will never concede that I have a point. I am beginning to suspect that you are just playing the devil's advocate in an effort to extract information and ideas from me that support my position. <<

If you were to present actual facts and actually apply them properly. If you were actually correctly interpret your references instead of playing "this is what I want this to say." In short, if you were to actually demonstrate yourself able to support your position without falsehoods and insults, then you might be able to engage in an actual debate.

Friday, June 16, 2006 9:05:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Rob Serrano said ( 6/16/2006 09:05:14 PM ) --

>>>>>>it is still only your assertion that Judge Jones in an intentionalist, a claim which you have still provided no evidence for. It is every bit as likely that he is using a textual reading of the 1st Amendment<<<<<<

I did not call his interpretation of the establishment clause "intentionalist," I called it "originalist." This interpretation was originalist because it was based on what he believed were the thoughts and intentions of the founding fathers. Also, the term "intentionalist" is not used in regard to constitutional interpretation.

>>>>>>I've never stated or even implied that Judge Jones is "the greatest."<<<<<

I was just being sarcastic -- you obviously do not understand sarcasm.

>>>>>>Since I'm not a big fan of originalism or strict constructionism, what drove you to even go on this tangent?<<<<<<

You are obviously a big fan of Jones' attempt at an originalist interpretation of the establishment clause (though his interpretation is a travesty because it has no basis in fact).

>>>>>> Strict Constructionists tend not to believe in things like the right to privacy, which I am very much a fan of.<<<<<<

There is an explicit right to privacy in the 4th Amendment, "Protection from unreasonable search and seizure." What strict constructionists usually argue is that there is no privacy right in the Constitution that protects a right to abortion.

>>>>>You were talking about the defense motion to exlude witnesses that pertained to Shallit. The logical conclusion, given that you linked to an article containing a link to the order was that you had actually read the order. <<<<<<

There is no such logical conclusion. I wonder what ever gave you the idea that quoting or giving a URL link to a reference implies having read all of the linked items provided by that reference. Also, as I said, I have a lot of problems with reading pdf files, though less than in the past. I am going to call AOL tech support to see if they can help (something I should have done before -- they helped me in the past).

>>>>>You don't normally get to play musical witnesses at trial. According to Wikipedia, if the defense had tried to introduce Dembski's work, Shallit would have been allowed to testify in rebuttal. But they didn't so he wasn't.<<<<<

As I said, according to Wikipedia, the defense wanted to replace Dembski. If the plaintiffs had wanted Shallit to testify badly enough, they could have accepted a replacement for Dembski in return for Shallit being allowed to testify. Apparently the plaintiffs did not want Shallit to testify that badly. And this goes back to my point that your claim that Dembski withdrew to prevent Shallit from testifying does not make any sense, because there was no guarantee that such withdrawal would prevent Shallit from testifying.

>>>>>>Basically FTE failed to present the motion in a timely manner and to adequately argue why it should be allowed to intervene in the case.<<<<<<

False. FTE's motion to intervene was based on the subpoena from the plaintiffs. Without the subpoena, FTE had little or no grounds for a motion to intervene -- the trial was supposed to be about ID in general and was not supposed to be about an ID book that the school board just happened to choose. FTE filed the motion to intervene only about a month after receiving the subpoena. The denial of the motion, citing a precedent, said, " ' Where a party takes reasonable steps to protect its interest, its application should not fail on timeliness grounds.' " (page 6) FTE had taken those reasonable steps.

The fact that the discovery phase was almost over was a lame excuse for calling the motion "untimely." When the motion was filed, there was still 3-4 months before the start of the trial. Since it was apparent that the book was going to be a major issue in the trial, there would be little or no new material for discovery.

Intervenor status is not just about bringing in new witnesses. It is also about having your own attorneys in the courtroom, participating in briefing, having the right of appeal, and having all the other rights of the original defendant. Also, it appears that FTE just wanted to bring back withdrawn witnesses rather than introduce new ones -- the NCSE said, "At an oral hearing on July 14, 2005, FTE argued that if it were allowed to intervene, it would reintroduce expert witnesses William Dembski and Stephen Meyer." I presume that Dembski and Meyer had both already submitted expert witness reports and/or been deposed by the plaintiffs.

The denial of the motion said, "timeliness is not just a function of counting days, but it is a totality of the circumstances analysis." Apparently Jones did not follow his own rules.

>>>>>The book in question was evidence of the nature of the whole "Intelligent Design" assumption.<<<<<

Wrong. It was just one book about ID -- there are many books about ID. Is Darwinism necessarily a religious concept just because Kenneth Miller's book "Finding Darwin's God" discusses Darwinism from a religious perspective?

>>>>>FTE didn't want to intervene because their book would be threatened, most of the people who are going to read it will buy it regardless. What they wanted to do was attach themselves to the case because a ruling that Intelligent Design was fundamentally a religious argument would prevent them from being sold as textbooks in public schools.<<<<<<

Your first sentence says that private sales of the book would not be threatened, but your second sentence said that the book's sales would be threatened in one of the book's largest potential markets, public schools. So the bottom line is that sales of the book were threatened.

In retrospect, the Dover defendants' failure to appeal shows that FTE's interests were not adequately protected by those defendants. Giving an intervention applicant the right to file an independent appeal is a strong reason for granting intervention if there is any reasonable basis for doing so.

John West of the Discovery Institute correctly observed,
"Given Judge Jones' explicit refusal to allow FTE to present a defense in the Dover case, his condemnation of FTE's textbook was grotesque."

Judge Jones is utterly lacking in integrity.

<<<<<>Let's take a look at the pertinent part of the SC ruling:

The District Court, in its discretion, properly concluded that a Monday-morning "battle of the experts" over possible technical meanings of terms in the statute would not illuminate the contemporaneous purpose of the Louisiana Legislature when it made the law. We therefore conclude that the District Court did not err in finding that appellants failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact, and in granting summary judgment (emphasis is yours)<<<<<<<

So how does the second sentence above negate my interpretation of the first sentence? The second sentence is just an affirmation of the first sentence (the key word is "therefore").

<<<<<>> And what useful information did the expert testimony provide in the Dover case so far as the Lemon and endorsement tests are concerned? <<

Oh let me see, how about demonstrating the explicit religious nature of Intelligent Design, and its lack of scientific basis? >>>>>>

The same argument could have been made in favor of hearing expert testimony regarding creation science in Edwards v. Aguillard, but the district court judge refused to hear such testimony because it would not have illuminated the purposes of the public officials, and the Supreme Court agreed.

As for whether ID has a scientific basis, there is no constitutional separation of bogus science and state.

One thing that was not considered in Edwards v. Aguillard was whether expert testimony would illuminate the public's perception as to whether something is a government endorsement of religion (as opposed to illuminating the purposes of public officials). In determining that public perception, judges are supposed to put themselves in the position of an "objective" or "reasonable" observer. But how much is this "objective" ("reasonable") observer supposed to know? The Dover opinion says (pages 16-17),
"In elaborating upon this 'reasonable' observer, the Third Circuit explained...that 'the reasonable observer is an informed citizen who is more knowledgeable than the average passerby.' Moreover, in addition to knowing the challenged conduct's history, the observer is deemed able to 'glean other relevant facts' from the face of the policy in light of its context.....Knowing the challenged policy's legislative history, the community, and the broader social and historical context in which the policy arose, the objective observer thus considers publicly available evidence relevant to the purpose inquiry, but notably does not do so to ascertain, strictly speaking, what the government purpose actually was......Instead, the observer looks to that evidence to ascertain whether the policy 'in fact conveys a message of endorsement or disapproval' of religion, irrespective of what the government might have intended." (citations omitted)

Though the reasonable (objective) observer is supposed to be a well-informed person, I assert that this observer is not supposed to be an expert. It is unreasonable to expect that the general public's perception of whether something is a government endorsement of religion should be based on hearing three weeks of expert testimony, which was what Jones heard.

Rob, I have been presenting lots of actual arguments, facts, and references, and you have mostly just been saying "you're wrong" or been making ad hominem attacks concerning my smog impact fee cases, those sorts of things. And the few arguments that you present are mostly ridiculous. You are making yourself look very foolish. However, there is one positive thing about your comments -- you are causing me to do more research and more thinking about these issues than I otherwise would have done.

Saturday, June 17, 2006 8:06:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

Since ViW seems to disappear on weekends, I will fill in for him again. He has not objected to my past efforts.

> There is no such logical conclusion. I wonder what ever gave you the idea that quoting or giving a URL link to a reference implies having read all of the linked items provided by that reference.<

A logical person would think that anyone quoting or giving a URL link to a reference implies having read it, if the person making that is sane. It is illogical to think that an insane person will act sanely. We can assume in the future that when you make a link to a reference, you have just found it using a word search and haven't a clue what it says.

> And this goes back to my point that your claim that Dumbski withdrew to prevent Shallit from testifying does not make any sense, because there was no guarantee that such withdrawal would prevent Shallit from testifying. <

Since Shallit would only be a rebuttal witness, Dumbski's withdrawal would normally prevent Shallit from testifying. Rod explains this eloquently but I guess it went over your head.

> The denial of the motion said, "timeliness is not just a function of counting days, but it is a totality of the circumstances analysis." Apparently Jones did not follow his own rules. <

It appears that he did. What are you talking about?

> Judge Jones is utterly lacking in integrity. <

You are always claiming that you give reasons to back up your statements. This shows that this is rarely the case. Your only complaint about Judge Jones is that his judgement is different from yours. Thank the unnamed and hypothetical creator that it is!

> As for whether ID has a scientific basis, there is no constitutional separation of bogus science and state. <

In order for ID to be bogus science, it would have to be science. It is bogus, but it is not science.

> Rob, I have been presenting lots of actual arguments, facts, and references, and you have mostly just been saying "you're wrong" <

You are projecting. You are presenting opinions, references that you yourself have not read, and bald statements that "you're wrong".

> or been making ad hominem attacks concerning my smog impact fee cases <

I haven't seen anyone on this board making ad hominem attacks concerning your smog impact fee cases. Making accurate statements about them is not an ad hominem attack.

> You are making yourself look very foolish. <

Projecting again!

> you are causing me to do more research and more thinking about these issues than I otherwise would have done. <

Good. So far it looks like your opinions have been the result of little thought.

Saturday, June 17, 2006 9:45:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In The Urbanness said ( 6/17/2006 09:45:58 AM ) --

>>>>>>A logical person would think that anyone quoting or giving a URL link to a reference implies having read it, if the person making that is sane.<<<<<<<

The issue here was not the directly linked reference, but was another link given by that reference. It should NEVER be assumed that the person linking to a reference read a link given by that reference unless that link was essential for understanding the cited part of the reference. Furthermore, unless the directly linked reference is short (as was the Wikipedia reference), it should NEVER be assumed that the person linking to a reference read the entire reference.

<<<<<<>The denial of the motion said, "timeliness is not just a function of counting days, but it is a totality of the circumstances analysis." Apparently Jones did not follow his own rules. <

It appears that he did. What are you talking about?<<<<<<

Duh. Though FTE's motion to intervene was late, being filed several months after the case began and when the discovery phase was almost over, I cited several extenuating or mitigating circumstances that justified the delay in filing the motion and that would have prevented intervention from causing a serious delay in the trial:

(1) The basis for the motion, the subpoena from the plaintiffs, was received only about a month before the motion was filed.

(2) There would have been no or little new material to discover because FTE's book was already central to the case.

(3) The FTE apparently did not want to bring in new witnesses but wanted to bring back withdrawn witnesses, Dembski and Meyer, who presumably had already been through all or part of the discovery process (depositions and/or submission of expert witness reports). The defense side was already short of expert witnesses as a result of the withdrawals, so bringing back these expert witnesses would have just restored a balance.

(4) The trial was scheduled to start a whopping 3-4 months after the motion to intervene was filed.

Please get your head out of your ass, urbanass, and read what I write so that I do not have to spend so much time repeating myself.

<<<<<<> As for whether ID has a scientific basis, there is no constitutional separation of bogus science and state. <

In order for ID to be bogus science, it would have to be science. It is bogus, but it is not science.<<<<<<<

OK -- so there is no constitutional separation of nonscience and state, either.

<<<<<<> or been making ad hominem attacks concerning my smog impact fee cases <

I haven't seen anyone on this board making ad hominem attacks concerning your smog impact fee cases. Making accurate statements about them is not an ad hominem attack.<<<<<<

You obviously do not know what the term "ad hominem" means. Any statement directed at the person rather than the issue is an ad hominem attack, even if that statement is true. In Latin, ad hominem literally means, "to the man."

Saturday, June 17, 2006 2:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

> I cited several extenuating or mitigating circumstances that justified the delay in filing the motion and that would have prevented intervention from causing a serious delay in the trial: <

Duh! The judge didn't think they were adequate. He gave his reasons but apparently you failed to read them or disagreed with them so you pretend that they don't exist.

> Please get your head out of your ass, urbanass <

From the one who complains about ad hominems. Hilarious!

> and read what I write so that I do not have to spend so much time repeating myself. <

Once people shoot down your pitiful explanations, don't bother to repeat them in the belief that they will be any less absurd the second, third, or fourth time around.

> OK -- so there is no constitutional separation of nonscience and state, either. <

There is no constitutional requirement that drivel be taught.

> Any statement directed at the person rather than the issue is an ad hominem attack <

So you finally know what it means. Are we to take this as an apology?

The description of your pathetic attempts at litigation is the issue. It demonstrates that you know nothing about law. You probably think that disproving your absurd ideas is an ad hominem attack.

If someone shows that you are wrong about something, that is not an ad hominem attack.

If you really want to know what an ad hominem attack is, read your own posts. They are seldom without them. And don't pretend that others initiate them. You have in every case that I have found on this board. Can you find one where this does not apply?

Incidentally, you are a pathetic asshole. This is a reply to the ad hominem attacks that you have initiated, dumbshit.

Saturday, June 17, 2006 2:44:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In the Urbanness said ( June 17, 2006 2:44:37 PM ) --

<<<<<<> I cited several extenuating or mitigating circumstances that justified the delay in filing the motion and that would have prevented intervention from causing a serious delay in the trial: <

Duh! The judge didn't think they were adequate. He gave his reasons but apparently you failed to read them or disagreed with them so you pretend that they don't exist.<<<<<<<

Again, you are just making unsubstantiated assertions -- you are not showing any reasons Judge Jones gave for thinking that my excuses for the FTE's delay in seeking intervention were inadequate.

Of the four excuses I gave in my last post, Jones directly addressed only the first (though I don't know if any of my last three reasons were raised by FTE). This first excuse that I gave was:
(1) The basis for the motion, the subpoena from the plaintiffs, was received only about a month before the motion was filed.

The reason Jones gave for rejecting this excuse was that FTE was following the news reports about the Dover case and should have known what was going on prior to receiving the subpoena. But prior to receiving the subpoena, FTE had no reason to believe that its position was substantially different from that of any other ID book publisher -- the only difference was that FTE's book happened to be the ID book that was chosen by the Dover school board. The plaintiffs' attorneys initial preparation for the trial was presumably conducted in secret and FTE had no reason to suspect that they were planning to make FTE's book a central issue in the trial.

>>>>>>There is no constitutional requirement that drivel be taught.<<<<<<<

And there is no constitutional requirement that drivel not be taught.

Saturday, June 17, 2006 8:15:00 PM  
Blogger Rob Serrano said...

larry fafarman said...

>> Rob Serrano said ( 6/16/2006 09:05:14 PM ) --

>>>>>>it is still only your assertion that Judge Jones in an intentionalist, a claim which you have still provided no evidence for. It is every bit as likely that he is using a textual reading of the 1st Amendment<<<<<< <<

>> I did not call his interpretation of the establishment clause "intentionalist," I called it "originalist." This interpretation was originalist because it was based on what he believed were the thoughts and intentions of the founding fathers. Also, the term "intentionalist" is not used in regard to constitutional interpretation. <<

You didn't read the Wikipedia entry, did you? From there we read about "theories that sought to derive meaning from the constitutional text alone ("textualism"), or from the intentions of the originators ("intentionalism")." In other words you're just flat-out wrong. Again.

>> >>>>>>I've never stated or even implied that Judge Jones is "the greatest."<<<<< <<

>> I was just being sarcastic -- you obviously do not understand sarcasm. <<

Actually, I'm well acquainted with sarcasm. Sarcasm needs a basis otherwise it's nothing. You had no basis for your supposed attempt at sarcasm. I can really only conclude that you simply have no sense of humor. You must be great fun at parties.

>> >>>>>>Since I'm not a big fan of originalism or strict constructionism, what drove you to even go on this tangent?<<<<<< <<

>> You are obviously a big fan of Jones' attempt at an originalist interpretation of the establishment clause (though his interpretation is a travesty because it has no basis in fact). <<

Once again with the assertions of things of which you have no understanding.Bork is an originalist, in the Strict Construction vein. His basis is that if it is not explicitly written into the Constitution, then it doesn't exist. You know concepts we often take for granted like the right to privacy. They are also the ones who claim the separation of church and state is a fabrication that should be done away with, among other claims that should actually frighten most people. Judge Jones is arguing none of that, and you have not shown that he has, since you continue to confuse assertion with fact. This is not a new shortcoming on your part, but it is one that you should, if you want to be taken seriously, work to overcome.

>> >>>>>> Strict Constructionists tend not to believe in things like the right to privacy, which I am very much a fan of.<<<<<< <<

>> There is an explicit right to privacy in the 4th Amendment, "Protection from unreasonable search and seizure." What strict constructionists usually argue is that there is no privacy right in the Constitution that protects a right to abortion. <<

Actually, Larry, since we were just talking about assertions, you're wrong. The 4th amendment, while explicitly protecting you from having the government search your home and seize your assets without having shown probable cause to do so, does not explicitly grant you a "right to privacy." There is nothing within the 4th amendment that prevents government monitoring of your activities. The 5th and 14th amendments grant explicit due process protections from federal and state actions, respectively, and are the laws from which the "right to privacy" are said to derive. But they still do not explicitly say that there is such a thing as a "right to privacy." They simply say you cannot be denied your rights to "life, liberty and property" if, in that monitoring you are found to be doing something illegal. And when the courts have determined that there is such a thing as a "right to privacy" they are not consistent with it.

Read Bowers v. Hardwick -- overturned by Lawrence v. Texas -- in which the Supreme Court ruled that the "right to privacy" did not extend to "private, consensual sexual conduct."

>> >>>>>You were talking about the defense motion to exlude witnesses that pertained to Shallit. The logical conclusion, given that you linked to an article containing a link to the order was that you had actually read the order. <<<<<< <<

>> There is no such logical conclusion. I wonder what ever gave you the idea that quoting or giving a URL link to a reference implies having read all of the linked items provided by that reference. Also, as I said, I have a lot of problems with reading pdf files, though less than in the past. I am going to call AOL tech support to see if they can help (something I should have done before -- they helped me in the past). <<

Actually, Larry, yes, it is the logical conclusion that if you are providing a link that you have read what is containing on the linked page. Otherwise you should not have produced the link.

As for the PDF files, that's not really an excuse. All you should need to do is copy the linked PDF file to your computer and open it directly of Acrobat Reader. Have you actually tried installing the newest version of Acrobat Reader (which is 7)? Some newer PDF features may not work correctly on older version of AR. Have you tried using a browser outside of AOL's crap?

>> >>>>>You don't normally get to play musical witnesses at trial. According to Wikipedia, if the defense had tried to introduce Dembski's work, Shallit would have been allowed to testify in rebuttal. But they didn't so he wasn't.<<<<< <<

>> As I said, according to Wikipedia, the defense wanted to replace Dembski. If the plaintiffs had wanted Shallit to testify badly enough, they could have accepted a replacement for Dembski in return for Shallit being allowed to testify. Apparently the plaintiffs did not want Shallit to testify that badly. And this goes back to my point that your claim that Dembski withdrew to prevent Shallit from testifying does not make any sense, because there was no guarantee that such withdrawal would prevent Shallit from testifying. <<

At the time Dembski withdrew, the time to introduce witnesses had long since passed. Adding a new witness would have done nothing more than delay the procedings. Any blame here falls squarely on Dembski and the DI who basically ditched the case when it became apparent that it would not serve their PR purposes.

>> >>>>>>Basically FTE failed to present the motion in a timely manner and to adequately argue why it should be allowed to intervene in the case.<<<<<< <<

>> False. FTE's motion to intervene was based on the subpoena from the plaintiffs. Without the subpoena, FTE had little or no grounds for a motion to intervene -- the trial was supposed to be about ID in general and was not supposed to be about an ID book that the school board just happened to choose. FTE filed the motion to intervene only about a month after receiving the subpoena. The denial of the motion, citing a precedent, said, " ' Where a party takes reasonable steps to protect its interest, its application should not fail on timeliness grounds.' " (page 6) FTE had taken those reasonable steps.

The fact that the discovery phase was almost over was a lame excuse for calling the motion "untimely." When the motion was filed, there was still 3-4 months before the start of the trial. Since it was apparent that the book was going to be a major issue in the trial, there would be little or no new material for discovery.

Intervenor status is not just about bringing in new witnesses. It is also about having your own attorneys in the courtroom, participating in briefing, having the right of appeal, and having all the other rights of the original defendant. Also, it appears that FTE just wanted to bring back withdrawn witnesses rather than introduce new ones -- the NCSE said, "At an oral hearing on July 14, 2005, FTE argued that if it were allowed to intervene, it would reintroduce expert witnesses William Dembski and Stephen Meyer." I presume that Dembski and Meyer had both already submitted expert witness reports and/or been deposed by the plaintiffs. <<

Wow, a whole lot of assertion and still misses the point.

Take a look at the actual order denying their request: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/04cv2688-111.pdf

FTE, being the publisher of the main book used by those trying to push Intelligent Design on the schools cannot claim that they were unaware that their book would figure into the procedings. In fact, according to the denial of their motion, they had six months in which they were aware of the case, and that the prosecution would make use of "Of Pandas and People." They knew what was coming BEFORE discovery began. They cannot claim surprise on that count. They had to know, from the beginning, that this trial might have an affect on their book sales, given that if ID is not allowed in the classroom, public schools are not going to shell out for "Of Pandas adn People." They failed to seek intervenor status in a timely

>> The denial of the motion said, "timeliness is not just a function of counting days, but it is a totality of the circumstances analysis." Apparently Jones did not follow his own rules. <<

Apparently you didn't read the order. He most obviously DID follow the rules. YOU just don't like the outcome. Remember also that neither the Defense NOR the Plaintiffs wanted FTE to latch onto the case.

There were four prongs examined in looking at whether FTE should be allowed to intervene in the case, and if failed to meet the burden for even one. They also failed to provide reason why they should be granted permissive intervention.

>> >>>>>The book in question was evidence of the nature of the whole "Intelligent Design" assumption.<<<<< <<

>> Wrong. It was just one book about ID -- there are many books about ID. Is Darwinism necessarily a religious concept just because Kenneth Miller's book "Finding Darwin's God" discusses Darwinism from a religious perspective? <<

How many ID books do NOT refer to "Of Pandas and People," Larry? "Pandas" is THE book that the DI and the other IDists are trying so hard to push on the public schools. It is the book the IDists use to bolster their arguments. It is not just a book about ID. It is, basically, the ID bible. The most telling thing about it, historically, though, is the fact that the drafts of the book had Creation in places where Design ended up after Edwards v. Aguillard. The DI uses "Pandas" to get people into ID/Creationism.

"Of Pandas and People" is the cusp child of the PR transition of Creationism into Intelligent Design, and it demonstrates beyond all of the gameplaying from the IDists, the true origins of the ID movement. It is not just A book on ID. But again, thanks so much for playing, we'd have some lovely parting gifts for you but they haven't been designed yet.

>> >>>>>FTE didn't want to intervene because their book would be threatened, most of the people who are going to read it will buy it regardless. What they wanted to do was attach themselves to the case because a ruling that Intelligent Design was fundamentally a religious argument would prevent them from being sold as textbooks in public schools.<<<<<< <<

>> Your first sentence says that private sales of the book would not be threatened, but your second sentence said that the book's sales would be threatened in one of the book's largest potential markets, public schools. So the bottom line is that sales of the book were threatened. <<

Not really. You need to lookup the difference between "potential loss of sales" vs. "loss of potential sales." The loss they claimed was about $500,000, which, at the list price of $29.95 (for a 170 page book?) is less than 17,000 students. That's roughly the equivalent of 3-4 small to medium-sized school districts, or 1-2 large ones. The large districts aren't likely to buy the book in the first place, so you're basically talking about a couple of lost sales in the boondocks. And they didn't even show any actual threat, just that their projected sales might be threatened.

But the ultimate answer to the FTE's claim of financial harm is one often used with respect to business: "Tough, evolve or die." All FTE has to do is alter where it targets it advertizing, which business does every day. The problem, apparently, is that they haven't developed a business model that doesn't involve them suckling exclusively at the public teat.

>> In retrospect, the Dover defendants' failure to appeal shows that FTE's interests were not adequately protected by those defendants. Giving an intervention applicant the right to file an independent appeal is a strong reason for granting intervention if there is any reasonable basis for doing so. <<

Once again, nothing more than assertion on your part. You have a bad habit of simply asserting that things are true and not actually showing me that they are true.

>> John West of the Discovery Institute correctly observed,
"Given Judge Jones' explicit refusal to allow FTE to present a defense in the Dover case, his condemnation of FTE's textbook was grotesque." <<

You mean the Discovery Institute whose witnesses all withdrew from the case? But West's beliefs about the case are a) no more impartial than yours and b) no more correct than yours. Judge Jones explains the denial of intervention at length in the order denying intervention. Just because you don't want to believe it, doesn't make it not so.

>> Judge Jones is utterly lacking in integrity. <<

No, once again that would be you and the IDists.

>> <<<<<>Let's take a look at the pertinent part of the SC ruling:

The District Court, in its discretion, properly concluded that a Monday-morning "battle of the experts" over possible technical meanings of terms in the statute would not illuminate the contemporaneous purpose of the Louisiana Legislature when it made the law. We therefore conclude that the District Court did not err in finding that appellants failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact, and in granting summary judgment (emphasis is yours)<<<<<<< <<

>> So how does the second sentence above negate my interpretation of the first sentence? The second sentence is just an affirmation of the first sentence (the key word is "therefore"). <<

Most importantly it shows that you lack the ability to actually comprehend what is written. You see, Larry, the SC in this paragraph is validating the previous judges' decisions about exclusion of the expert witnesses. Part of this decision is to determine whether the lower courts' judges have erred in their decision-making. Here the SC is saying that they had not erred, that it was within their discretion to exclude that testimony. What part of this is so difficult for you to comprehend? They are in NO way saying that other judges, even in similar cases, MUST exclude expert testimony, simply that the Judge in Edwards did not err in doing so.

>> <<<<<>> And what useful information did the expert testimony provide in the Dover case so far as the Lemon and endorsement tests are concerned? <<

Oh let me see, how about demonstrating the explicit religious nature of Intelligent Design, and its lack of scientific basis? >>>>>> <<

>> The same argument could have been made in favor of hearing expert testimony regarding creation science in Edwards v. Aguillard, but the district court judge refused to hear such testimony because it would not have illuminated the purposes of the public officials, and the Supreme Court agreed. <<

Really? You've actually read the expert testimony in Edwards. Even if you had, Judge Jones is not bound to refuse to hear the expert testimony. And again, the Supreme Court agreed that the judge in Edwards had not acted improperly in refusing to hear the expert testimony. There's, once again, a BIG difference between what keep trying to say was said and what was actually said.

>> As for whether ID has a scientific basis, there is no constitutional separation of bogus science and state. <<

There is a separation between teaching science and non-science in a science class. You see how that works, Larry. Science belongs in the science class. Non-Science does not belong in the science class. Intelligent Design belongs in the dustbin.

>> One thing that was not considered in Edwards v. Aguillard was whether expert testimony would illuminate the public's perception as to whether something is a government endorsement of religion (as opposed to illuminating the purposes of public officials). In determining that public perception, judges are supposed to put themselves in the position of an "objective" or "reasonable" observer. But how much is this "objective" ("reasonable") observer supposed to know? The Dover opinion says (pages 16-17),
"In elaborating upon this 'reasonable' observer, the Third Circuit explained...that 'the reasonable observer is an informed citizen who is more knowledgeable than the average passerby.' Moreover, in addition to knowing the challenged conduct's history, the observer is deemed able to 'glean other relevant facts' from the face of the policy in light of its context.....Knowing the challenged policy's legislative history, the community, and the broader social and historical context in which the policy arose, the objective observer thus considers publicly available evidence relevant to the purpose inquiry, but notably does not do so to ascertain, strictly speaking, what the government purpose actually was......Instead, the observer looks to that evidence to ascertain whether the policy 'in fact conveys a message of endorsement or disapproval' of religion, irrespective of what the government might have intended." (citations omitted)

Though the reasonable (objective) observer is supposed to be a well-informed person, I assert that this observer is not supposed to be an expert. It is unreasonable to expect that the general public's perception of whether something is a government endorsement of religion should be based on hearing three weeks of expert testimony, which was what Jones heard. <<

A whole swath of still more irrelevances that have previously been addressed.

>> Rob, I have been presenting lots of actual arguments, facts, and references, and you have mostly just been saying "you're wrong" or been making ad hominem attacks concerning my smog impact fee cases, those sorts of things. And the few arguments that you present are mostly ridiculous. You are making yourself look very foolish. However, there is one positive thing about your comments -- you are causing me to do more research and more thinking about these issues than I otherwise would have done. <<

It's always amusing to watch the likes of you try to play the "I'm winning because I say so" game, Larry, because it just goes to show how empty your argument is. The "facts" that you present are mostly little nuggets of truth with a thick coating of assertion on your part. Your "arguments" are purely nothing but assertion with only the thinnest veneer of miscontrued and misread quotes to support them. You have, more often than not, not even read the reference that you've cited. To this date you have yet to correctly use the term ad hominem in any context. Your proclamation of your own supposed "legal genius" is grounds enough for your failure of a legal history to be brought into the conversation, remember you brought it into this conversation, not me. Finally, to date, you've still shown me no evidence that you've either engaged in the thought process or really done research, besides cherry-picking quotes from references that you otherwise just leave to die.

Once again, you are shown for what you are, an intellectual poseur whose arguments are vapid and empty, whose thought process is wholly devoid of integrity or depth. You like to put on airs but the fact of the matter is that you are Otto from "A Fish Called Wanda." Always spouting off what you don't understand and getting upset whenever someone points out that you are wrong. And you are wrong, over and over again.

Saturday, June 17, 2006 10:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

> Again, you are just making unsubstantiated assertions <

It is not unsubstantiated that Judge Jones gave his reasons and that they were valid ones. You seem to want to pretend that he did not give his reasons because you don't understand them. Many things continue to exist despite your inability to understand them.

> you are not showing any reasons Judge Jones gave for thinking that my excuses for the FTE's delay in seeking intervention were inadequate. <

They have been stated and restated. Stop pretending otherwise.

> And there is no constitutional requirement that drivel not be taught. <

So you admit that ID is drivel and you want drivel to be taught.

Saturday, June 17, 2006 11:46:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Rob Serrano said ( 6/17/2006 10:10:06 PM ) --

>>>>>>You didn't read the Wikipedia entry, did you? From there we read about "theories that sought to derive meaning from the constitutional text alone ("textualism"), or from the intentions of the originators ("intentionalism")." In other words you're just flat-out wrong. <<<<<<

I Googled "intentionalism" and turned up nothing except Holocaust studies. Wikipedia has no entry for "intentionalism" but does have entries for "original intent" and "textualism." "Intentionalism" is not even a buzzword in the field of constitutional interpretation.

>>>>You had no basis for your supposed attempt at sarcasm <<<<<<

I did. A lot of people regard Judge Jones as some kind of hero.

>>>>>>The 4th amendment, while explicitly protecting you from having the government search your home and seize your assets without having shown probable cause to do so, does not explicitly grant you a "right to privacy."<<<<<<

I don't see how you can say that protection from unreasonable search and seizure is not a kind of right to privacy.

>>>>>>Actually, Larry, yes, it is the logical conclusion that if you are providing a link that you have read what is containing on the linked page.<<<<<<

Wrong. If it is a long article, there should be no presumption that I have read all of it, and there should be no presumption that I have read any of the links on a linked page unless it is obvious that reading a link on the linked page is necessary to correctly interpret the linked page. If this is a problem for you, I will add a disclaimer whenever l link to a page and do not read the whole page or all the links it contains.

>>>>>>All you should need to do is copy the linked PDF file to your computer and open it directly of Acrobat Reader. Have you actually tried installing the newest version of Acrobat Reader (which is 7)?<<<<<

After I did a factory-setup restoration, the PDF files started running much better but still cause freeze-ups. I now have Adobe Acrobat 6 -- I believe that Adobe Acrobat 7 is not free of charge.

>>>>>>Have you tried using a browser outside of AOL's crap? <<<<<

AOL uses Internet Explorer on my computer.

>>>>>>At the time Dembski withdrew, the time to introduce witnesses had long since passed. Adding a new witness would have done nothing more than delay the procedings<<<<<

I presume that a replacement for Dembski could have been added if the plaintiffs had agreed to it -- the plaintiffs were just not that eager to have Shallit testify. My point was that Dembski's withdrawal did not guarantee that Shallit would not testify.

>>>>>FTE, being the publisher of the main book used by those trying to push Intelligent Design on the schools cannot claim that they were unaware that their book would figure into the procedings.<<<<<<

Before FTE received the subpoena, FTE had no reason to believe that its position was much different from that of other ID book publishers, the only difference being that the Dover school board happened to pick FTE's book.

>>>>>>In fact, according to the denial of their motion, they had six months in which they were aware of the case, and that the prosecution would make use of "Of Pandas and People."<<<<<<<

Wrong. The plaintiffs' attorneys must have planned their strategy in secret. FTE was supposed to know what was going on by following the news, but I doubt that anything in the news said that the plaintiffs were going to attack the FTE book in particular. And even if that had been in the news, FTE was not responsible for knowing it.

>>>>>>They had to know, from the beginning, that this trial might have an affect on their book sales, given that if ID is not allowed in the classroom, public schools are not going to shell out for "Of Pandas adn People."<<<<<<

But this did not give FTE any special right to intervene, because other publishers of ID books were in the same position. Would publishers of bibles automatically have a right to intervene in a lawsuit over a public-school course in the bible as literature?

>>>>>Apparently you didn't read the order.<<<<<<

I read the whole order.

>>>>>He most obviously DID follow the rules.<<<<<<

He did not follow the rules. The rules say that he is supposed to consider the "totality of circumstances," but he did not consider the following circumstances: (1) there was no new material for discovery, as the book was central to the case; (2) FTE apparently did not want to bring in new witnesses, but just wanted to bring back withdrawn witnesses, and (3) there was a whopping 3-4 months between the filing of the motion to intervene and the start of the trial. He also falsely stated that having "purely economic" interests in the case is a reason for denying intervention, but FRCP Rule 24 actually indicates the opposite: "..... when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction....." That sounds like a purely economic interest to me.

>>>>>YOU just don't like the outcome.<<<<<

And you accept his reasoning because you do like the outcome. And you will never concede that Judge Jones might have done something wrong, because you think that he is perfect.

<<<<<<< >> It was just one book about ID -- there are many books about ID. Is Darwinism necessarily a religious concept just because Kenneth Miller's book "Finding Darwin's God" discusses Darwinism from a religious perspective?<<
How many ID books do NOT refer to "Of Pandas and People," Larry?<<<<<<

There are lots of books on ID -- why do you assume that I have read all of them, or even any of them?

>>>>>>"Of Pandas and People" is the cusp child of the PR transition of Creationism into Intelligent Design, and it demonstrates beyond all of the gameplaying from the IDists, the true origins of the ID movement. It is not just A book on ID.<<<<<<<

That is just a conspiracy theory of Barbara Forrest -- Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box probably did more to popularize ID than the Pandas book ever did. And are you saying that the plaintiffs would have had grounds to attack Of Pandas and People even if the book had not been chosen by the school board, just because the book is supposedly central to ID? Anyway, none of what you are saying was grounds for denying FTE's motion to intervene.

>>>>>>You need to lookup the difference between "potential loss of sales" vs. "loss of potential sales."<<<<<<

What in the hell is the difference?

>>>>>>All FTE has to do is alter where it targets it advertizing, which business does every day. The problem, apparently, is that they haven't developed a business model that doesn't involve them suckling exclusively at the public teat.<<<<<<

So why didn't Judge Jones say that in his denial of the motion to intervene?

<<<<<<>> In retrospect, the Dover defendants' failure to appeal shows that FTE's interests were not adequately protected by those defendants. Giving an intervention applicant the right to file an independent appeal is a strong reason for granting intervention if there is any reasonable basis for doing so. <<
Once again, nothing more than assertion on your part.<<<<<<<

So you are saying that the defendants' failure to appeal was not a failure to protect FTE's interests?

<<<<<<>> John West of the Discovery Institute correctly observed,
"Given Judge Jones' explicit refusal to allow FTE to present a defense in the Dover case, his condemnation of FTE's textbook was grotesque."
<<

You mean the Discovery Institute whose witnesses all withdrew from the case?<<<<<<

That is a blatant ad hominem attack that was obviously intended as an attempt to duck the obvious truth of what West said.

We don't even know exactly why Dembski withdrew from the case. Court documents suggest that he might have withdrawn because of Judge Jones' outrageous insistence that he submit the draft manuscript materials for the future book The Design of Life -- Dembski threatened to quit for that reason. That reason makes real sense, unlike the reason you gave -- that he quit to prevent Shallit from testifying.

The more I learn about the case, the worse Judge Jones looks. He is worse than just an activist judge.

>>>>>>But West's beliefs about the case are a) no more impartial than yours and b) no more correct than yours.<<<<<<

So only your beliefs are impartial and correct.

<<<<<>> So how does the second sentence above negate my interpretation of the first sentence? The second sentence is just an affirmation of the first sentence (the key word is "therefore"). <<
Most importantly it shows that you lack the ability to actually comprehend what is written. You see, Larry, the SC in this paragraph is validating the previous judges' decisions about exclusion of the expert witnesses.<<<<<<

For the umpteenth time: The SC did not merely state that the district judge did not abuse his discretion -- the SC agreed with the decision to exclude the expert witnesses. It seems that you cannot comprehend the difference.

<<<<<<>> One thing that was not considered in Edwards v. Aguillard was whether expert testimony would illuminate the public's perception as to whether something is a government endorsement of religion (as opposed to illuminating the purposes of public officials). In determining that public perception, judges are supposed to put themselves in the position of an "objective" or "reasonable" observer. But how much is this "objective" ("reasonable") observer supposed to know? The Dover opinion says .......

A whole swath of still more irrelevances that have previously been addressed.<<<<<

Wrong. This issue was never addressed before in this blog.

<<<<<>> As for whether ID has a scientific basis, there is no constitutional separation of bogus science and state. <<
There is a separation between teaching science and non-science in a science class. <<<<<<

That is not something for the courts to decide.

>>>>>>Your proclamation of your own supposed "legal genius" is grounds enough for your failure of a legal history to be brought into the conversation, remember you brought it into this conversation, not me.<<<<<<

I don't know who first brought up the smog impact fee cases, but I do know who is harping on them.

>>>>>The "facts" that you present are mostly little nuggets of truth with a thick coating of assertion on your part. Your "arguments" are purely nothing but assertion with only the thinnest veneer of miscontrued and misread quotes to support them.<<<<<

At least I make arguments and back them up with quotes and facts, so there is something for others to argue against. People like you who just make unsupported assertions are like that infamous federal district-court judge in Los Angeles, TJ "Mad" Hatter, who was in the habit of issuing decisions with no opinion at all, leaving the losing parties with no basis for appeal (he was the judge in the first of my smog impact fee lawsuits).

Sunday, June 18, 2006 6:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

> A lot of people regard Judge Jones as some kind of hero. <

He did his job competently. Have you ever done a job competently?

> I don't see how you can say that protection from unreasonable search and seizure is not a kind of right to privacy. <

It is a right to a specific kind of privacy, not all. Let's try this: All A are B. Not all B are A.

> If it is a long article, there should be no presumption that I have read all of it <

If you have not read all of an article. Don't link to it to try to support your case.

> and there should be no presumption that I have read any of the links on a linked page unless it is obvious that reading a link on the linked page is necessary to correctly interpret the linked page. <

You never correctly interpret anything. Why not try to just read before interpreting. You have to crawl before you can walk.

> If this is a problem for you, I will add a disclaimer whenever l link to a page and do not read the whole page or all the links it contains. <

Why not just read something or don't link to it?

> I believe that Adobe Acrobat 7 is not free of charge. <

As with many of your beliefs, you are wrong.


>>>>>>Have you tried using a browser outside of AOL's crap? <<<<<

> AOL uses Internet Explorer on my computer. <

That is not what he means. Launch Internet Explorer and use AOL only for the dialup connection. Then you will not have it contaminated with AOL's links and add-ons.

> I presume that a replacement for Dembski could have been added if the plaintiffs had agreed to it <

Why should they?

> My point was that Dembski's withdrawal did not guarantee that Shallit would not testify. <

It didn't guarantee it. It made it quite probable.

> Before FTE received the subpoena, FTE had no reason to believe that its position was much different from that of other ID book publishers <

Yes they did: "the Dover school board happened to pick FTE's book."

> The plaintiffs' attorneys must have planned their strategy in secret. <

Duh! At football games do the coaches let the opposing coaches in on their strategy?

> I doubt that anything in the news said that the plaintiffs were going to attack the FTE book in particular. <

Unless they actually read the news instead of just linking to it.

> I read the whole order. <

But instead of going by what it said, you tried to "interpret" it.

> you will never concede that Judge Jones might have done something wrong, because you think that he is perfect. <

Judge Jones is not perfect. You have just failed to show us (Show Me?) that he has done something wrong. You have made pronouncements and given misinterpreted evidence, but you have shown nothing.

> There are lots of books on ID -- why do you assume that I have read all of them, or even any of them? <

We no longer assume that you have read anything.

> What in the hell is the difference? <

The answer is probably over your head.

> So why didn't Judge Jones say that in his denial of the motion to intervene? <

It is not the responsibility of Judge Jones to see that FTE has an effective business plan.

> So you are saying that the defendants' failure to appeal was not a failure to protect FTE's interests? <

Since the defendant was not FTE, why would they have an obligation to protect FTE's interests?

> That is a blatant ad hominem attack <

You still don't seem to understand what ad hominem means!

The obvious and rational reason is that Dumbski quit to prevent Shallit from testifying. It didn't guarantee that Shallit would not testify but it made it highly improbable.

> The more I learn about the case, the worse Judge Jones looks. <

But you don't seem to be learning more. You are just confirming your prejudices with new interpretations.

> He is worse than just an activist judge. <

I don't see where he has been activist. He is not making new law in his judgments.

> So only your beliefs are impartial and correct. <

His point was that your beliefs are neither impartial or correct.

> This issue was never addressed before in this blog. <

Is it not being addressed now?

> That is not something for the courts to decide. <

Why not? Show me.

> I don't know who first brought up the smog impact fee cases <

You did. When they show you to be an idiot (already otherwise proven) and a legal incompetent, you want to drop all mention of them.


> At least I make arguments <

Pronouncements are not arguments.

> and back them up with quotes <

Which you don't understand.

> and facts <

Opinions.

> People like you who just make unsupported assertions are like that infamous federal district-court judge in Los Angeles, TJ "Mad" Hatter <

Your claim that there was anything wrong with Judge Hatter is an unsupported assertion. Any competent judge would have laughed you out of court, as he did.

Larry, You need to understand yourself a little better as we understand you and your delusions. Why don't you ask Bill Carter for help on this? He seems to understand you very well. I'm sure that your real brother, Dave, would be more than willing to help.

Sunday, June 18, 2006 10:19:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Joke of the day -- two examples of "breathtaking inanity" (a term coined by Judge Jones).

1st example -- an excerpt from the play "The Three Sisters" by Anton Chekhov:

VERSHININ. You've such a splendid healthy Russian climate here. Forest, river. . . and birches here too. Charming, modest birches, I love them better than any other trees. It's nice to live here. The only strange thing is that the railway station is fifteen miles away. . . . And no one knows why it's so.

SOLYONY. I know why it is. [They all look at him.] Because if the station had been near it would not have been so far, and if it is far, it's because it's not near.

[An awkward silence.]

TUZENBAKH. He's fond of his joke, Vassily Vassilyevitch.

===============================

2nd example --

Bill Carter(an alias of Ed Brayton?) wrote in a comment on another thread ( June 07, 2006 4:54:21 PM ) --

"The more incompetent someone is in a particular area, the less qualified that person is to assess anyone's skill in that space, including their own. When one fails to recognize that he or she has performed poorly, the individual is left assuming that they have performed well. As a result, the incompetent will tend to grossly overestimate their skills and abilities." -- Scott Granneman

Sunday, June 18, 2006 7:01:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In The Urbanness said ( 6/18/2006 10:19:00 AM ) --

<<<<<<> A lot of people regard Judge Jones as some kind of hero. <
He did his job competently.<<<<<<<<

Even if he did his job competently (and I have presented much evidence here to the contrary), is that any reason to worship him? On the Panda's Thumb and Dispatches blogs, one commenter called him a "H.E.R.O.," another said that he should be nominated for the SC and another said that he should run for President.

<<<<<<> I don't see how you can say that protection from unreasonable search and seizure is not a kind of right to privacy. <
It is a right to a specific kind of privacy, not all.<<<<<<<

That is why I called it a "kind" of right to privacy -- to make that clear. But it would not take much of an activist judge to declare that the 4th Amendment prohibits laws against abortion. The judge could say that the term "seizure" is not limited to taking physical possession but could also mean taking control, and so a law against abortion would then be a violation of the 4th Amendment right of pregnant women to be "secure in their persons" against governmental "seizure" of control of their fetuses for the purpose of preventing abortion. For good measure, the judge could add that the 14th Amendment subjects the states to this limitation of governmental power. That kind of reasoning would not be much of a stretch compared to the reasoning that has been used in Commerce Clause cases. There is the "Dormant Commerce Clause" which I mentioned, which is not even in the Constitution, but the courts have said that this imaginary clause generally prohibits the states from burdening interstate commerce without the consent of Congress. Also, the Commerce Clause has been interpreted as giving Congress authority over anything that could be even remotely conceived as having any connection to interstate commerce, which means just about everything. Congress even assumed that this clause gave it authority to prescribe prison sentences for bus and cab drivers who transport females across state lines for the purpose of evading state parental notification/consent laws for abortions! CJ John "Ump" Roberts (I nicknamed him "Ump" because of his use of baseball analogies in his confirmation hearings) even used the Commerce Clause to argue against providing federal protection for a threatened toad whose "misfortune" happened to be that it lived in only one state. Anyway, large parts of our Constitution are unchanged because the Constitution is broadly interpreted and not because the Founders had crystal balls that enabled them to foresee such things as environmental problems and electronic communications. It is impossible to be a pure "originalist." Also, the founding fathers would not have been happy living under all of our principles (particularly the principle of equality for all, not just rich white males), so why should we be happy living under all of their principles?

>>>>>If you have not read all of an article. Don't link to it to try to support your case.<<<<<

Some webpages are very long and may contain dozens of links, and I am not going to read all of that stuff if I just want to quote or paraphrase one small part. I will just add a disclaimer saying that I have not read everything.

>>>>>>You never correctly interpret anything.<<<<<

False. My interpretations are always the only correct interpretations unless I admit that other interpretations are possible.

<<<<<> I presume that a replacement for Dembski could have been added if the plaintiffs had agreed to it <
Why should they?<<<<<<

It all depends on how eager they were to have Shallit testify.

<<<<<> My point was that Dembski's withdrawal did not guarantee that Shallit would not testify. <
It didn't guarantee it. It made it quite probable.<<<<<<

But that does not mean that that was the reason why Dembski withdrew. I found a more likely reason -- Dembski was pissed off at Judge Jones' demand that he submit draft materials for the unpublished book The Design of Life. Judge Jones said in a page 9 footnote on his denial of FTE's motion to intervene: "It was only after Dembski apparently subjected The Design of Life to a premature release by including it in his March 30, 2005 expert report, as previously noted, that the various machinations which led to his termination commenced." Part of those machinations was, of course, Judge Jones' demand that Dembski submit the draft materials for the book. Also, Judge Jones gave in this footnote another justification for FTE's delay in seeking intervention -- FTE thought that its interests would be protected as long as Dembski was an expert witness, and then Dembski withdrew.

<<<<<<> Before FTE received the subpoena, FTE had no reason to believe that its position was much different from that of other ID book publishers <
Yes they did: "the Dover school board happened to pick FTE's book."<<<<<<<

What reason did FTE have for believing that the court was going to make the book a central issue in the case? Was Judge Jones maybe going to rule that ID was OK but that the school board had to choose a different book?

<<<<<<> The plaintiffs' attorneys must have planned their strategy in secret. <
Duh! At football games do the coaches let the opposing coaches in on their strategy?<<<<<<

Thanks for agreeing that FTE had no way of knowing that its book was going to be central to the case.

<<<<<< > I doubt that anything in the news said that the plaintiffs were going to attack the FTE book in particular. <
Unless they actually read the news instead of just linking to it.<<<<<<

But you agreed that the plaintiffs' strategy was secret and therefore was not in the news! And FTE was not required to follow the news about the case, though of course it was in FTE's best interests to do so. The laws are very stringent about requiring that people be formally notified of pending legal action against them -- normally notification by publication in a newspaper is allowed only if a defendant's whereabouts are unknown. When I sued the federal government and California, I could not just serve the summons by certified mail -- I had to pay a private professional process server to personally serve the summons upon the government offices. BTW, the county sheriff, which normally provides service of process, refused to serve summons upon state and federal defendants!

<<<<<<<> I read the whole order. <
But instead of going by what it said, you tried to "interpret" it.<<<<<<<

Interpreting what they read is something that is done by people who are not stupid. When Jones said that the "totality of circumstances" was supposed to be considered in determining the timeliness of a motion to intervene, I observed that he failed to consider the following circumstances: (1) the subpoena was the first evidence of a real need to intervene, (2) no new material for discovery, (3) no new witnesses, and (4) a long time until the start of courtroom testimony. When he said that FTE's "purely economic" interest in the case was not grounds for granting intervention, I checked FRCP Rule 24(a), "Intervention of Right," shown here in its entirety:

(a) Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute of the United States confers an unconditional right to intervene; or (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties.

So for a non-statutory "intervention of right," FRCP Rule 24(a) mentions only "an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action," and such an interest is typically (though not always) economic in nature. So nonstatutory "interventions of right" actually tend to be restricted to economic interests, contrary to what Judge Jones said about "purely economic" interests! Furthermore, though Rule 24(a) requires that the application to intervene be "timely," Rule 24(a), unlike Rule 24(b), "Permissive Intervention," does not require consideration of the issue of trial delay (Rule 24(b) says, "In exercising its discretion the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties."). Under Rule 24(a), a valid reason for intervention of right could arise at any time during the trial -- for example, if the plaintiffs had not subpoenaed FTE but it became clear late in the trial that FTE's book had become a major issue, FTE could have then made a "timely" motion to intervene.

I presume that now you are going to tell me that I did not understand what Rule 24 says.

<<<<<<<> you will never concede that Judge Jones might have done something wrong, because you think that he is perfect. <
Judge Jones is not perfect. You have just failed to show us (Show Me?) that he has done something wrong.<<<<<<<<

I just did.

<<<<<<<> There are lots of books on ID -- why do you assume that I have read all of them, or even any of them? <
We no longer assume that you have read anything.<<<<<<<

Who are "we"? Why do you presume to speak for others? You remind me of the time that the Lone Ranger and Tonto were surrounded by hostile Indians and the Lone Ranger told Tonto, "it looks like we are in big trouble," and Tonto auswered, "what do you mean, 'we,' paleface?"

Anyway, that is the way I like it -- people not condemning me for not having read something that I never claimed to have read.

<<<<<> What in the hell is the difference? <
The answer is probably over your head.<<<<<<<

"Probably"? Does that mean that I could have a point?

Anyway, if you understand the difference, then why don't you explain it to me?

<<<<<<> So why didn't Judge Jones say that in his denial of the motion to intervene? <
It is not the responsibility of Judge Jones to see that FTE has an effective business plan.<<<<<<

And my joke was over your head. I was obviously being sarcastic. I was suggesting that Judge Jones could have told FTE that it would have had no reason to seek intervention if it did not have an ineffective business plan of overdependence on sales to public schools.

<<<<<<> He is worse than just an activist judge. <

I don't see where he has been activist. He is not making new law in his judgments.<<<<<<<

Judges -- even non-activist ones -- are always making new law. It is called case law, as distinguished from constitutional law, statutory law, common law, etc.. Case law often has the same effect as other kinds of law. Judges -- even non-activist ones -- are always "legislating from the bench."

<<<<<<> This issue was never addressed before in this blog. <
Is it not being addressed now?<<<<<<

Rob Serrano falsely stated that the issue was addressed before.

<<<<<<<> I don't know who first brought up the smog impact fee cases<
You did. When they show you to be an idiot (already otherwise proven) and a legal incompetent, you want to drop all mention of them.<<<<<<

These cases are not appropriate for the purpose of ad hominem attacks.

<<<<<<<> At least I make arguments<
Pronouncements are not arguments.<<<<<<

At least I say more than just "you're wrong" or "you're ignorant" -- I give people something that they can argue against -- which they often fail to do.

<<<<<> and back them up with quotes<
Which you don't understand.
> and facts <
Opinions.<<<<<<<

But at least these quotes and facts give others something to respond to.

<<<<<> People like you who just make unsupported assertions are like that infamous federal district-court judge in Los Angeles, TJ "Mad" Hatter <
Your claim that there was anything wrong with Judge Hatter is an unsupported assertion.<<<<<<

An attorney acquaintance who was a partner in a Century City law firm told me that "Mad" Hatter had a bad reputation for issuing decisions without opinions.

>>>>>Why don't you ask Bill Carter for help on this? I'm sure that your real brother, Dave, would be more than willing to help<<<<<

That is the fake Dave, not my real brother Dave, and I never heard of this Bill Carter character. Fake Dave and Bill Carter could be aliases of Ed Brayton. Ed Brayton could also be using other false names on this blog.

Sunday, June 18, 2006 7:35:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>>>>Actually, Larry, yes, it is the logical conclusion that if you are providing a link that you have read what is containing on the linked page.<<<<<<

>>>Wrong. If it is a long article, there should be no presumption that I have read all of it, and there should be no presumption that I have read any of the links on a linked page unless it is obvious that reading a link on the linked page is necessary to correctly interpret the linked page. If this is a problem for you, I will add a disclaimer whenever l link to a page and do not read the whole page or all the links it contains.<<<

When someone posts a link or makes a specific reference, that person is responsible for verifying that the entirety of the contents of that reference is supportive of or neutral to their argument ased on that reference, unless they specifically say otherwise. Only a fool references something without at least scanning the document, only a liar still references after discovering that the document does not support what they say it does. Which are you, the fool or the liar?

As far as you go, Larry, I make the following assumptions. First, that the text you actually quote doesn't support your argument. This is true about half the time. Second, the quote is taken out of the immediate context, and that when in context, it destroys your argument. This is accurate about 3/4 of the time. Finally, I assume that you have not read the whole document, and that the rest of the document makes you look like an utter imbecile. This is almost always true, except for certain sources known to be biased towards your position.

>>>>>>All you should need to do is copy the linked PDF file to your computer and open it directly of Acrobat Reader. Have you actually tried installing the newest version of Acrobat Reader (which is 7)?<<<<<

>>>After I did a factory-setup restoration, the PDF files started running much better but still cause freeze-ups. I now have Adobe Acrobat 6 -- I believe that Adobe Acrobat 7 is not free of charge.<<<

Correct, but irrelevant. Adobe Reader 7, which permits you to read but not edit PDF files, is free of charge. You have no apparent need for the full Adobe Acrobat. In fact, I wonder if you even have Adobe Acrobat 6 - it's much more likely that you have Adobe Reader 6.

>>>I Googled "intentionalism" and turned up nothing except Holocaust studies. Wikipedia has no entry for "intentionalism" but does have entries for "original intent" and "textualism." "Intentionalism" is not even a buzzword in the field of constitutional interpretation.<<<

From the first lines of the Wiki on "Original intent"
Original intent
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Intentionalism redirects here. For the historiographical theory, see functionalism versus intentionalism.

Clearly, intentionalism is strongly associated with original intent with respects to constitutional interpretation. Intentionalism is also referenced several times on the Wikipedia page for "Originalism"

A quick Googlesearch revealed that 3 of the first five hits gave defintions for intentionalism that closely matched the definition Rob implied. The third hit was a Wiki entry regarding Holocaust theories, the fourth was the Wiki page on "Original intent" which is clearly the same as what Rob was referring to. Original intent and intentionalism are namesreferring to the same movement of contitutionl interpretation.

Also, the first page of the Googlesearch returned hits showing it as a term used in literature, holocaust theory, psychology, and other fields. On the second page, the fifth entry, Intentionalism vs. Textualism--why Literary Criticism matters for the Supreme Court, dealt specifically with the Supreme Court and intentionalist interpretation of the Constitution.

Oops, it looks like Larry got hoist by his own petard once again.

>>>We don't even know exactly why Dembski withdrew from the case. Court documents suggest that he might have withdrawn because of Judge Jones' outrageous insistence that he submit the draft manuscript materials for the future book The Design of Life -- Dembski threatened to quit for that reason. That reason makes real sense, unlike the reason you gave -- that he quit to prevent Shallit from testifying.<<<

Actually, Larry is getting close to the real reason the defense was forced into withdrawing Dembski. The real reason: it wasn't that Dembski or his handlers didn't want Dr. Shallit to testify, it was to prevent Dr. Shallit from having access to The Design of Life, as the Texas court had ordered. Also, the original claim was that Dembski was withdrawn so that he couldn't be cross-examined - the claim that it was to prevent Shallit from testifying was secondary and speculative. However, if Dembski couldn't be cross-examined and if Dr. Shallit couldn't be introduced as a rebuttal witness for Dembski, then The Design of Life is no longer discoverable information and it therefore becomes protected from the Texas court order. So the original claims were in fact accurate, though not as detailed as here.

Sunday, June 18, 2006 7:57:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>That is the fake Dave, not my real brother Dave, and I never heard of this Bill Carter character. Fake Dave and Bill Carter could be aliases of Ed Brayton. Ed Brayton could also be using other false names on this blog.<<<

There is a Dave Fafarman who has been posting on the internet since 1997. He has on several occasions posted his address, which is in California. His known interests and profession match those given by Larry as that of Larry's brother, Dave.

Through some geneaological search engines, I have determined that the Dave Fafarman living at the given address has a brother Larry Fafarman, who lives at the same address as a Larry Fafarman that attempted to sue the State of California and the EPA over the smog impact fee.

Last Thursday, the same Dave Fafarman noted in the preceding paragraphs sent me an email confirming that he is indeed the same Dave Fafarman who posted here and on Ed's blog claiming to be Larry's brother and whom Larry denied as being his brother. I know this is the same Dave Fafarman because he sent it from one of the email accounts that dated back to at least 1999, in response to an email I sent the day after he first appeared here.

Larry, you are a liar. Of course, we all knew this, but this is additional proof. Give up the charade.

Sunday, June 18, 2006 8:29:00 PM  
Blogger Rob Serrano said...

larry fafarman said...

>> Rob Serrano said ( 6/17/2006 10:10:06 PM ) --

>>>>>>You didn't read the Wikipedia entry, did you? From there we read about "theories that sought to derive meaning from the constitutional text alone ("textualism"), or from the intentions of the originators ("intentionalism")." In other words you're just flat-out wrong. <<<<<< <<

>> I Googled "intentionalism" and turned up nothing except Holocaust studies. Wikipedia has no entry for "intentionalism" but does have entries for "original intent" and "textualism." "Intentionalism" is not even a buzzword in the field of constitutional interpretation. <<

And yet intentionalism is mentioned in the article on originalism. Maybe if you would bother to actually do the research you like to claim you do, you might have seen it. Big shock that you didn't.

>> >>>>You had no basis for your supposed attempt at sarcasm <<<<<< <<

>> I did. A lot of people regard Judge Jones as some kind of hero. <<

You didn't, since you've yet to show where anyone here has said that. I consider Judge Jones a competent jurist who, against the assumptions of the IDists, who were sure that he would rule for ID because of his religion, actually followed the law instead of ideological loyalty.

>> >>>>>>The 4th amendment, while explicitly protecting you from having the government search your home and seize your assets without having shown probable cause to do so, does not explicitly grant you a "right to privacy."<<<<<< <<

>> I don't see how you can say that protection from unreasonable search and seizure is not a kind of right to privacy. <<

The fourth amendment provides no explicit mention of a right to privacy at all. The limits placed on search and seizure are not blanket protections on privacy. You can still be surveilled even without a warrant. The policing agencies can, as far as the Fourth Amendment is concerned track what phone numbers you call without a warrant. In other words, Larry, the Fourth Amendment doesn't really grant a right to privacy.

>> >>>>>>Actually, Larry, yes, it is the logical conclusion that if you are providing a link that you have read what is containing on the linked page.<<<<<< <<

>> Wrong. If it is a long article, there should be no presumption that I have read all of it, and there should be no presumption that I have read any of the links on a linked page unless it is obvious that reading a link on the linked page is necessary to correctly interpret the linked page. If this is a problem for you, I will add a disclaimer whenever l link to a page and do not read the whole page or all the links it contains. <<

Why don't you just place a disclaimer on your site that any references cited have probably not been read at all except possibly for the purposes of cherry picking quotes, which is the only the owner is capable of providing supporting evidence for what he says? Seriously, Larry, do you really expect people to take you seriously when you make use references that you have obviously not read. Especially when you then argue that you shouldn't be expected to have read them?

>> >>>>>>All you should need to do is copy the linked PDF file to your computer and open it directly of Acrobat Reader. Have you actually tried installing the newest version of Acrobat Reader (which is 7)?<<<<< <<

>> After I did a factory-setup restoration, the PDF files started running much better but still cause freeze-ups. I now have Adobe Acrobat 6 -- I believe that Adobe Acrobat 7 is not free of charge. <<

No, Larry, Acrobat Reader is, and always has been, free. The full Acrobat, which can actually create pdf files, is the one that costs money.

>> >>>>>>Have you tried using a browser outside of AOL's crap? <<<<< <<

>> AOL uses Internet Explorer on my computer. <<

You can still launch IE by itself. AOL just used the IE rendering engine. Or get one of the third-party free browsers out there. Mozilla and Firefox are both free, as is Netscape's browser. The Acrobat installer can install plugins for these browsers.

>> >>>>>>At the time Dembski withdrew, the time to introduce witnesses had long since passed. Adding a new witness would have done nothing more than delay the procedings<<<<< <<

>> I presume that a replacement for Dembski could have been added if the plaintiffs had agreed to it -- the plaintiffs were just not that eager to have Shallit testify. My point was that Dembski's withdrawal did not guarantee that Shallit would not testify. <<

It made it much less likely that Shallit would testify. Remember that Shallit was called as a rebuttal witness to Dembski. Per the defense motion to exclude Shallit, he was introduced as a witness on the timeline for rebuttal, not primary witnesses. And before you try to make assertions as the motives of the prosecution, let me point out that if the defense had wanted to introduce Dembski's work as evidence, they could have, in which case Shallit would have been allowed to testify in rebuttal.

>> >>>>>FTE, being the publisher of the main book used by those trying to push Intelligent Design on the schools cannot claim that they were unaware that their book would figure into the procedings.<<<<<< <<

>> Before FTE received the subpoena, FTE had no reason to believe that its position was much different from that of other ID book publishers, the only difference being that the Dover school board happened to pick FTE's book. <<

That's laughable on it face, Larry. The initial filings from the prosecution said that they were going to be making use of "Of Pandas and People." Even if it hadn't, news reports that there was going to be a trial about a move to introduce "Intelligent Design" into the curriculum of the Dover Area School District. FTE must have known that they had sold a shipment of the book to the DASD. If they did not know this, they probably should be out of business.

>> >>>>>>In fact, according to the denial of their motion, they had six months in which they were aware of the case, and that the prosecution would make use of "Of Pandas and People."<<<<<<< <<

>> Wrong. The plaintiffs' attorneys must have planned their strategy in secret. FTE was supposed to know what was going on by following the news, but I doubt that anything in the news said that the plaintiffs were going to attack the FTE book in particular. And even if that had been in the news, FTE was not responsible for knowing it. <<

"Pandas" was mentioned in the initial filings. They could not NOT have known that it would be mentioned. They had a responsibility to keep up on things, a responsibility that they chose to abdicate until late.

I also notice that you are actively trying to deflect attention from the fact that the intervention request was denied on all the grounds on which that status can be granted and Judge Jones goes into depth on each of them. In other words, just the same old dishonesty from Larry.

>> >>>>>>They had to know, from the beginning, that this trial might have an affect on their book sales, given that if ID is not allowed in the classroom, public schools are not going to shell out for "Of Pandas adn People."<<<<<< <<

>> But this did not give FTE any special right to intervene, because other publishers of ID books were in the same position. Would publishers of bibles automatically have a right to intervene in a lawsuit over a public-school course in the bible as literature? <<

Actually, Larry, if you had read the denial at all, you would have seen that FTE tried to claim that its financial interests might be harmed by the case and that they should therefore be allowed to intervene.

>> >>>>>Apparently you didn't read the order.<<<<<< <<

>> I read the whole order. <<

It's painfully obvious that you did no such thing and that you are lying now. If you had read the order, you wouldn't be spending so much time harping on the one issue, since the FTE failed on all four counts to convince the judge that it should be allowed to intervene in the case. Timeliness may have been the first, but it is far from the only factor. How about the fact they FTE was unable to show that, even if they had filed promptly, met the criteria for being allowed to intervene in the case at all?

>> >>>>>He most obviously DID follow the rules.<<<<<< <<

>> He did not follow the rules. The rules say that he is supposed to consider the "totality of circumstances," but he did not consider the following circumstances: (1) there was no new material for discovery, as the book was central to the case; (2) FTE apparently did not want to bring in new witnesses, but just wanted to bring back withdrawn witnesses, and (3) there was a whopping 3-4 months between the filing of the motion to intervene and the start of the trial. He also falsely stated that having "purely economic" interests in the case is a reason for denying intervention, but FRCP Rule 24 actually indicates the opposite: "..... when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction....." That sounds like a purely economic interest to me. <<

He most definitely followed the rules. His rules stated that "[W]here a party takes reasonable steps to protect its interest, its application should
not fail on timeliness grounds." He found that FTE had not provided a compelling argument that it had actually taken "reasonable steps to protect its interest." He even provides his rationale for this. The denial motion is quite interesting to read, Larry, maybe you should take a couple of minutes and do so.

As for FRCP Rule 24 how about we complete your mangled quote: "when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties."

>> >>>>>YOU just don't like the outcome.<<<<< <<

>> And you accept his reasoning because you do like the outcome. And you will never concede that Judge Jones might have done something wrong, because you think that he is perfect. <<

Still with the assertion that I think Judge Jones is perfect. As of yet, you've offered nothing to support this claim beyond your usual huffing and puffing. Assertion, once again, Larry, is not truth.

Beyond that, though, Larry, Judge Jones has argued his points and done so in a rational and thoughtful manner. You have provided nothing but dishonesty and bald-faced assertions with badly cherry-picked quotations that largely fail to stand up to even the lightest of scrutiny. But please keep it up, I've never had the priviledge of seeing a would-be character-assassin shoot himself in the face.

>> <<<<<<< >> It was just one book about ID -- there are many books about ID. Is Darwinism necessarily a religious concept just because Kenneth Miller's book "Finding Darwin's God" discusses Darwinism from a religious perspective?<<
How many ID books do NOT refer to "Of Pandas and People," Larry?<<<<<< <<

>> There are lots of books on ID -- why do you assume that I have read all of them, or even any of them? <<

In other words, once again, Larry, you have proven that you haven't the foggiest notion of what you speak. Does the dissonance ever hit you, Larry, that you keep pissing and moaning that I'm only arguing for argument's sake, but you are actively and vigorously defending a concept you have no real knowledge of? Or does the incongruity of your position ever even come across your little mind?

I mean it's not really a big shock that you lack knowledge of what you speak. You have shown this lack time and time again. And you virulent hostility towards being called out on your lack of knowledge would seem to indicate that you are aware, at least subconsciously, of this inconsistency. Not that I really care, mind you. Just thought you'd want to know why you have earned the reputation that you have.

>> >>>>>>"Of Pandas and People" is the cusp child of the PR transition of Creationism into Intelligent Design, and it demonstrates beyond all of the gameplaying from the IDists, the true origins of the ID movement. It is not just A book on ID.<<<<<<< <<

>> That is just a conspiracy theory of Barbara Forrest -- Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box probably did more to popularize ID than the Pandas book ever did. And are you saying that the plaintiffs would have had grounds to attack Of Pandas and People even if the book had not been chosen by the school board, just because the book is supposedly central to ID? Anyway, none of what you are saying was grounds for denying FTE's motion to intervene. <<

The popularity of DBB is your own assertion, once again. Behe, though did testify and did not come off looking particularly good. Pandas is definitely THE most cited ID book. DBB is referenced only occasionally. IC is not even a central claim of the ID movement, being, instead a claim thrown out when everything else has been exhausted.

"Pandas" was evidence of the religious origins of ID. The fact that earlier drafts of the book explicitly referred to "Creation" which was changed to "Design" after the Edwards decision. That's not conspiracy theory, it's fact, your lack of knowledge notwithstanding.

>> >>>>>>You need to lookup the difference between "potential loss of sales" vs. "loss of potential sales."<<<<<< <<

>> What in the hell is the difference? <<

The difference in the loss of a sale that you had already made (cancelled orders, or preople already interested in your product deciding not to purchase your product, for example), versus the loss of a sale that you might have made in the future (the officials responsible for purchasing textbooks decides not to purchase your book). There is no guarantee that, even if Kitzmiller had gone in favor of the defense that any school district in any part of the United States was going to choose to use Pandas as a district textbook. All FTE lost was potential customers, and even then that's a tough, evolve or die situation since FTE, as a company, simply needs to redirect it advertising budget. If FTE is unable/unwilling to redirect its resources appropriately, that really is not a concern of the judge.

>> >>>>>>All FTE has to do is alter where it targets it advertizing, which business does every day. The problem, apparently, is that they haven't developed a business model that doesn't involve them suckling exclusively at the public teat.<<<<<< <<

>> So why didn't Judge Jones say that in his denial of the motion to intervene? <<

If you had read the denial like you claimed you had, you would have noticed that he did.

>> <<<<<<>> In retrospect, the Dover defendants' failure to appeal shows that FTE's interests were not adequately protected by those defendants. Giving an intervention applicant the right to file an independent appeal is a strong reason for granting intervention if there is any reasonable basis for doing so. <<
Once again, nothing more than assertion on your part.<<<<<<< <<

>> So you are saying that the defendants' failure to appeal was not a failure to protect FTE's interests? <<

Yes, that is EXACTLY what I'm saying. Adequately representing a third-party's interests does not mandate that I then chain myself to appealing a ruling. You are asserting obligations that do not really exist. The defendants were adequately representing their own interests, and FTEs interests were not found to be distinct from or insufficiently represented by the defendants.

>> <<<<<<>> John West of the Discovery Institute correctly observed,
"Given Judge Jones' explicit refusal to allow FTE to present a defense in the Dover case, his condemnation of FTE's textbook was grotesque." <<

You mean the Discovery Institute whose witnesses all withdrew from the case?<<<<<< <<

>> That is a blatant ad hominem attack that was obviously intended as an attempt to duck the obvious truth of what West said. <<

Until you exhibit the ability to actually use terms in a sentence, you should give very careful consideration to not making yourself look foolish by repeatedly using them. West and the DI didn't think enough of the case to stay on it -- their involvement basically seems to have ended with the withdrawl of its star witnesses -- and yet he deems himself qualified to make pronouncements on the matter.

>> We don't even know exactly why Dembski withdrew from the case. Court documents suggest that he might have withdrawn because of Judge Jones' outrageous insistence that he submit the draft manuscript materials for the future book The Design of Life -- Dembski threatened to quit for that reason. That reason makes real sense, unlike the reason you gave -- that he quit to prevent Shallit from testifying. <<

Well, you're wrong again, Larry. But the asserted conspiracy of people who would retaliate against Dembski for testifying is as outlandish as most of YOUR claims. On the other hand, Dembski has demonstrated, over and over again, an extreme dislike of having his pronouncements questioned by anyone. It is no great stretch to conclude that his real reason for withdrawing was a) his fear of being embarrassed on the stand, and/or b) the DI's fear of having their star embarrassed on the stand.

>> The more I learn about the case, the worse Judge Jones looks. He is worse than just an activist judge. <<

Activist judge is a meaningless phrase. But then your claim above is every bit as meaningless. You concluded sometime ago that Judge Jones was evil and you've spent most of your time obsessing on him ever since.

>> >>>>>>But West's beliefs about the case are a) no more impartial than yours and b) no more correct than yours.<<<<<< <<

>> So only your beliefs are impartial and correct. <<

Non sequitur. Both you and West have vested something into this post-trial fiddle-faddle. You both start with a conclusion and then try to fit evidence around it. You have yet to supply a real legal scholar who agrees with your conclusions, and neither has West. Given that his organization has the same well-earned reputation for rampant dishonesty that you have, it's no great suprise that you agree.

>> <<<<<>> So how does the second sentence above negate my interpretation of the first sentence? The second sentence is just an affirmation of the first sentence (the key word is "therefore"). <<
Most importantly it shows that you lack the ability to actually comprehend what is written. You see, Larry, the SC in this paragraph is validating the previous judges' decisions about exclusion of the expert witnesses.<<<<<< <<

>> For the umpteenth time: The SC did not merely state that the district judge did not abuse his discretion -- the SC agreed with the decision to exclude the expert witnesses. It seems that you cannot comprehend the difference. <<

For the umpteenth time plus one. The SC merely stated that the district judge did not abuse his discretion. The SC thereby affirmed the district judge's decision to exclude that evidence. It seems that you cannot comprehend the difference.

>> <<<<<<>> One thing that was not considered in Edwards v. Aguillard was whether expert testimony would illuminate the public's perception as to whether something is a government endorsement of religion (as opposed to illuminating the purposes of public officials). In determining that public perception, judges are supposed to put themselves in the position of an "objective" or "reasonable" observer. But how much is this "objective" ("reasonable") observer supposed to know? The Dover opinion says .......

A whole swath of still more irrelevances that have previously been addressed.<<<<< <<

>> Wrong. This issue was never addressed before in this blog. <<

What was addressed is your penchant for going on tangents of no real intellectual or argumentative value. It's part of your penchant for piling on the bullshit in order to hide your lack of an argument. It's been addressed before.

All you do in your latest claim is assert irrelevancies.

>> <<<<<>> As for whether ID has a scientific basis, there is no constitutional separation of bogus science and state. <<
There is a separation between teaching science and non-science in a science class. <<<<<< <<

>> That is not something for the courts to decide. <<

You can keep asserting this all you like. But where are you supposed to go to address your grievances when ideologues push religious teaching onto the public schools?

In cases like this, yes it is. Here, you have a non-science trying to proclaim that it is science and should therefore be taught in science class. Activist school boards, ignoring the actual scientific community, then try to push their ideological abortions onto the public school classrooms. The only redress in cases like Kitzmiller is for the courts to decide.

>> >>>>>>Your proclamation of your own supposed "legal genius" is grounds enough for your failure of a legal history to be brought into the conversation, remember you brought it into this conversation, not me.<<<<<< <<

>> I don't know who first brought up the smog impact fee cases, but I do know who is harping on them. <<

YOU brought them up in your usual crowing about the legal genius you like to claim you are. I bring them up when you try to refer back to them.

>> >>>>>The "facts" that you present are mostly little nuggets of truth with a thick coating of assertion on your part. Your "arguments" are purely nothing but assertion with only the thinnest veneer of miscontrued and misread quotes to support them.<<<<< <<

>> At least I make arguments and back them up with quotes and facts, so there is something for others to argue against. <<

No, Larry, you do none of these things, as I have already pointed out. You don't even read the references you cite.

>> People like you who just make unsupported assertions are like that infamous federal district-court judge in Los Angeles, TJ "Mad" Hatter, who was in the habit of issuing decisions with no opinion at all, leaving the losing parties with no basis for appeal (he was the judge in the first of my smog impact fee lawsuits). <<

So you want to believe that he's "infamous" because he ruled against you. That really is pathetic, Larry. You can't even back up your claims about the judge, though, so they can't be given any more weight than any of your other claims and assertions.

Suggestion, Larry, go back to Community College and take a Critical Thinking course. It won't make you suddenly honest or credible, but it might at least help you see why your arguments fail so readily.

Sunday, June 18, 2006 8:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

Thanks for your support ViU but I am back now and will take over. Feel free to chime in anytime you want to.

Larry bleated...

> Even if he did his job competently (and I have presented much evidence here to the contrary) <

No. You have made many unsupported pronouncements to the contrary.

> But it would not take much of an activist judge to declare that the 4th Amendment prohibits laws against abortion.....<

But of course, Judge Jones is not an activist judge so why are you throwing in this red herring?

> My interpretations are always the only correct interpretations unless I admit that other interpretations are possible. <

More proof that you are delusional.

> Thanks for agreeing that FTE had no way of knowing that its book was going to be central to the case. <

And a basketball coach has no way of knowing which hoop the opposing team will try to toss the ball through? A baseball coach has no idea which direction the runner will go after hitting the ball?

> But you agreed that the plaintiffs' strategy was secret and therefore was not in the news! <

There is a difference between knowing the other team's strategy and knowing the rules of the game. FTE apparently didn't know the rules any better than you do.

> The laws are very stringent about requiring that people be formally notified of pending legal action against them <

There was no legal action against them.

> When I sued the federal government and California <

And lost both cases.

> I could not just serve the summons by certified mail <

True.

> I had to pay a private professional process server to personally serve the summons upon the government offices. <

False. You just didn't know your options.

> BTW, the county sheriff, which normally provides service of process, refused to serve summons upon state and federal defendants! <

An explanation of why would go over your head.

> Interpreting what they read is something that is done by people who are not stupid. <

It is sometimes done by people who are not stupid and other times by people like yourself who are.

When Jones said that the "totality of circumstances" ...

You still believe that repeating a falsehood will make it true.

> I presume that now you are going to tell me that I did not understand what Rule 24 says. <

You obviously don't.

>>> You have just failed to show us (Show Me?) that he has done something wrong.<<<

> I just did. <

No, you failed again. Repetition is not proof.

>>> The answer is probably over your head.<<<

> "Probably"? Does that mean that I could have a point? <

Yes. You may have a point on your head. If you think that statement implied that you had any other point, you need to take a class in English. Maybe you could then get a certificate from a Junior college.

> if you understand the difference, then why don't you explain it to me? <

Because you probably would not understand it and we would be off on another tangent.

> These cases are not appropriate for the purpose of ad hominem attacks. <

Nor are they being used for such. The smog fee cases are only being mentioned to show your ignorance of legal procedure. If you didn't want to bring them up, why did you? You still don't seem to have a clue what ad hominem means.

> At least I say more than just "you're wrong" or "you're ignorant" <

Of course you do.

> I give people something that they can argue against <

How can anyone argue against an unsupported proclamation?

> An attorney acquaintance who was a partner in a Century City law firm told me that "Mad" Hatter had a bad reputation for issuing decisions without opinions. <

He made an unsupported pronouncement and you quoted it making another unsupported pronouncement. He was probably someone who lost in court but probably not as many times as you. He would have been out of a job, like yourself.

>>>>>Why don't you ask Bill Carter for help on this? I'm sure that your real brother, Dave, would be more than willing to help<<<<<

> That is the fake Dave, not my real brother Dave, and I never heard of this Bill Carter character. <

Your continuation of this lie just shows your lack of integrity. You are the fake Dave posting on this blog. The recent posts under your brother's name are from the real Dave. How can you simultaneously say that he is not posting on this blog and at the same time ask your mommy to call him and tell him to stop.

We also know that if you don't know who Bill Carter is, you have an extremely short memory. It is much more logical to believe that you are a pathological liar.

Sunday, June 18, 2006 11:49:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

W. Kevin Vicklund said ( 6/18/2006 07:57:30 PM ) --

>>>>>>When someone posts a link or makes a specific reference, that person is responsible for verifying that the entirety of the contents of that reference is supportive of or neutral to their argument ased on that reference, unless they specifically say otherwise<<<<<

When I quote or cite a reference, I check the vicinity of the quote or citation to make sure that I am not quoting or citing out of context. But if the article is a long one, I do not necessarily read the whole thing, and I often do not read the links provided in the reference. In the future, wherever appropriate I will add to my posts a disclaimer saying that I did not read all of the cited references and/or the references' links. I know it sounds silly that I would have to do this, but that just goes to show how nitpicking some commenters here are.

>>>>>Adobe Reader 7, which permits you to read but not edit PDF files, is free of charge. <<<<<

OK, I checked my files and found that I only have Adobe Reader 6, and not Adobe Acrobat 6. But I am wondering why the latest version, Adobe Reader 7, was not automatically downloaded when I recently accessed a PDF file for the first time after I restored the factory setup on my computer. And Adobe should certainly have cleaned up its bugs by the time it came out with version 6. The 3rd circuit website even gives advice on how to handle the PDF bug called "Error Reading Linearized Hint Data" -- see
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/pdfproblems.htm

>>>>>
From the first lines of the Wiki on "Original intent" --
Original intent
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Intentionalism redirects here. For the historiographical theory, see functionalism versus intentionalism.
<<<<<<

Yes, I noticed that too. But the discussion of functionalism vs. intentionalism was in regard to Holocaust theory, not constitutional interpretation.

>>>>>On the second page, the fifth entry, Intentionalism vs. Textualism--why Literary Criticism matters for the Supreme Court, dealt specifically with the Supreme Court and intentionalist interpretation of the Constitution.<<<<<

This was just a link to a personal blog.

I simply concluded that "intentionalism" is too non-standard for me to use. I will use the term "original intent" instead.

>>>>>>Actually, Larry is getting close to the real reason the defense was forced into withdrawing Dembski. The real reason: it wasn't that Dembski or his handlers didn't want Dr. Shallit to testify, it was to prevent Dr. Shallit from having access to The Design of Life, as the Texas court had ordered......if Dembski couldn't be cross-examined and if Dr. Shallit couldn't be introduced as a rebuttal witness for Dembski, then The Design of Life is no longer discoverable information and it therefore becomes protected from the Texas court order. So the original claims were in fact accurate, though not as detailed as here.<<<<<<

Wrong. Just saying that Dembski withdrew to prevent Shallit from testifying does not even give a clue as to what the real reason probably was -- to protect the confidentiality of the draft materials for The Design of Life. I suspect that what finally caused Dembski to quit was Judge Jones' demand that he submit the draft materials, even though Jones' order did make some feeble attempts to protect the confidentiality of those materials.

From another comment --
>>>>>>Last Thursday, the same Dave Fafarman noted in the preceding paragraphs sent me an email confirming that he is indeed the same Dave Fafarman who posted here and on Ed's blog claiming to be Larry's brother and whom Larry denied as being his brother. <<<<<<

Kevin -- you, Ed Brayton, and perhaps some accomplices are just lying scumbags who will stop at nothing in an effort to discredit me. But you could not succeed even if anyone believed you, because I generally do not ask anyone to take my word for anything -- I provide backup references for most of my stuff. I am just fed up hearing about the fake Dave and the unknown Bill Carter.

Monday, June 19, 2006 1:49:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Rob Serrano said ( 6/18/2006 08:47:36 PM ) --

<<<<<<>> I Googled "intentionalism" and turned up nothing except Holocaust studies. Wikipedia has no entry for "intentionalism" but does have entries for "original intent" and "textualism." "Intentionalism" is not even a buzzword in the field of constitutional interpretation. <<

And yet intentionalism is mentioned in the article on originalism. <<<<<<

I decided -- with good reason -- that "intentionalism" is just too non-standard a term for me to use. I will use "original intent" instead.

<<<<<<>> I did. A lot of people regard Judge Jones as some kind of hero. <<
You didn't, since you've yet to show where anyone here has said that<<<<<<

I showed where people said that elsewhere.

>>>>>>The fourth amendment provides no explicit mention of a right to privacy at all. The limits placed on search and seizure are not blanket protections on privacy.<<<<<<

It is a limited right to privacy.

>>>>>>Why don't you just place a disclaimer on your site that any references cited have probably not been read at all except possibly for the purposes of cherry picking quotes<<<<<

I always check the immediate vicinity of my quote to make sure that I am not quoting out of context. I am not responsible for what the reference says 10,000 words away from my quote.

I give links and/or names for my references. You and other commenters here have had every opportunity to show that I have quoted out of context -- but you usually fail to do so.

>> >>>>>>Have you tried using a browser outside of AOL's crap? <<<<< <<

I have found that one of the problems with reading PDF files is with Adobe Reader itself. The 3rd circuit website even gives advice on how to handle the PDF bug called "Error Reading Linearized Hint Data" -- see
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/pdfproblems.htm

<<<<<>> I presume that a replacement for Dembski could have been added if the plaintiffs had agreed to it -- the plaintiffs were just not that eager to have Shallit testify. My point was that Dembski's withdrawal did not guarantee that Shallit would not testify. <<
It made it much less likely that Shallit would testify.<<<<<<

Even your pal Kevin Vicklund has conceded that preventing Shallit from testifying was probably not the primary reason why Dembski withdrew -- the primary reason was probably to prevent disclosure of the draft materials for The Design of Life.

>>>>>>"Pandas" was mentioned in the initial filings. They could not NOT have known that it would be mentioned.<<<<<<

Well, duh. Of course Pandas was mentioned in the initial filings -- it was part of the factual history of the case. And FTE did not deny being aware of the case and the fact that Pandas was involved in it. But evidence of the great depth of the book's involvement -- the plaintiffs' subpoena of FTE and demand for the draft materials of The Design of Life -- did not come until much later.

>>>>>I also notice that you are actively trying to deflect attention from the fact that the intervention request was denied on all the grounds on which that status can be granted and Judge Jones goes into depth on each of them.<<<<<<

The fact that Jones went into depth on each of the grounds for granting intervenor status does not mean that Jones was right -- obviously.

>>>>>>Actually, Larry, if you had read the denial at all, you would have seen that FTE tried to claim that its financial interests might be harmed by the case and that they should therefore be allowed to intervene.<<<<<<

Yes -- and I pointed out that Jones was mistaken when he said that "purely economic" interests were not grounds for intervention.

>>>>>>If you had read the order, you wouldn't be spending so much time harping on the one issue, since the FTE failed on all four counts to convince the judge that it should be allowed to intervene in the case. Timeliness may have been the first, but it is far from the only factor. <<<<<<

What do you mean, "harping on the one issue"? I considered other issues -- e.g., Jones' incorrect assertion that a "purely economic" interest was not grounds for granting intervention. I pointed out that in the precedents Jones gave of denials of intervention for economic reasons, none of the would-be intervenors had -- unlike FTE -- been directly targeted by the plaintiffs (the subpoenas were proof of that targeting). As for FTE's economic losses being uncertain or speculative, lots of economic interests are like that -- that is no grounds for denying intervention. I pointed out that the defendants' failure to appeal meant that FTE's interests were not adequately defended -- Jones should have considered the possibility that the original board members would be replaced by new members who would decide to not appeal, which was what actually happened. As for the issue of timeliness, I showed that Jones failed to consider several important factors concerning that issue: no new discovery material, no new witnesses, and a long time until the start of courtroom testimony. Once again, Rob, you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

Of all the reasons for denying intervention of right, the one that might have some validity here is that the "applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties" (FRCP Rule 24(a)). But the adequacy of such representation is highly speculative -- the existing parties might fail to adequately represent the interests of the would-be intervenor, and in particular the existing parties might fail to appeal the decision, as happened in the Dover case. Interestingly, FRCP 24(b), permissive intervention, has no such provision regarding the adequacy of representation by existing parties, so the FTE could have been granted permissive intervention if not intervention of right.

Also, I am wondering why the school board's legal representative, the Thomas More Law Center, opposed intervention by the FTE. It seems that the TMLC would have welcomed the FTE's help -- especially considering that intervention by the FTE would probably not have significantly delayed the trial (as I have shown). The TMLC's opposition to FTE's motion to intervene raises serious questions about the sincerity of the TMLC's alleged intentions to represent FTE's interests.

Again, as John West of the Discovery Institute said,
"Given Judge Jones' explicit refusal to allow FTE to present a defense in the Dover case, his condemnation of FTE's textbook was grotesque."

<<<<<<>> For the umpteenth time: The SC did not merely state that the district judge did not abuse his discretion -- the SC agreed with the decision to exclude the expert witnesses. It seems that you cannot comprehend the difference. <<
For the umpteenth time plus one. The SC merely stated that the district judge did not abuse his discretion. The SC thereby affirmed the district judge's decision to exclude that evidence.<<<<<<

For the umpteenth time plus two --
Of course the SC "affirmed" the decision to exclude the expert witnesses. But the SC's affirmation said that the SC agreed with the decision (the SC said that the district court judge had "properly concluded"); the SC did not merely say that the district court judge did not abuse his discretion, i.e., the SC did not say or imply that the SC itself would have or might have made a different decision. Here again is exactly what the SC said:

The District Court, in its discretion, properly concluded that a Monday-morning "battle of the experts" over possible technical meanings of terms in the statute would not illuminate the contemporaneous purpose of the Louisiana Legislature when it made the law. (emphasis added)

>>>>>>What was addressed is your penchant for going on tangents of no real intellectual or argumentative value.<<<<<<

I did not go off on a tangent -- I asked a perfectly legitimate on-topic question, as follows: Even where expert testimony will not illuminate the purposes of public officials, should expert testimony be allowed for the purpose of illuminating the perceptions of the public?

>>>>>Here, you have a non-science trying to proclaim that it is science and should therefore be taught in science class.<<<<<

That is no business of the courts. ("The world must construe according to its wits -- this court must construe according to the law." -- Sir Thomas More, in the play, "A Man for All Seasons")

<<<<<>> I don't know who first brought up the smog impact fee cases, but I do know who is harping on them. <<
YOU brought them up in your usual crowing about the legal genius you like to claim you are. I bring them up when you try to refer back to them.<<<<<<

Wrong. I do not argue here that my opinions carry extra weight because of my experience as a pro se litigant.

>>>>>So you want to believe that he's "infamous" because he ruled against you.<<<<<<

You stupid fathead -- I said that an attorney acquaintance of mine said that this dude had a bad habit of issuing decisions without opinions. Every time I criticize something, you say that my only reason for criticizing is that my side lost. You are so full of shit that it is coming out of your ears. I said a long time ago that I was mostly going to stop responding to you, and I should have stuck to that.

Monday, June 19, 2006 6:12:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

Since Larry's wisdom is spread all over this thread, I would like to condense his arguments with the following quotes:

Larry Fafarman said...

I already explained the connection, moron.
Monday, June 12, 2006 6:56:36 AM

Where did you Darwinist fatheads get this stupid "your side lost, get over it" shit?
Monday, June 12, 2006 12:41:15 PM

BTW, moron,
BTW, dumbo,
Voice In the Urbanass is just a fart.
Monday, June 12, 2006 2:28:47 PM

I never tried to show that, moron.
Monday, June 12, 2006 8:05:59 PM

Voice In the BurblingAss replied --
You are just a big bag of fart gas.
Monday, June 12, 2006 9:24:59 PM

You are full of shit
You are full of shit
liar.
you are so full of shit it is coming out your ears.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006 12:51:58 AM

You are just a bag of hot air.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006 8:54:55 AM

Tell me, moron,
Wednesday, June 14, 2006 2:35:15 PM

No, moron.
you stupid fathead.
Furthermore, moron,
Wednesday, June 14, 2006 6:48:43 PM

You stupid fathead,
Wednesday, June 14, 2006 9:22:56 PM

moron
Wednesday, June 14, 2006 10:06:06 PM

you are just bags of hot air.
You stupid fathead.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006 11:03:23 PM

moron
Your ad hominem attacks against me
Thursday, June 15, 2006 3:53:46 AM

Look, moron,
Can't you ever discuss anything without putting someone down?
I very rarely initiate the insults.
Thursday, June 15, 2006 11:30:04 PM

you have mostly just been saying "you're wrong" or been making ad hominem attacks
Saturday, June 17, 2006 8:06:04 AM

Please get your head out of your ass, urbanass,
Any statement directed at the person rather than the issue is an ad hominem attack
Saturday, June 17, 2006 2:19:41 PM

That is a blatant ad hominem attack
Sunday, June 18, 2006 6:05:46 AM

You stupid fathead
You are so full of shit that it is coming out of your ears.
Monday, June 19, 2006 6:12:08 AM

Monday, June 19, 2006 10:08:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Hey, Voice In the Wilderness, I often get frustrated because my no-deletion policy prevents me from deleting comments that I don't like, so I am entitled to blow off steam once in a while.

Monday, June 19, 2006 1:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> I often get frustrated because my no-deletion policy prevents me from deleting comments that I don't like, so I am entitled to blow off steam once in a while. <

Your no-deletion policy prevents you from deleting comments that show your hypocrisy or lack of understanding. I am amazed that it has lasted this long and predict that at some point, as you continue to lose all of your arguments, you will quietly start deleting posts. Of course you will lie about it when it happens.

That was just to show that while you complain about ad hominem, you are the number one practitioner of them on this blog.

Incidentally you are a pathetic asinine lunatic. (I am trying to catch up but there is so far to go.)

Monday, June 19, 2006 2:05:00 PM  
Blogger Rob Serrano said...

larry fafarman said...

Rob Serrano said ( 6/18/2006 08:47:36 PM ) --

>> <<<<<<>> I Googled "intentionalism" and turned up nothing except Holocaust studies. Wikipedia has no entry for "intentionalism" but does have entries for "original intent" and "textualism." "Intentionalism" is not even a buzzword in the field of constitutional interpretation. <<

And yet intentionalism is mentioned in the article on originalism. <<<<<< <<

>> I decided -- with good reason -- that "intentionalism" is just too non-standard a term for me to use. I will use "original intent" instead. <<

No, Larry, you decided, because you had made a fool of yourself, to change the rules midstream. You did NOT say that you had found "intentionalism" and decided that it was too non-standard a term. You said that you had Googled it and found, in your words: "nothing except Holocaust studies." No amount of "I didn't say that, I said THAT" is going to help you get out of this one, Larry. But again, thanks for pointing out your lack of honesty.

>> <<<<<<>> I did. A lot of people regard Judge Jones as some kind of hero. <<
You didn't, since you've yet to show where anyone here has said that<<<<<< <<

>> I showed where people said that elsewhere. <<

Which is not what people here have said. You really don't know about reading for comprehension, do you?

>> >>>>>>The fourth amendment provides no explicit mention of a right to privacy at all. The limits placed on search and seizure are not blanket protections on privacy.<<<<<< <<

>> It is a limited right to privacy. <<

It is not a protection of privacy at all if you listen to the Strict Constructionists.

>> >>>>>>Why don't you just place a disclaimer on your site that any references cited have probably not been read at all except possibly for the purposes of cherry picking quotes<<<<< <<

>> I always check the immediate vicinity of my quote to make sure that I am not quoting out of context. I am not responsible for what the reference says 10,000 words away from my quote. <<

Yes you are, Larry. Especially when the parts of the reference that you did not read completely contradict what you claim the article says. You only make yourself look foolish, Larry.

>> I give links and/or names for my references. You and other commenters here have had every opportunity to show that I have quoted out of context -- but you usually fail to do so. <<

No, Larry, you have simply failed to understand. You see, the amazing thing about debating (if that is what this can be called) with you is that your arguments are so transparently wrong that most often the references you provide are more than enough to rebut your claims.

>> >>>>>>Have you tried using a browser outside of AOL's crap? <<<<< <<

>> I have found that one of the problems with reading PDF files is with Adobe Reader itself. The 3rd circuit website even gives advice on how to handle the PDF bug called "Error Reading Linearized Hint Data" -- see
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/pdfproblems.htm <<

And the bug is apparently not present in version 7 of Acrobat Reader. This still wouldn't prevent you from saving a local copy and opening Acrobat Reader by itself.

>> <<<<<>> I presume that a replacement for Dembski could have been added if the plaintiffs had agreed to it -- the plaintiffs were just not that eager to have Shallit testify. My point was that Dembski's withdrawal did not guarantee that Shallit would not testify. <<
It made it much less likely that Shallit would testify.<<<<<< <<

>> Even your pal Kevin Vicklund has conceded that preventing Shallit from testifying was probably not the primary reason why Dembski withdrew -- the primary reason was probably to prevent disclosure of the draft materials for The Design of Life. <<

First off, Larry, I've never met Kevin Vicklund so he can hardly be called my pal. Second, you will recall that you rather vehemently insisted that he was wrong when he said that and then proceeded to call him names. Funny how you are now relying on someone you say has no credibility, and are supporting yourself with statements made that you insisted were wrong. But I guess this is just another demonstration of the blinding dishonesty that is Larry.

>>>>>>"Pandas" was mentioned in the initial filings. They could not NOT have known that it would be mentioned.<<<<<<

>> Well, duh. Of course Pandas was mentioned in the initial filings -- it was part of the factual history of the case. And FTE did not deny being aware of the case and the fact that Pandas was involved in it. But evidence of the great depth of the book's involvement -- the plaintiffs' subpoena of FTE and demand for the draft materials of The Design of Life -- did not come until much later. <<

So you've refuted your own claim that they didn't know what was going on. Thank you, Larry, for that one probably brief, moment of clarity from you. Any company that saw that its product was going to be a part of a trial like this would be looking after their own interests from the beginning. FTE knew that this case was going to concern the status of ID, they knew their book would figure into the case, they knew of the potential effects on their projected sales to public schools FROM THE BEGINNING. If they were so concerned about the case, they would have had representation in court from day one.

>> >>>>>I also notice that you are actively trying to deflect attention from the fact that the intervention request was denied on all the grounds on which that status can be granted and Judge Jones goes into depth on each of them.<<<<<< <<

>> The fact that Jones went into depth on each of the grounds for granting intervenor status does not mean that Jones was right -- obviously. <<

Except that his arguments in the denial are far more compelling than your twaddle. Just because you keep repeating the same thing over and over again does not mean that you are right -- obviously.

>> >>>>>>Actually, Larry, if you had read the denial at all, you would have seen that FTE tried to claim that its financial interests might be harmed by the case and that they should therefore be allowed to intervene.<<<<<< <<

>> Yes -- and I pointed out that Jones was mistaken when he said that "purely economic" interests were not grounds for intervention. <<

Except that FTE's claims of financial were not and are not a primary result of this case. The primary result of this case was a determination of whether ID could pass muster as a science and not purely religious apologetics. FTE's stake is only a result of the fact that their book's sales might potentially be hurt of ID is disallowed from being taught in the classroom. They do not get to intervene just because their book sales might be affected by the ruling. If that was the case, many if not most trials of this sort would have several parties seeking to intervene. The plaintiffs were not seeking an injunction against FTE to prevent them from selling the book. FTE was and is still free to push the book through whatever channels they want. "Of Pandas and People" is still being sold, is it not. It's not illegal for Private Schools to use the book as a textbook, and Home Schooler can have the book given to them as a textbook. Churches and individuals are still free to purchase it if they wish. The point is, Larry, that it's not like FTE had only one venue in which to distribute the book and this trial would close off that venue. FTE, rather, was looking into expanding into a new market (public school classrooms) and had made projections based on them getting into that market in at least some districts. This ruling would only effect those potential new customers, but still only indirectly.

>> >>>>>>If you had read the order, you wouldn't be spending so much time harping on the one issue, since the FTE failed on all four counts to convince the judge that it should be allowed to intervene in the case. Timeliness may have been the first, but it is far from the only factor. <<<<<< <<

>> What do you mean, "harping on the one issue"? <<

Until I brought up the other parts of his argument, you concentrated solely on the timeliness issue. And even on that you didn't really seem to know what you were talking about.

>> I considered other issues -- e.g., Jones' incorrect assertion that a "purely economic" interest was not grounds for granting intervention. <<

His assertion was correct. "I might not be able to make a few sales" is not a compelling reason to allow intervention and you've provided no argument that it is.

>> I pointed out that in the precedents Jones gave of denials of intervention for economic reasons, none of the would-be intervenors had -- unlike FTE -- been directly targeted by the plaintiffs (the subpoenas were proof of that targeting). <<

A subpoena is not evidence of any sort of "targetting," Larry. You, with your supposed legal brilliance should know that. A subpoena basically says that the recipient is believed to have information pertinent to the case and that the serving party wants it. In this case it was FTE's book. Notice, though, that no action is proposed against FTE, nor has it been. This trial was not about "Of Pandas and People." ID was not being used against FTE, "Of Pandas and People" was used as evidence against ID. There's a big difference, which you seem to be incapable of grasping.

>> As for FTE's economic losses being uncertain or speculative, lots of economic interests are like that -- that is no grounds for denying intervention. <<

It's not grounds for allowing it, either. Remember, the onus is on the party seeking to intervene to prove that they should be so allowed. FTE failed to demonstrate that it should be allowed to intervene in this case. Their saying that they might lose some sales is not what can be considered compelling evidence.

>> I pointed out that the defendants' failure to appeal meant that FTE's interests were not adequately defended -- Jones should have considered the possibility that the original board members would be replaced by new members who would decide to not appeal, which was what actually happened. <<

All you've done is assert that the lack of an appeal is indicative of lack of adequate representation. One is not mandated to automatically seek appeals when they lose in court. For this case, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, which concerned the validity of the assertion that ID is a scientific theory, FTE's interests were adequately represented by the defense. In fact, FTE's interest in this case were the same as the defense's, both wanted to show that ID was a science and should, therefore be teachable in public school science classes. FTE wanted to make the case more about their book than about ID. Do you see the difference, here, Larry? Or should I explain it to you s-l-o-w-l-y so you can understand it? For the purposes of this case, the results of which were to be the determination of whether ID was science or not, the Defendants and FTE had the same interests. FTE was unable to prove that they had distinct interests [from the defendants] that were not being adequately represented [by the defendants]. Whether a party appeals or not is not an indication of whether they adequately represented anybody's interest.

>> As for the issue of timeliness, I showed that Jones failed to consider several important factors concerning that issue: no new discovery material, no new witnesses, and a long time until the start of courtroom testimony. <<

Actually, Larry, all you've shown is that you didn't actually read the denial or that you fail to realize that your "important factors" are irrelevant. Remember this part of the denial: "[W]here a party takes reasonable steps to protect its interest, its application should
not fail on timeliness grounds." Waiting several months to even show an interest in the proceedings is not what most reasonable people would consider taking "reasonable steps." From the denial:
"The Third Circuit has instructed that in determining whether an intervention motion is timely, three factors (“Mountain Top factors”) should be considered: “(1) the stage of the proceedings; (2) the prejudice that delay may cause the parties; and (3) the reason for the delay." Of John Buell of FTE: "Within one month of Plaintiffs filing the instant action and as noted, Buell was aware of its existence, as well as the fact that Pandas formed part of the lawsuit. At that juncture, as well as over the next few months, Buell received press or media reports concerning more specific details of the case." And again, from the same document:
"We are in agreement with the parties that the advanced stage of this litigation renders FTE’s application untimely as it will cause prejudice, delay, and
added expense to the parties. In that regard, we conclude that application of the Mountain Top factors, which we previously delineated, to this case demonstrates that FTE’s Motion is untimely."

Judge Jones has argued his case, you seem unable to actually read what was written. Again, though, that is par for the course for you.

>> Once again, Rob, you are wrong, wrong, wrong. <<

Actually that would be you, Larry. But then your grasp of the concepts of "right" and "wrong" seem to be extremely tenuous, at best.

>> Of all the reasons for denying intervention of right, the one that might have some validity here is that the "applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties" (FRCP Rule 24(a)). But the adequacy of such representation is highly speculative -- the existing parties might fail to adequately represent the interests of the would-be intervenor, and in particular the existing parties might fail to appeal the decision, as happened in the Dover case. <<

Once again, Larry, appealing a decision is not the indicator of whether you received adequate legal representation, so you can just keep on dreaming there.

More importantly, though, intervention requires that the the intervenor have distinct interests in the case that are not being represented by either side. FTE's interest in this case was the same as the defendants: to show ID as having some scientific merit. There is no speculative aspect here beyond what you assert. FTE simply could not show that they had an interest in the case that was distinct from the defendants' interest.

>> Interestingly, FRCP 24(b), permissive intervention, has no such provision regarding the adequacy of representation by existing parties, so the FTE could have been granted permissive intervention if not intervention of right. <<

Actually, oh ye who never read, Judge Jones actually addresses the permissive intervention in the denial motion (FTE had sought that, too).

[quote]
"Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b), upon timely application, anyone may be
permitted to intervene in an action when the applicants’ claim or defenses in the main action have a question of law or fact in common. Whether to grant permissive intervention is within the Court’s discretion, but in making this
determination, courts consider whether the proposed intervenors will add anything to the litigation. Kitzmiller, No. 04-CV-2688, 2005 WL 578974, at *6; see also Hoots, 672 F.2d at 1136. Additionally, if the interests of the proposed intervenors are already represented in the litigation, courts deny such application to intervene. Hoots, 672 F.2d at 1136."
[/quote]

Notice that sentence in there where it says "Additionally, if the interests of the proposed intervenors are already represented in the litigation, courts deny such application to intervene." In other words, Larry, since FTE could not show themselves to have interests distinct from the other parties in the case, Judge Jones denied the request.

>> Also, I am wondering why the school board's legal representative, the Thomas More Law Center, opposed intervention by the FTE. It seems that the TMLC would have welcomed the FTE's help -- especially considering that intervention by the FTE would probably not have significantly delayed the trial (as I have shown). <<

An intervenor is not "help" to any side in the case, Larry. The intervenor has asserted themselves to be an independent party to the trial with distinct and competing interests. If the intervenor is there basically to help one side or the other, then they should have been denied the intervention request. FTE would be defending their book, which would have meant that they would very likely have cross-examined witnesses for both the prosecution and the defense. Do you understand this now, Larry?

Again from the denial: "Plaintiffs and Defendants argue that the advanced state of the litigation renders FTE’s application untimely as it will cause prejudice, delay, and added expense to the parties." Is that really so hard for you to understand, Larry?

>> The TMLC's opposition to FTE's motion to intervene raises serious questions about the sincerity of the TMLC's alleged intentions to represent FTE's interests. <<

Pure assertion once again. You have not, and cannot support your assertion, though, so you will probably just keep repeating it over and over again in the hopes that it will someday not be as false.

>> Again, as John West of the Discovery Institute said,
"Given Judge Jones' explicit refusal to allow FTE to present a defense in the Dover case, his condemnation of FTE's textbook was grotesque." <<

John West's opinions on legal matters, even if he wasn't a DI Senior Fellow with the CSC, are irrelevant. He's not a lawyer, he's a political scientist. The two are not the same.

>> <<<<<<>> For the umpteenth time: The SC did not merely state that the district judge did not abuse his discretion -- the SC agreed with the decision to exclude the expert witnesses. It seems that you cannot comprehend the difference. <<
For the umpteenth time plus one. The SC merely stated that the district judge did not abuse his discretion. The SC thereby affirmed the district judge's decision to exclude that evidence.<<<<<< <<

>> For the umpteenth time plus two --
Of course the SC "affirmed" the decision to exclude the expert witnesses. But the SC's affirmation said that the SC agreed with the decision (the SC said that the district court judge had "properly concluded"); the SC did not merely say that the district court judge did not abuse his discretion, i.e., the SC did not say or imply that the SC itself would have or might have made a different decision. Here again is exactly what the SC said:

The District Court, in its discretion, properly concluded that a Monday-morning "battle of the experts" over possible technical meanings of terms in the statute would not illuminate the contemporaneous purpose of the Louisiana Legislature when it made the law. (emphasis added) <<

The key here is "in its discretion." The SC is addressing whether the lower courts had erred in barring expert testimony. They are affirming that whether to allow expert testimony is at the discretion of the judge. They are not handing down a mandate, contrary to what you would like to believe. Judge Jones felt that the expert testimony would be useful, and so he allowed it, at his discretion.

>> >>>>>>What was addressed is your penchant for going on tangents of no real intellectual or argumentative value.<<<<<< <<

>> I did not go off on a tangent -- I asked a perfectly legitimate on-topic question, as follows: Even where expert testimony will not illuminate the purposes of public officials, should expert testimony be allowed for the purpose of illuminating the perceptions of the public? <<

It is NOT a relevant questiong because it has nothing to do with the case.

>> >>>>>Here, you have a non-science trying to proclaim that it is science and should therefore be taught in science class.<<<<< <<

>> That is no business of the courts. <<

When there is a grievance of this sort, you better believe that it is the business of the courts. Your assertion to the contrary notwithstanding. We teach science in science classes. Religious apologetics have absolutely NO place in the science class. Since the school board decided to follow their ideology rather than actual science, it becomes a matter for the courts.

>> ("The world must construe according to its wits -- this court must construe according to the law." -- Sir Thomas More, in the play, "A Man for All Seasons") <<

ROFL. You do realize that a play is not a legally binding document, don't you? Oh sorry, forgot who I was talking to for a second there.

>> <<<<<>> I don't know who first brought up the smog impact fee cases, but I do know who is harping on them. <<
YOU brought them up in your usual crowing about the legal genius you like to claim you are. I bring them up when you try to refer back to them.<<<<<< <<

>> Wrong. I do not argue here that my opinions carry extra weight because of my experience as a pro se litigant. <<

You do and you have.

>> >>>>>So you want to believe that he's "infamous" because he ruled against you.<<<<<< <<

>> You stupid fathead -- I said that an attorney acquaintance of mine said that this dude had a bad habit of issuing decisions without opinions. <<

Ad hominem. You did NOT mention this unnamed attorney acquaintance of yours in the comment I responded to. Maybe you should learn how to read what you write. Or do even you have difficulty stomaching the bullshit that you spout so regularly.

As to this "attorney acquaintance" of yours, I don't buy it. But then, your reputation for truthfulness is hardly what I would call "sterling."

>> Every time I criticize something, you say that my only reason for criticizing is that my side lost. <<

I find it convenient that every time someone says something you disagree with, it's always them, and never you. Maybe you should just consider the possibility that if everyone around you thinks you're an ass, maybe it's you.

You have invective to hurl at anyone who disagrees with you, Larry, and that is NOT the sign of someone with a strong argument. It is a sign of weakness. If a judge rules against you its because they're just a bad judge. If someone shoots down your arguments you start calling them scum. Maybe, just maybe, the problem lies with you.

>> You are so full of shit that it is coming out of your ears. I said a long time ago that I was mostly going to stop responding to you, and I should have stuck to that. <<

Once again, the usual signs of someone with a very weak argument, playing the Eric Cartman "Screw you guys, I'm going home" game.

Once again, it just shows you credibility to be Zero, just a bit higher than your integrity.

Monday, June 19, 2006 3:05:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In the Wilderness said --

>>>>>Your no-deletion policy prevents you from deleting comments that show your hypocrisy or lack of understanding.<<<<<<

Wrong. I get frustrated because the policy prevents me from deleting others' comments that contain unsupported assertions, specious arguments, ad hominem attacks against me (particularly concerning my smog impact fee lawsuits), and that deliberately ignore arguments and facts that I have presented. I often feel obligated to answer these comments to prevent them from misleading people.

Compare this to the way I was treated on Panda's Thumb and Ed Brayton's Dispatches from the Culture Wars. Ed banned me completely because of my literal interpretation of Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure -- the same interpretation that I made on this blog. On Panda's Thumb, Herr Fuhrer Esley Welsberry (pronounced Velsberry) banned further discussion of my idea that the Ohio Board of Education should have heard public comments on the evolution lesson plan before -- not after -- voting. His reason? -- he was not aware of any complaints from the Ohio commenters! And I was banned from PT for no reason.

>>>>>Incidentally you are a pathetic asinine lunatic.<<<<<<

So who is the one who doesn't make insults? The pot's calling the kettle black.

Monday, June 19, 2006 3:39:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>Even your pal Kevin Vicklund has conceded that preventing Shallit from testifying was probably not the primary reason why Dembski withdrew -- the primary reason was probably to prevent disclosure of the draft materials for The Design of Life.<<<

Yes. As Rob originally pointed out, the primary reason Dembski was withdrawn was to prevent him from being cross-examined - specifically, per my argument, to prevent Dr. Shallit from having access to The Design of Life. And, as Rob speculated, a possible secondary motive was to prevent Dr. Shallit from testifying as a rebuttal witness. Rob did not claim preventing Dr. Shallit from testifying to be the primary reason - that is your own invention, Larry.

>>>Kevin -- you, Ed Brayton, and perhaps some accomplices are just lying scumbags who will stop at nothing in an effort to discredit me. But you could not succeed even if anyone believed you, because I generally do not ask anyone to take my word for anything -- I provide backup references for most of my stuff. I am just fed up hearing about the fake Dave and the unknown Bill Carter.<<<

You discredit yourself. I just offer up the proof. As far as people believing me, you've been caught in lie after lie. You have yet to catch me in even a single lie. The evidence is all on my side, as is the reputation. I also back up my statements with evidence, and unlike you, I make sure that I accurately report the context of my references.

You are the lying scumbag, Larry, and almost everyone who comes here quickly realizes that to be a faact.

Monday, June 19, 2006 3:41:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>On Panda's Thumb, Herr Fuhrer Esley Welsberry (pronounced Velsberry) banned further discussion of my idea that the Ohio Board of Education should have heard public comments on the evolution lesson plan before -- not after -- voting. His reason? -- he was not aware of any complaints from the Ohio commenters!<<<

No, the reason was that he determined that your argument - already on the edge of topicallity - had become off-topic, as the Comment Integrity Policy clearly states is his right to decide. In fact, he even posted a warning that any further discussion would be considered off-topic and removed, but you posted while he was still composing the warning. He actually gave you more warning than he has given me and a lot of other PT regulars when we started to stray. The fact that he debunked your argument doesn't mean that that was the reason he stopped that thread of discussion - it merely means that he got the last word in.

>>>And I was banned from PT for no reason.<<<

You were banned for posting as other commentators and threatening to post as other comentators. Your wilful belief that you were banned prior to that is your own damned fault - you were told several times that you hadn't been banned. Besides, prior to the events that led to the banning of a certain IP address in late January, you had violated Rules 1, 2, 4, and 6 of the Comment Integrity Policy, multiple times for several of the rules.

Monday, June 19, 2006 3:58:00 PM  
Blogger Rob Serrano said...

larry fafarman said...

>> Voice In the Wilderness said --

>>>>>Your no-deletion policy prevents you from deleting comments that show your hypocrisy or lack of understanding.<<<<<< <<

Wrong. I get frustrated because the policy prevents me from deleting others' comments that contain unsupported assertions, specious arguments, ad hominem attacks against me (particularly concerning my smog impact fee lawsuits), and that deliberately ignore arguments and facts that I have presented. I often feel obligated to answer these comments to prevent them from misleading people. <<

So you get frustrated because your policy prevents you from deleting your own posts? And you still have not demonstrated that you know what ad hominem actually means, since you keep using it incorrectly.

>> Compare this to the way I was treated on Panda's Thumb and Ed Brayton's Dispatches from the Culture Wars. Ed banned me completely because of my literal interpretation of Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure -- the same interpretation that I made on this blog. On Panda's Thumb, Herr Fuhrer Esley Welsberry (pronounced Velsberry) banned further discussion of my idea that the Ohio Board of Education should have heard public comments on the evolution lesson plan before -- not after -- voting. His reason? -- he was not aware of any complaints from the Ohio commenters! And I was banned from PT for no reason. <<

You were banned for several very good reasons, which have been listed here several times already. You just seem to be incapable of admitting that you are responsible for the results of your own actions.

>> >>>>>Incidentally you are a pathetic asinine lunatic.<<<<<< <<

>> So who is the one who doesn't make insults? The pot's calling the kettle black. <<

Voice hasn't claimed he never calls names. That's what YOU claim about yourself, often in the same comment where you have already spent a good amount of space calling names. You just really can't see how big of a hypocrite you are, can you, Larry?

Monday, June 19, 2006 4:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> ad hominem attacks against me (particularly concerning my smog impact fee lawsuits) <

You are continuing to pretend that this is happening. There have been no ad hominem attacks against you concerning your smog impact fee lawsuits. Pointing out your utter failure in these suits is not an ad hominem attack.

> and that deliberately ignore arguments and facts that I have presented. <

You pretend that people have not addressed these while they do so repeatedly.

> I often feel obligated to answer these comments to prevent them from misleading people. <

You answer these comments to attempt to mislead people.

> Ed banned me completely because of my literal interpretation of Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure <

False. This even disagrees with your own prior statements.

> Herr Fuhrer Esley Welsberry <

Another ad hominem.

> And I was banned from PT for no reason. <

Other than the ones that have been given repeatedly.

> I am just fed up hearing about the fake Dave and the unknown Bill Carter. <

Then why did you invent the fake Dave? The posts by the real Dave here are quite informative. As for the "unknown" Bill Carter, it has already been proven that he went to the same schools that you did and lived two blocks away. Your brother claims that you have known him for 49+ years. Your denial of knowing him just shows that you are a pathalogical liar.

Monday, June 19, 2006 4:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Bill Carter said...

> As for the "unknown" Bill Carter, it has already been proven that he went to the same schools that you did and lived two blocks away. Your brother claims that you have known him for 49+ years. Your denial of knowing him just shows that you are a pathalogical liar. <

I indeed went to the same junior high school, high school, and two colleges with Larry although he was a year or two behind. He is now centuries behind. Going to all of these schools enabled me to spell "pathological".

It is quite entertaining to see that Larry never questions the identity of Thomas Jefferson, Sherlock Holmes, the Wright Brothers, Charles Darwin, John Browning, Oliver Winchester, and others, but in my case he has to always put a question mark.

As far as I know, I do exist but we might be in parallel universes. Larry doesn't seem to be on Earth at this time.

Monday, June 19, 2006 5:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

In checking back older posts for a different reason I found more examples of the ad hominems that Larry despises:

"It's like this, you stupid, feeble-minded cretin."
Larry, Thursday, May 25, 2006 7:18:24 AM

"why don't you drop dead and go to hell"
Larry, Friday, May 26, 2006 1:59:06 AM

"Shut up."
Larry, Thursday, May 25, 2006 5:35:58 AM

"You stupid, feeble-minded birdbrain."
"You lying piece of shit"
Larry, Sunday, May 28, 2006 12:29:32 AM

"those goddamsonuvabitchhell bastards"
Larry, Monday, May 29, 2006 12:54:49 AM

Monday, June 19, 2006 9:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

Impersonations

Larry has also been the number one practitioner of impersonations. While we know about those that got him thrown off of PT, the ones here are all the more interesting. They seem to have started when someone still unknown impersonated his brother, Dave. This set him off and he decided to join in:

On Thursday, May 25, 2006, Larry started the topic "More shenanigans from Ed Brayton". In this was a letter that he wrote pretending that it came from Dave.

This opened the floodgates.

On Friday, May 26, 2006 8:34:32 AM, Larry posted as voiceinwilderness.

On Friday, May 26, 2006 9:00:11 AM, he posted as Ed Brayton.

On Friday, May 26, 2006 9:01:52 AM, he posted as Bill Carter, claiming to be Ed Brayton.

On Friday, May 26, 2006 9:03:02 AM, he posted as voiceinwilderness, again claiming to be Ed Brayton.

On Friday, May 26, 2006 9:05:26 AM, and Friday, May 26, 2006 9:05:26 AM, he again posted as Ed Brayton.

On Friday, May 26, 2006 12:47:30 PM, in a response to the real Bill Carter, you said: "No, I am not posting under your name. You are just a lying piece of shit."

On Friday, May 26, 2006 1:54:18 PM, in one of the most comical impersonations, he posted again as Ed Brayton. He said "I'm not Larry Fafarman. Can't you read? I'm Ed Brayton.

On Saturday, May 27, 2006 6:56:48 PM, he posted as Dave Fafarman claiming that he (Dave) had also been banned from Ed's blog. At the same time his real brother Dave was posting on Ed's blog.

On Monday, May 29, 2006 12:02:04 AM and Monday, May 29, 2006 12:05:45 AM, it went full circle. Someone impersonated Larry!

Larry doesn't have a clue how his impersonations are so easily detected. Let's not let him in on it and we can hopefully be entertained by more of his amateurish attempts.

Monday, June 19, 2006 10:05:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Rob Serrano said ( 6/19/2006 03:05:46 PM ) --

>>>>>>No, Larry, you decided, because you had made a fool of yourself, to change the rules midstream. You did NOT say that you had found "intentionalism" and decided that it was too non-standard a term. You said that you had Googled it and found, in your words: "nothing except Holocaust studies."<<<<<<<

There was no change in the rules. I did a very quick investigation -- just enough to satisfy myself that "intentionalism" is not a commonly used term in constitutional interpretation. Go ahead and use the term if you want to -- I am not going to.

>>>>>First off, Larry, I've never met Kevin Vicklund so he can hardly be called my pal.<<<<<

You still don't understand what sarcasm is.

>>>>>>It is not a protection of privacy at all if you listen to the Strict Constructionists.<<<<<

When the cops break down the door of a strict constructionist without knocking, then that strict constructionist will know what "protection of privacy" means.

>>>>>>FTE's stake is only a result of the fact that their book's sales might potentially be hurt of ID is disallowed from being taught in the classroom. They do not get to intervene just because their book sales might be affected by the ruling. If that was the case, many if not most trials of this sort would have several parties seeking to intervene.<<<<<<

Which was exactly my point -- before FTE got the subpoena and before Dembski got the demand for the draft materials for a future FTE book, FTE's interest in the case was not much different from that of other publishers of ID books -- the only difference was that the Dover school board happened to choose one of FTE's books. The subpoena and the demand for the draft materials are what made the difference. In the end, FTE's Of People and Pandas was named 74 times in the Dover opinion, about half the time in regard to the book's contents and about half the time in regard to the board's actions in choosing it. A large part of the opinion was basically a negative book review of Pandas. I challenge you to find another case where intervention was denied but where the would-be intervenor was so greatly involved in the final decision. Again, as John West of the Discovery Institute said, "Given Judge Jones' explicit refusal to allow FTE to present a defense in the Dover case, his condemnation of FTE's textbook was grotesque."
Also, there is no general requirement that future financial losses be certain or highly predictable; otherwise, many -- probably most -- lawsuits concerning potential loss of future earnings could never be brought. Also, it is significant that allowing intervention by the FTE in this case would not have created financial liability for anyone, so the court could not possibly have had to deal with the issue of establishing an amount of indemnification.

>>>>>>A subpoena is not evidence of any sort of "targetting," Larry. You, with your supposed legal brilliance should know that. A subpoena basically says that the recipient is believed to have information pertinent to the case and that the serving party wants it.<<<<<

In this case, the subpoena was evidence of targeting. 'The plaintiffs were not just seeking minor information -- they were seeking all the information they could get about the Of People and Pandas book -- manuscripts, emails, phone records, memos, and what have you. The plaintiffs also sought the draft materials for the unpublished book The Design of Life. The plaintiffs' great demands for information from FTE treated FTE as though it were a defendant, and so FTE should have been admitted to the case as a defendant -- i.e., an intervenor.

>>>>>Notice, though, that no action is proposed against FTE, nor has it been.<<<<<<

You don't have to be sued in order to apply for intervention -- obviously!

>>>>>>All you've done is assert that the lack of an appeal is indicative of lack of adequate representation.<<<<<

It is -- it showed a lack of diligence in pursuing the case. Anyway, this is a real dilemma which you refuse to recognize -- what if existing parties appear to be adequately representing the interests of a would-be intervenor but later crap out? The effects of denying intervention are irreversible if it later turns out that the interests of the would-be intervenor were not adequately represented. Also, there is a big difference between minimal representation and the best representation -- FTE was obviously the best qualified to defend its own book. Why was FTE less entitled than the school board to the best representation? If your aim is to win your case, then only the best representation is "adequate." Yet another problem is that a denial of intervention is not appealable. So you see, Rob, that things are not as simple as you pretend.

>>>>>One is not mandated to automatically seek appeals when they lose in court.<<<<<<

I never said that. I just said that the failure to appeal showed that FTE's interests were not adequately defended and that the defendant -- or should I say the new defendant, the new school board -- showed no interest in defending those interests.

BTW, an appeal can be a requirement. State law requires California to appeal when a state tax is thrown out by the lowest state court -- that is what happened to the smog impact fee. However, the state is not required to appeal to the state supreme court, and did not do so in the case of the smog impact fee.

>>>>>FTE's interests were adequately represented by the defense. In fact, FTE's interest in this case were the same as the defense's, both wanted to show that ID was a science and should, therefore be teachable in public school science classes.<<<<<<

FRCP Rule 24(b), "permissive intervention," allows intervention even when the original defendant(s) and the applicant for intervention have the same interests in the case.

And they were trying to show that ID was just mentionable, not necessarily teachable.

>>>>>FTE wanted to make the case more about their book than about ID.<<<<<<<

That is absolutely absurd. FTE did not want the book to be an issue in the case.

>>>>>>Actually, oh ye who never read, Judge Jones actually addresses the permissive intervention in the denial motion (FTE had sought that, too).

(quoting Judge Jones)"Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b), upon timely application, anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action when the applicants’ claim or defenses in the main action have a question of law or fact in common..... if the interests of the proposed intervenors are already represented in the litigation, courts deny such application to intervene. Hoots, 672 F.2d at 1136."
Notice that sentence in there where it says "Additionally, if the interests of the proposed intervenors are already represented in the litigation, courts deny such application to intervene."<<<<<<

Yes, I read that part -- you are always jumping to the conclusion that because I did not mention something, I did not read it.

That issue of whether "the interests of the proposed intervenors are already represented in the litigation" is in FRCP 24(a), "intervention of right," but is not in FRCP 24(b), "permissive intervention." Similarly, the issues of delay and prejudice are in FRCP 24(b) but not in FRCP 24(a). In applying FRCP 24(a) and FRCP 24(b), activist judges have been mixing and matching the requirements from these two rules instead of applying the rules separately and independently as they are supposed to do. FRCP Rule 24 is here.

>>>>>An intervenor is not "help" to any side in the case, Larry. The intervenor has asserted themselves to be an independent party to the trial with distinct and competing interests.<<<<<<

Wrong. Under FRCP 24(b), "permissive intervention," the intervenor can be there just to "help." Indeed, several parents represented by the Rutherford Institute sought to intervene in the Dover case. FTE would have been particularly helpful to the defense because FTE had great knowledge of its own book. The TMLC's opposition to getting help from FTE practically amounted to legal malpractice.

>>>>>>FTE would be defending their book, which would have meant that they would very likely have cross-examined witnesses for both the prosecution and the defense.<<<<<<

First you said that FTE's interests were the same as those of the original defendants, and now you say that FTE's interests were different! Which is it?

>>>>>John West's opinions on legal matters, even if he wasn't a DI Senior Fellow with the CSC, are irrelevant. He's not a lawyer, he's a political scientist.<<<<<

I don't care about people's credentials. Great words of wisdom came from the little boy who said that the emperor had no clothes while loads of bullshit came from the emperor and his learned ministers.

>>>>>>(from Edwards v. Aguillard) The District Court, in its discretion, properly concluded that a Monday-morning "battle of the experts" over possible technical meanings of terms in the statute would not illuminate the contemporaneous purpose of the Louisiana Legislature when it made the law. (emphasis added) <<

The key here is "in its discretion."<<<<<<<

Wrong -- the key here is "properly concluded." The SC did not merely say that the District Court did not abuse its discretion.

>>>>>It is NOT a relevant questiong because it has nothing to do with the case.<<<<<<

LOL -- how the expert testimony illuminates the perceptions of the public is quite relevant to the case.

>>>>>ROFL. You do realize that a play is not a legally binding document, don't you? <<<<<

You stupid moron -- nonlegal citations are always being made in court. In one opinion, the judge quoted a Wizard of Oz munchkin. And these posts here are not even legal documents.

>>>>>You have invective to hurl at anyone who disagrees with you, Larry, and that is NOT the sign of someone with a strong argument.<<<<<<

And you don't? You are constantly making insults and ad hominem attacks.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:46:00 AM  
Blogger Rob Serrano said...

larry fafarman said...

>> Rob Serrano said ( 6/19/2006 03:05:46 PM ) --

>>>>>>No, Larry, you decided, because you had made a fool of yourself, to change the rules midstream. You did NOT say that you had found "intentionalism" and decided that it was too non-standard a term. You said that you had Googled it and found, in your words: "nothing except Holocaust studies."<<<<<<< <<

>> There was no change in the rules. I did a very quick investigation -- just enough to satisfy myself that "intentionalism" is not a commonly used term in constitutional interpretation. Go ahead and use the term if you want to -- I am not going to. <<

Let's have a look at what you ACTUALLY said, Larry:

First, your initial claim about intentionalism:
[quote]
>> <<<<<<>> I Googled "intentionalism" and turned up nothing except Holocaust studies. Wikipedia has no entry for "intentionalism" but does have entries for "original intent" and "textualism." "Intentionalism" is not even a buzzword in the field of constitutional interpretation. <<
[/quote]

Note your words here, Larry. You did not say that you "had done a quick investigation," you explicitly state that you "Googled "intentionalism" and found nothing but Holocaust studies."

[quote]
And yet intentionalism is mentioned in the article on originalism. <<<<<< <<

>> I decided -- with good reason -- that "intentionalism" is just too non-standard a term for me to use. I will use "original intent" instead. <<
[quote]

And, based on this quick search, you deemed yourself expert enough to be able to determine whether the term is standard or not. You do realize, Larry, how big of a fool you make yourself out to be when you claim expertise based on nothing more than a "quick" Google search, don't you? But here, once again, we find you trying to play yourself off as an expert based on nothing more than your assertion that you should be considered one.

>> >>>>>First off, Larry, I've never met Kevin Vicklund so he can hardly be called my pal.<<<<< <<

>> You still don't understand what sarcasm is. <<

I am well acquainted with sarcasm, Larry. You, apparently, are not. Calling somebody my pal is not sarcasm, Larry. I guess we can officially put to rest your claim that you have a clue about humor, much less having a sense of same.

>> >>>>>>It is not a protection of privacy at all if you listen to the Strict Constructionists.<<<<< <<

>> When the cops break down the door of a strict constructionist without knocking, then that strict constructionist will know what "protection of privacy" means. <<

Did you have a point or were you just agreeing with me? Strict Constructionist, though are often the same ones who are that you shouldn't need a right to privacy because if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.

>> >>>>>>FTE's stake is only a result of the fact that their book's sales might potentially be hurt of ID is disallowed from being taught in the classroom. They do not get to intervene just because their book sales might be affected by the ruling. If that was the case, many if not most trials of this sort would have several parties seeking to intervene.<<<<<< <<

>> Which was exactly my point -- before FTE got the subpoena and before Dembski got the demand for the draft materials for a future FTE book, FTE's interest in the case was not much different from that of other publishers of ID books -- the only difference was that the Dover school board happened to choose one of FTE's books. <<

You keep making this claim, and it's still wrong on the face of it. FTE KNEW about this case and the fact that "Pandas" was going to figure into the case. They could have applied to intervene then or at any time before discovery finished, but they did not do so. Unfortunately for them, though, they failed in every major test to qualify to intervene. FTE did not make a timely motion and it was unable to show that it had: a) "significantly protectable" interests in the case, b) that those interests were in jeopardy as a result of the case, or that c) its interests were not adequately represented by the defendants. A failure on any one of these would have led to denial of the intervention, and FTE failed on all counts. As to permissive invervention, that still requires that (c) be met, and so FTE failed all the tests to allow it to intervene.

>> The subpoena and the demand for the draft materials are what made the difference. In the end, FTE's Of People and Pandas was named 74 times in the Dover opinion, about half the time in regard to the book's contents and about half the time in regard to the board's actions in choosing it. A large part of the opinion was basically a negative book review of Pandas. I challenge you to find another case where intervention was denied but where the would-be intervenor was so greatly involved in the final decision. <<

And again, basically more assertion by you. "Pandas" was evidence in the case. Heads of companies regularly keep track of news reports and court cases that may pertain to their business. FTE had all of the information that they needed from the beginning, and yet they want everyone to believe that they "didn't realize" that their book was going to be used in the trial. The number of references to it in the decision is irrelevant, all it shows is that "Pandas" demontrated a point that was being argued. Since you've not shown that Judge Jones' order was in error with regard to intervention, I leave it to you to show me, with something more than assertion that he was bound to grant intervention.

>> Again, as John West of the Discovery Institute said, "Given Judge Jones' explicit refusal to allow FTE to present a defense in the Dover case, his condemnation of FTE's textbook was grotesque." <<

Again, John West is not a legal authority. He has no law training, he is a political scientist. He is also not a disinterested party, being that his organisation came away from the trial with a black eye. His opinions are easily discounted as nothing more than sour grapes. Your continued insistence on using this same quote from is just shows the depths of your desperation.

>> Also, there is no general requirement that future financial losses be certain or highly predictable; otherwise, many -- probably most -- lawsuits concerning potential loss of future earnings could never be brought. Also, it is significant that allowing intervention by the FTE in this case would not have created financial liability for anyone, so the court could not possibly have had to deal with the issue of establishing an amount of indemnification. <<

The defense felt that it would have created extra financial liability, so you're apparently wrong. And you claim that you actually back up your assertions. What a laugh. FTE showed no reason why it should be allowed to intervene in the case, and neither have you. All you've done is make claims, which have been refuted already.

>> >>>>>>A subpoena is not evidence of any sort of "targetting," Larry. You, with your supposed legal brilliance should know that. A subpoena basically says that the recipient is believed to have information pertinent to the case and that the serving party wants it.<<<<< <<

>> In this case, the subpoena was evidence of targeting. 'The plaintiffs were not just seeking minor information -- they were seeking all the information they could get about the Of People and Pandas book -- manuscripts, emails, phone records, memos, and what have you. The plaintiffs also sought the draft materials for the unpublished book The Design of Life. The plaintiffs' great demands for information from FTE treated FTE as though it were a defendant, and so FTE should have been admitted to the case as a defendant -- i.e., an intervenor. <<

Once again, a paragraph in which, for the sake of accuracy, the whole thing should be prefaced with "Larry wants you to believe," because, once again it's nothing more than bald assertion. You've not a shred of support for your claim, which isn't surprising.

>> >>>>>Notice, though, that no action is proposed against FTE, nor has it been.<<<<<< <<

>> You don't have to be sued in order to apply for intervention -- obviously! <<

Nobody said you did. What you DO have to do is meet the four tests, which FTE was unable to do. They failed, in fact to succeed in any of the tests for intervention. They couldn't show that their interests were distinct from those of the defense since their interests were fundamentally the SAME (showing ID as having at least some scientific basis) as those of the defense. They couldn't show any real financial hardship since the book can still be sold, just not to the public school market, at least not as a textbook. They couldn't even show that they had a "significantly protectible" interest in the litigation.

>> >>>>>>All you've done is assert that the lack of an appeal is indicative of lack of adequate representation.<<<<< <<

>> It is -- it showed a lack of diligence in pursuing the case. <<

No, it shows that they decided not to appeal. Attorneys are not mandated to appeal cases they lose. Basically, all you're doing is throwing out what you want to believe and proclaiming it to be fact. This is your usual tactic, but it still amounts to nothing more than truth by assertion.

>> Anyway, this is a real dilemma which you refuse to recognize -- what if existing parties appear to be adequately representing the interests of a would-be intervenor but later crap out? <<

I'm not refusing to to recognize anything. You're assuming that attorneys regulary bring or defend against lawsuits with the intention of losing them. You're argument is a purely hypothetical one. Last I heard attorneys who don't do everything they can to win end up getting disbarred. You've not demonstrated that this was the case here, nor that it is even a terribly likely potentiality. Playing "What if" is no more fruitful than your usual arguments, Larry. And it just shows the leaps you're willing to make to make your claims seem more rational than they actually are.

By your rather twisted logic anyone who claimed they should be allowed to intervene in any case should be allowed to do so. Not that you've shown yourself to be one who's really interested in the notion of consistency.

>> The effects of denying intervention are irreversible if it later turns out that the interests of the would-be intervenor were not adequately represented. Also, there is a big difference between minimal representation and the best representation -- FTE was obviously the best qualified to defend its own book. <<

That's your claim, you've yet to demonstrate that it is anything but a claim. You haven't shown the FTE interests were distinct from the defense's or that the defense did an inadequate job representing those interest. All you have, as is usual for you, is your usual blend of wild leaps of "logic," and assertions presented without a shred of supporting evidence.

>> Why was FTE less entitled than the school board to the best representation? <<

You have not yet demonstrated any such shortcoming on the defense's part. Your sole claim that the defense did not provide the best representation is that they lost, since your side couldn't POSSIBLY have lost the case on the case's own merits. That's really what it amounts to, isn't it, Larry. You simply can't conceive of the possiblity that you're wrong.

>> If your aim is to win your case, then only the best representation is "adequate." Yet another problem is that a denial of intervention is not appealable. <<

You repeat the unappealability of the denial of intervention as if it should suddenly be meaningful now when it wasn't previously. FTE had no valid grounds to intervene, period. End of story. As pointed out above, your so-called "logic" would lead to the notion that anyone who claims the right to intervene be allwoed to do so, no matter the merits of the claim.

>> So you see, Rob, that things are not as simple as you pretend. <<

So you see, Larry, that things just simply are not what you pretend.

>> >>>>>One is not mandated to automatically seek appeals when they lose in court.<<<<<< <<

>> I never said that. I just said that the failure to appeal showed that FTE's interests were not adequately defended and that the defendant -- or should I say the new defendant, the new school board -- showed no interest in defending those interests. <<

You said that. It doesn't make it true, however, and that is a problem that you consistently seem unable to recognize.

>> BTW, an appeal can be a requirement. State law requires California to appeal when a state tax is thrown out by the lowest state court -- that is what happened to the smog impact fee. However, the state is not required to appeal to the state supreme court, and did not do so in the case of the smog impact fee. <<

States are not people. The defendants in Kitzmiller are. See the difference?

>> >>>>>FTE's interests were adequately represented by the defense. In fact, FTE's interest in this case were the same as the defense's, both wanted to show that ID was a science and should, therefore be teachable in public school science classes.<<<<<< <<

>> FRCP Rule 24(b), "permissive intervention," allows intervention even when the original defendant(s) and the applicant for intervention have the same interests in the case. <<

Uh, no: "Additionally, if the interests of the proposed intervenors are already represented in the litigation, courts deny such application to intervene.
Hoots, 672 F.2d at 1136."

Another failure to read, there, Larry? Or just more wishful thinking on your part?

>> And they were trying to show that ID was just mentionable, not necessarily teachable. <<

Kitzmiller was about "presentation of "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to evolution as an "explanation of the origin of life"." Notice that there's nothing here about the mere "mention" if ID.

>> >>>>>FTE wanted to make the case more about their book than about ID.<<<<<<< <<

>> That is absolutely absurd. FTE did not want the book to be an issue in the case. <<

You throw the word "absurd" around alot, as if you thought it didn't apply to most of your claims. Had FTE been allowed to intervene, their book would have become the focus of the trial, and not whether ID is or is not science.

>> >>>>>>Actually, oh ye who never read, Judge Jones actually addresses the permissive intervention in the denial motion (FTE had sought that, too).

(quoting Judge Jones)"Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b), upon timely application, anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action when the applicants’ claim or defenses in the main action have a question of law or fact in common..... if the interests of the proposed intervenors are already represented in the litigation, courts deny such application to intervene. Hoots, 672 F.2d at 1136."
Notice that sentence in there where it says "Additionally, if the interests of the proposed intervenors are already represented in the litigation, courts deny such application to intervene."<<<<<< <<

>> Yes, I read that part -- you are always jumping to the conclusion that because I did not mention something, I did not read it. <<

Because your propensity for failing to address points in these documents while making assertions that are directly countered by the documents suggest strongly that you have not read them.

>> That issue of whether "the interests of the proposed intervenors are already represented in the litigation" is in FRCP 24(a), "intervention of right," but is not in FRCP 24(b), "permissive intervention." Similarly, the issues of delay and prejudice are in FRCP 24(b) but not in FRCP 24(a). In applying FRCP 24(a) and FRCP 24(b), activist judges have been mixing and matching the requirements from these two rules instead of applying the rules separately and independently as they are supposed to do. FRCP Rule 24 is here. <<

Oh looky, more baseless assertions about supposed "activist judges" doing things. It was found that FTE's intervention would "not add anything to the litigation, but rather, FTE’s participation in this litigation will be merely duplicative of Defendants’ efforts." Judge Jones also said, "As we explained in our March 10, 2005 Order, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has explained that if the interests of the proposed intervenors are already represented in the litigation, courts deny such
applications to intervene." The fact that you can quote parts of FRCP 24 doesn't mean you're capable of any greater feat that spouting what you've seen without any real understanding, and it shows. Again, permissive intervention is discretionary, I suggest you look that word up, Larry, since you seem to have a problem understanding it.

>> >>>>>An intervenor is not "help" to any side in the case, Larry. The intervenor has asserted themselves to be an independent party to the trial with distinct and competing interests.<<<<<< <<

>> Wrong. Under FRCP 24(b), "permissive intervention," the intervenor can be there just to "help." <<

If they are truly there to "help" they would not be intervening in the case, they would be working with whomever they were seeking to help. The intervenor is presenting a case of their own.

>> Indeed, several parents represented by the Rutherford Institute sought to intervene in the Dover case. <<

The relevance of which would be what exactly?

>> FTE would have been particularly helpful to the defense because FTE had great knowledge of its own book. The TMLC's opposition to getting help from FTE practically amounted to legal malpractice. <<

Well, once again, this is merely your assertion and you should know by now what credence that is given.

>> >>>>>>FTE would be defending their book, which would have meant that they would very likely have cross-examined witnesses for both the prosecution and the defense.<<<<<< <<

>> First you said that FTE's interests were the same as those of the original defendants, and now you say that FTE's interests were different! Which is it? <<

You try to find an inconsistency where there is none. FTE and the defendants had the same interests in this case -- namely, to show the ID is a science and can be taught in science classes. Should FTE have been allowed to intervene, they would have been defending their book, calling and cross-examing witnesses in regards to their book, when ID is the subject of the trial.

>> >>>>>John West's opinions on legal matters, even if he wasn't a DI Senior Fellow with the CSC, are irrelevant. He's not a lawyer, he's a political scientist.<<<<< <<

>> I don't care about people's credentials. Great words of wisdom came from the little boy who said that the emperor had no clothes while loads of bullshit came from the emperor and his learned ministers. <<

Well, you've produced nothing that can be construed as "words of wisdom" and neither has John West. You are both, in your repeated ad nauseam reference to the Emperors New Clothes, more akin to the emperor. By the way, you need to get a new story, because the ones you use never apply the way you want to believe they do. Oh, and I also see a lack of John West actually showing anybody anything more than his sour grapes.

>> >>>>>>(from Edwards v. Aguillard) The District Court, in its discretion, properly concluded that a Monday-morning "battle of the experts" over possible technical meanings of terms in the statute would not illuminate the contemporaneous purpose of the Louisiana Legislature when it made the law. (emphasis added) <<

The key here is "in its discretion."<<<<<<< <<

>> Wrong -- the key here is "properly concluded." The SC did not merely say that the District Court did not abuse its discretion. <<

Yes that is what the Supreme Court said. Sorry that you lack the reading skills to see that.

>> >>>>>It is NOT a relevant questiong because it has nothing to do with the case.<<<<<< <<

>> LOL -- how the expert testimony illuminates the perceptions of the public is quite relevant to the case. <<

No, it isn't, Larry. Your claims are still not relevant.

>> >>>>>ROFL. You do realize that a play is not a legally binding document, don't you? <<<<< <<

>> You stupid moron -- nonlegal citations are always being made in court. In one opinion, the judge quoted a Wizard of Oz munchkin. And these posts here are not even legal documents. <<

Oh no, Mr. I never start the insults has insulted me again. YAWN. So sad, Larry, that this is the best that you have to offer. Nonlegal citations are not used to bolster or justify legal opinions. YOU are attempting to justify your pseudo-legal claims with a quote from a play, it was a part of your argument, Larry, which really is valid. Sorry that your attempt at appealing to authority failed to obviously, but it's a failure on your part, not mine.

>> >>>>>You have invective to hurl at anyone who disagrees with you, Larry, and that is NOT the sign of someone with a strong argument.<<<<<< <<

>> And you don't? You are constantly making insults and ad hominem attacks. <<

And little Larry's $0.02 phrase for the moment is "ad hominem," just like its been every other day when he sees himself losing an argument. You still haven't learned the proper meaning of the word, though, Larry, because you still seem to be unable to use it accurately in a sentence. I don't resort to insults except in the cases where someone has attempted to insult me first.

So, let's just be clear here, Larry. Pointing out that your legal career was an abysmal failure is not ad hominem, especially when it is being brough up in relation to one of your claims that you are some great legal mind. Pointing out your inability to actually read you sources is not ad hominem. Pointing out that your knowledge of computers and the internet is woefully lacking is not ad hominem, especially when it is in response to your assertion of competence on the topic. If I were to say "Larry's a dumbass," THAT would be considered ad hominem IF I use that as the basis on which to refute your argument. I don't do that, though, that is your approach to things. Kinda sad, Larry.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:42:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> You still don't understand what sarcasm is. <

The problem is that sarcasm usually involves a statement that is outrageous on its face. Nearly everything that you say is outrageous on its face.

> When the cops break down the door of a strict constructionist without knocking, then that strict constructionist will know what "protection of privacy" means. <

No. They will know the meaning of "unlawful search and seizure". This is covered in the constitution. "Protection of privacy" is not.

> I just said that the failure to appeal showed that FTE's interests were not adequately defended and that the defendant -- or should I say the new defendant, the new school board -- showed no interest in defending those interests. <

Sometimes the litigant's best interest is in not appealing. Beating a dead horse costs money in courts.

> State law requires California to appeal when a state tax is thrown out by the lowest state court <

Using the public's money for the appeal.

> That is absolutely absurd. FTE did not want the book to be an issue in the case. <

No. That statement is absurd. FTE clearly did want the book to be an issue. You are using the purported loss of revenue from book sales as a reason for their intervention. You are trying to make two incompassable claims.

> Yes, I read that part -- you are always jumping to the conclusion that because I did not mention something, I did not read it. <

Given your past history and your tendency to quote or link to something that disproves your case, it is a reasonable conclusion to jump to.

> Great words of wisdom came from the little boy who said that the emperor had no clothes while loads of bullshit came from the emperor and his learned ministers. <

Seeing as you are the emperor, I wonder why you would want to bring this up. You have no clothes, your highness.

> You stupid moron <

Lost the argument again, Larry?

> You are constantly making insults and ad hominem attacks. <

No. You, Larry are the only one constantly making insults and ad hominem attacks. You are still proving that you don't have a clue what "ad hominem" means. You can look it up at the same time you are trying to find out what "incompassable" means. You could also ask your friend, Bill Carter, or your real brother Dave. They can tell you.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 6:25:00 AM  
Anonymous Bill Carter said...

> You could also ask your friend, Bill Carter, or your real brother Dave. They can tell you. <

Larry, Whenever you want me to tell you, give me a call. You have my number.

If you want to speak to Dave, call him. Don't just have your Mommy call him.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 10:00:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Rob Serrano said ( 6/20/2006 04:42:55 AM ) --

>>>>>based on this quick search, you deemed yourself expert enough to be able to determine whether the term is standard or not<<<<<<

You don't know when to give up. I said that based on my quick search, I decided that the word was not sufficiently standard for me to use. That should have ended it.

>>>>>Calling somebody my pal is not sarcasm, Larry. <<<<<

Deliberately making an exaggerated statement is a form of sarcasm.

>>>>>They could have applied to intervene then or at any time before discovery finished, but they did not do so.<<<<<<

As a matter of fact, discovery had not yet finished when FTE applied to intervene. But there is no requirement that the application be made before completion of discovery. In fact, there is nothing in FRCP Rule 24 that would prevent a grant of intervention at any time before judgment. Conceivably, grounds for intervention could arise at any time in the course of a trial.

>>>>>Again, John West is not a legal authority. He has no law training, he is a political scientist. He is also not a disinterested party, being that his organisation came away from the trial with a black eye. His opinions are easily discounted as nothing more than sour grapes. <<<<<<

More ad hominem bullshit.

>>>>The defense felt that it would have created extra financial liability, so you're apparently wrong<<<<<

I was not talking about liability for an award of plaintiffs' attorney fees -- I was talking about liability for damages. And help from the FTE would have likely reduced the Thomas More Law Center's own legal expenses.

>>>>>The plaintiffs were not just seeking minor information -- they were seeking all the information they could get about the Of People and Pandas book -- manuscripts, emails, phone records, memos, and what have you.
You've not a shred of support for your claim, which isn't surprising.<<<<<<

It is all there on pages 3-4 of an affidavit of Jon Buell, the president of FTE. The plaintiffs demanded this information about other FTE books as well.

<<<<>> You don't have to be sued in order to apply for intervention -- obviously! <<

Nobody said you did.<<<<<

You sure as hell implied it when you said, "Notice, though, that no action is proposed against FTE, nor has it been." Exactly what was the point of that remark?

<<<<<<>> It is -- it showed a lack of diligence in pursuing the case. <<

No, it shows that they decided not to appeal. Attorneys are not mandated to appeal cases they lose.<<<<<<

Again, you are missing my point. I never said that the defendants were required to appeal -- I only said that their failure to appeal shows that FTE's interests were, in retrospect, not adequately protected.

<<<<<<>> Anyway, this is a real dilemma which you refuse to recognize -- what if existing parties appear to be adequately representing the interests of a would-be intervenor but later crap out? <<
I'm not refusing to to recognize anything. You're assuming that attorneys regulary bring or defend against lawsuits with the intention of losing them.<<<<<

It was the Dover school board and not the defense attorneys who made the decision to not appeal.

>>>>>>You haven't shown the FTE interests were distinct from the defense's<<<<<<

OK, if you really want to know, there were two separate issues: (1) ID and (2) the book. The judge could have decided that ID is OK but FTE's book is not, just as a judge could decide that creation science is OK but the Bible is not, or that Darwinism is OK but Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God is not. The defense was primarily interested in defending ID and not the book. Any claim that the TMLC was interested in defending the book is utterly destroyed by the fact that the TMLC was opposed to allowing the FTE's own attorneys and expert witnesses into the case. Help from the FTE would likely have reduced the TMLC's own legal expenses, and as for the plaintiffs' attorney fees, the Dover school board and not the TMLC was liable for those. If someone had offered to help me with my lawsuits, you can bet your sweet bippy that I would not have turned it down. So think that over for a while.

Rob, the only reason why I continue to answer your crappy arguments is that it pressures me to improve my arguments. That is why I suspect that you are really on my side but are just playing the devil's advocate.

>>>>>You repeat the unappealability of the denial of intervention as if it should suddenly be meaningful now when it wasn't previously.<<<<<<

"Previously"? This was the first time that I raised the issue of the appealability of the denial of the motion to intervene. And I take back my statement that this denial was not appealable -- Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure allows interlocutory appeals. A real attorney would have caught my mistake immediately.

>>>>>>> FRCP Rule 24(b), "permissive intervention," allows intervention even when the original defendant(s) and the applicant for intervention have the same interests in the case. <<

Uh, no: "Additionally, if the interests of the proposed intervenors are already represented in the litigation, courts deny such application to intervene.
Hoots, 672 F.2d at 1136."<<<<<<<

But that provision was in FRCP Rule 24(a), "intervention of right," and not in FRCP Rule 24(b), "permissive intervention." The framers of Rule 24 obviously intended Rule 24(b) to be more flexible than Rule 24(a) in this regard (but not in regard to the issues of delay and prejudice).

<<<<<<>> And they were trying to show that ID was just mentionable, not necessarily teachable. <<
Kitzmiller was about "presentation of "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to evolution as an "explanation of the origin of life"." Notice that there's nothing here about the mere "mention" if ID.<<<<<<<

But ID was not actually being taught -- that was my point. And as attorney Edward Sisson pointed out, the fact that only Darwinism is actually being taught shows that it is the Darwinists who are the real "favored insiders."

>>>>>>The fact that you can quote parts of FRCP 24 doesn't mean you're capable of any greater feat that spouting what you've seen without any real understanding, and it shows.<<<<<

The issue here is not "understanding" -- the issue here is exactly what Rules 24(a) and 24(b) say, verbatim. There is no issue of interpretation here.

>>>>>Again, permissive intervention is discretionary, I suggest you look that word up, Larry, since you seem to have a problem understanding it.<<<<<<

The application of Rule 24(b), "permissive intervention," is discretionary; the standards to be applied are not. "The world must construe according to its wits -- this court must construe according to the law." -- Sir Thomas More in the play "A Man for All Seasons."

>>>>>>If they are truly there to "help" they would not be intervening in the case, they would be working with whomever they were seeking to help.<<<<<<<

What better way to help than by having your own attorneys and expert witnesses in the courtroom and filing your own briefs which will add to whatever the original defendants have to say?

>>>>>>The intervenor is presenting a case of their own.<<<<<<

Not necessarily. Under Rule 24(b), the following condition is sufficient grounds for granting "permissive intervention": "an applicant's claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common."

>>>>>> Should FTE have been allowed to intervene, they would have been defending their book, calling and cross-examing witnesses in regards to their book, when ID is the subject of the trial.<<<<<<

So who was there to defend FTE's book when the FTE was not there? You have just admitted that FTE's interests were not adequately represented by the original defendants!

>>>>> Oh, and I also see a lack of John West actually showing anybody anything more than his sour grapes.<<<<<<

Oh, so when people lose, they are just supposed to stay silent and "get over it."

>>>>>>The key here is "in its discretion."<<<<<<< <<

>> Wrong -- the key here is "properly concluded." The SC did not merely say that the District Court did not abuse its discretion. <<

Yes that is what the Supreme Court said.<<<<<<<

So you agree that the "key" is "properly concluded" and not "in its discretion." In fact, "in its discretion" was superfluous -- the SC could have simply said, "The District Court..... properly concluded that a Monday-morning 'battle of the experts' over possible technical meanings of terms in the statute would not illuminate the contemporaneous purpose of the Louisiana Legislature when it made the law."

>>>>>>I don't resort to insults except in the cases where someone has attempted to insult me first.<<<<<<

Bullshit.

>>>>>Pointing out that your legal career was an abysmal failure is not ad hominem, especially when it is being brough up in relation to one of your claims that you are some great legal mind.<<<<<<

So you know everything about my "legal career"? And you think that winning cases is the only measure of legal competence? Your inanity is breathtaking -- you have no idea how the courts operate or how they treat pro se litigants. When I sued the County of Los Angeles, the county's attorney said over and over again that I failed to give notice of my suit but the law said that notice was required only for suits for money (my suit was not), and the judge never reprimanded this attorney for making frivolous defenses.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 12:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> You don't know when to give up. I said that based on my quick search, I decided that the word was not sufficiently standard for me to use. <

The question seems to be was it sufficiently standard enough for more knowledgable people to use?

> Deliberately making an exaggerated statement is a form of sarcasm. <

Than your posts seem to contain little else but sarcasm.

> More ad hominem bullshit. <

Larry, even I am feeling sorry for you on this issue. Either learn what ad hominem means or stop using the term.

> I was not talking about liability for an award of plaintiffs' attorney fees <

Nor was Rod. The defendant would have had their own expenses. It is not the duty of an attorney to run up his client's expenses needlessly.

> I was talking about liability for damages. <

Which is not the issue in this case.

> You've not a shred of support for your claim, which isn't surprising. <

He has repeatedly. He doesn't make unsupported proclamations and expect them to be true because he said them. He is not like you.

> Again, you are missing my point. I never said that the defendants were required to appeal -- I only said that their failure to appeal shows that FTE's interests were, in retrospect, not adequately protected. <

Again, you are missing his point. They may have been protecting their client's interest by not appealing and running up unnecessary expenses to beat a dead horse.

> It was the Dover school board and not the defense attorneys who made the decision to not appeal. <

They made a wise choice.

> Rob, the only reason why I continue to answer your crappy arguments is that it pressures me to improve my arguments. <

They can stand improvement. He is doing you a great service.

> That is why I suspect that you are really on my side but are just playing the devil's advocate. <

I have always suspected that you are really in favor of Darwinism and are making yourself look like a complete ass just to discredit its opponents.

> Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure allows interlocutory appeals. <

Now you show that you don't understand the term "interlocutory".

> the fact that only Darwinism is actually being taught shows that it is the Darwinists who are the real "favored insiders." <

The reason that only Darwinism is being taught is that there are currently no reasonable opposing scientific theories.

> The issue here is not "understanding" -- the issue here is exactly what Rules 24(a) and 24(b) say, verbatim. There is no issue of interpretation here. <

There must be some sort of interpretation on your part. While the rules are quoted verbatum, what you think that they mean is something quite different than what they say.

>"The world must construe according to its wits -- this court must construe according to the law." -- Sir Thomas More in the play "A Man for All Seasons."<

That is what the court did, yet you find fault with it.

>>>>>>I don't resort to insults except in the cases where someone has attempted to insult me first.<<<<<<

> Bullshit. <

You have always been the first one to post insults. Claiming otherwise only makes you look more foolish than your comments would otherwise. (Which is foolish enough!)

> So you know everything about my "legal career"? <

Your legal career can be summed up in one word; Failure.

> And you think that winning cases is the only measure of legal competence? <

Having every single action laughed out of court shows a lack of legal competence.

> you have no idea how the courts operate or how they treat pro se litigants. <

You don't for sure. Judges generally bend over backwards to help pro se (pro persona) litigants, much to the annoyance of opposing attorneys. That is why pro per litigants win more than 50% of their cases. I will not bother to cite a source for this statistic since you will only say that I did not do so anyway.

> the judge never reprimanded this attorney for making frivolous defenses. <

Did he reprimand you for filing a frivolous case?

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 12:53:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

I am ready to come clean. I am just posting these ridiculous arguments to discredit the IDiots. I figure the more assinine that I can make them look, the more support it gives for Darwinism.

I am sorry, Dave, for telling Mom to call you when I didn't have the nerve to call you myself.

I am sorry, Bill, for pretending that you don't exist.

I am sorry, Shemp, for dragging the family name through the mud.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 12:58:00 PM  
Blogger Dave Fafarman said...

>>>>>The plaintiffs were not just seeking minor information -- they were seeking all the information they could get about the Of People and Pandas book -- manuscripts, emails, phone records, memos, and what have you.
You've not a shred of support for your claim, which isn't surprising.<<<<<<


< It is all there on pages 3-4 of an affidavit of Jon Buell, the president of FTE. >

I think the point's to Larry here -- it is true, as he claimed, that plaintiffs were seeking whatever info they could get (so, what else is new?).

However, in response to Buell's affidavit, the protective order was granted. That hardly seems to fit the picture of "the evil Judge Jones" or a court system designed to railroad FTE.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 2:48:00 PM  
Blogger Dave Fafarman said...

Larry, I have a couple of questions for you as well as one for ViW. I would appreciate having them answered in this particular order that I ask them, please. (I.e., wait for the answer to the previous one before replying.)

First, what are the criteria for whether I am "Real Dave" or "Fake Dave" (i.e., the "contents" criteria)? Am I supposed to agree with you some percentage of the time, or what?

Second, to ViW: You claim to know our parents. What were the circumstances of your meeting them?

Third, back to Larry, please comment on the authenticity of several posts made under your name, that are of dubious provenance because they seem to be out of character. There's the one immediately above. Also, in the thread "More shenanigans of Ed Brayton" there were two on May 29, at 12:02:04 AM and 12:05:45 AM. Were those impersonations of you, as Voice suggested? And finally, what about the one on "Panda's Thumb sucks", May 30 at 10:05:13 AM?

Thanks.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> I would appreciate having them answered in this particular order that I ask them, please. (I.e., wait for the answer to the previous one before replying.) <

What is the significance of the order of the questions? Am I supposed to wait until hell freezes over and Larry replies to the first one before I answer? You don't seriously believe that Larry will answer with anything more than a claim that you are Ed Brayton?

> Am I supposed to agree with you some percentage of the time, or what? <

I would hope that you only agree with him when he is right. That doesn't happen very often. Hunting for something with which you can agree with Larry, or pretending he is right when you know he isn't, is the mistake that your parents made, according to Bill Carter.

> You claim to know our parents. What were the circumstances of your meeting them? <

I was willing to plead "no contest" after your last guess. If you want to ask more questions, are you ready to return the acorns?

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 5:01:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In the Wilderness is just a troll who pretends to be knowledgeable, but he usually just says that I am wrong and/or incompetent while offering no counterargument or explanation. He is a complete ignoramus who doesn't believe in following the principle of "put up or shut up." So I usually just ignore him. On other blogs he would be deleted for cluttering up the blog with trash -- he is unethically imposing upon my no-deletions policy. But occasionally he says something worth responding to:

>>>>>>> It was the Dover school board and not the defense attorneys who made the decision to not appeal. >

They made a wise choice.<<<<<<<

Wrong. As discussed in my article "Two-timing new members of the Dover school board," some newly-elected members of the school board said in November that they did not want to try to avoid paying the plaintiffs' attorney fees by repealing the ID policy prior to judgment, but they wanted to hear what the judge had to say (at great expense to the taxpayers, of course). But they had no similar curiosity about hearing what the appeals court (at least a 3-judge panel and maybe the whole appeals court) or even the Supreme Court had to say. So they paid $1 million in taxpayer money and got nothing more in return than just the lousy opinion of a single lousy activist district court judge. But for just a few measly thousands of bucks more, they could have also gotten the opinions of the appeals court and/or the Supreme Court. An appeal would have been quite cheap compared to the cost of the original trial, which had long courtroom testimony with at least five plaintiffs' attorneys in the courtroom at all times, depositions, dozens of motions and oral hearings, etc.. Barring complications, the plaintiffs would have filed just one answering brief in the appeals court and attended just one short oral hearing if the appeals court requested it.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 5:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> he usually just says that I am wrong and/or incompetent while offering no counterargument or explanation. <

You seem to be blind to counterargument and explanation. They are repeated time after time and yet you pretend that they are not given.

I do believe in following the principle of "put up or shut up." Unfortunately, you do not. Your game is to make unsupported pronouncements and pretend that any argument against them just hasn't been given, no matter how many times it has. Nobody falls for this.

> they wanted to hear what the judge had to say (at great expense to the taxpayers, of course). But they had no similar curiosity about hearing what the appeals court (at least a 3-judge panel and maybe the whole appeals court) or even the Supreme Court had to say. <

What is your point? That they refused to pour in good money after bad?

> So they paid $1 million in taxpayer money and got nothing more in return than just the lousy opinion of a single lousy activist district court judge. <

This is a great example of your unsupported proclamations. You have given no evidence at all that Judge Jones is an activist judge. Put up or shut up.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 6:12:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Can't you fools realize that things can be right just because I say they are? The whole world is an illusion and the only perceptions that count are mine. If I refuse to read arguments against me then they just haven't been made.

If you people don't change your attitudes, I will wish you into the cornfield. You have been warned.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 6:22:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In The Wilderness said ( 6/20/2006 06:12:32 PM ) --

>>>>>>You seem to be blind to counterargument and explanation. They are repeated time after time and yet you pretend that they are not given.<<<<<<

Wrong, you stupid ignoramus. Often I will raise an issue here for the first time and you will just say that I am wrong without saying why. And it is usually not worth my time to show that you are full of crap.

>>>>>>> they wanted to hear what the judge had to say (at great expense to the taxpayers, of course). But they had no similar curiosity about hearing what the appeals court (at least a 3-judge panel and maybe the whole appeals court) or even the Supreme Court had to say. <
What is your point? That they refused to pour in good money after bad?<<<<<<<

I agree that what the Dover school board spent on the case was bad money. The Kitzmiller opinion is not even worth the paper it's printed on, let alone its $1 million cost to the Dover school district. But my point was that for just a few thousand dollars more, the board might have gotten something that was worth something -- an opinion from the appeals court and maybe even an opinion from the Supreme Court. If you had half a brain, I would not need to explain these things to you repeatedly.

>>>>>>You have given no evidence at all that Judge Jones is an activist judge. Put up or shut up. <<<<<<

Just go to the search window in the top border of this blog and enter "Jones."

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 7:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> Often I will raise an issue here for the first time and you will just say that I am wrong without saying why. <

You make a pronouncement about an issue and give it no support. I say why it is wrong and you are unable to read my reply.

> And it is usually not worth my time to show that you are full of crap. <

Is that why you have always failed to do so?

> for just a few thousand dollars more, the board might have gotten something that was worth something <

Such as an opinion against them from the appeals court or maybe and maybe even from the Supreme Court?

> If you had half a brain, I would not need to explain these things to you repeatedly. <

If you had half a brain, you would be on our side and this discussion would be unnecessary.

> Just go to the search window in the top border of this blog and enter "Jones." <

And I will see a number of unsupported claims that Judge Jones is an activist. I will not see valid reasons, of course. You have none.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 7:45:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In The Wilderness,

You are just a moron, a Darwinist fathead, and a user of ad hominems. If you don't stop it, I will hold my breath until I turn blue.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 9:10:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In the Wilderness said --

>>>>>> he usually just says that I am wrong and/or incompetent while offering no counterargument or explanation. <

You seem to be blind to counterargument and explanation. They are repeated time after time and yet you pretend that they are not given.<<<<<<

Wrong. Here is an example of something I introduced for the first time --

>>>>>I said -- I had to pay a private professional process server to personally serve the summons upon the government offices.

You said -- False. You just didn't know your options.<<<<<<

You did not state any alternatives. Because I was a party to the cases, I could not serve process myself, and I had no one to do it for me (supposedly any person over 18 who is not a party can do it, according to the federal rules). And I did not want the defendants to claim that they were not properly served. Professional process service is usually very expensive, even for easy-to-serve defendants. For me it was an especially big expense because several offices had to be served, some by certified mail. I found an inexpensive service where the server worked out of his home.

>>>>>>I said -- BTW, the county sheriff, which normally provides service of process, refused to serve summons upon state and federal defendants!

You said -- An explanation of why would go over your head.<<<<<<

See? You made that stupid excuse because you have no answer. The sheriff's office had no answer either -- they could not tell me what law or regulation prohibited them from serving process on state or federal offices.

In another case, I used another sheriff's office which was willing to serve process on a state office.

All that process service by the sheriff's office is supposed to signify is that process was served by a responsible party -- no more and no less. It does not matter if the party being served is the man in the moon.

In case you didn't notice, the affidavit that FTE president Jon Buell filed in a federal court in Pennsylvania was certified by a Texas-registered notary public.

So, VIW, you don't know your sorry ass from a hole in the ground and I am really pissed off that you are imposing upon my no-deletions policy by cluttering up my blog with your lousy crap, and I demand that you cease and desist forthwith. If you just want someplace to clutter up with your lousy crap, then start your own blog -- this blog service, www.blogger.com, is free.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 9:39:00 PM  
Blogger Rob Serrano said...

larry fafarman said...

>> Rob Serrano said ( 6/20/2006 04:42:55 AM ) --

>>>>>based on this quick search, you deemed yourself expert enough to be able to determine whether the term is standard or not<<<<<< <<

>> You don't know when to give up. I said that based on my quick search, I decided that the word was not sufficiently standard for me to use. That should have ended it. <<

Again, let's see what you actually said, oh ye without honesty:

[quote]
>> <<<<<<>> I Googled "intentionalism" and turned up nothing except Holocaust studies. Wikipedia has no entry for "intentionalism" but does have entries for "original intent" and "textualism." "Intentionalism" is not even a buzzword in the field of constitutional interpretation. <<
[/quote]

Notice how "quick search" appears nowhere in what you said until you were caught. You know, Larry, if you were to show that you had the capacity for honesty at all it would be a wonderful surprise.

>> >>>>>Calling somebody my pal is not sarcasm, Larry. <<<<< <<

>> Deliberately making an exaggerated statement is a form of sarcasm. <<

You have yet to show that this is what you have done.

>> >>>>>They could have applied to intervene then or at any time before discovery finished, but they did not do so.<<<<<< <<

>> As a matter of fact, discovery had not yet finished when FTE applied to intervene. But there is no requirement that the application be made before completion of discovery. In fact, there is nothing in FRCP Rule 24 that would prevent a grant of intervention at any time before judgment. Conceivably, grounds for intervention could arise at any time in the course of a trial. <<

You still fail to grasp the point that they failed to meet their burden to show why they should be allowed to intervene. The four prongs of the test as to whether a party should be allowed to intervene in a case are not independent of one another, they are a chain, each link depends upon the others and the determination requiring all of the links. FTE decided to do nothing for months. Their motion simply was not timely. What YOU think of as timely is rather irrelevant, and you have done nothing to support your claim that the denial was in any way improper.

>> >>>>>Again, John West is not a legal authority. He has no law training, he is a political scientist. He is also not a disinterested party, being that his organisation came away from the trial with a black eye. His opinions are easily discounted as nothing more than sour grapes. <<<<<< <<

>> More ad hominem bullshit. <<

Still showing that you don't know what ad hominem means. John West has no legal training, his opinion on such matters is not compelling.

>> >>>>The defense felt that it would have created extra financial liability, so you're apparently wrong<<<<< <<

>> I was not talking about liability for an award of plaintiffs' attorney fees -- I was talking about liability for damages. And help from the FTE would have likely reduced the Thomas More Law Center's own legal expenses. <<

Who said anything about plaintiffs' attorney's fees? The defendants felt the intervention would place an undo financial burden upon themselves. Defense lawyers don't come free any more than the plaintiffs' attorneys. And, once again, FTE was not going to be helping the defense. They were going to be helping themselves, not the defense. In fact, if they had been allowed to intervene, they would have been at least as likely to hinder the defense.

>> >>>>>The plaintiffs were not just seeking minor information -- they were seeking all the information they could get about the Of People and Pandas book -- manuscripts, emails, phone records, memos, and what have you.
You've not a shred of support for your claim, which isn't surprising.<<<<<< <<

>> It is all there on pages 3-4 of an affidavit of Jon Buell, the president of FTE. The plaintiffs demanded this information about other FTE books as well. <<

Funny how you snipped the comments in order to remove all the context, again. Must be part of that rampant dishonesty that characterizes your arguments.

Here, for the sake of accuracy, is what was actually said:

[quote]
>> In this case, the subpoena was evidence of targeting. 'The plaintiffs were not just seeking minor information -- they were seeking all the information they could get about the Of People and Pandas book -- manuscripts, emails, phone records, memos, and what have you. The plaintiffs also sought the draft materials for the unpublished book The Design of Life. The plaintiffs' great demands for information from FTE treated FTE as though it were a defendant, and so FTE should have been admitted to the case as a defendant -- i.e., an intervenor. <<

Once again, a paragraph in which, for the sake of accuracy, the whole thing should be prefaced with "Larry wants you to believe," because, once again it's nothing more than bald assertion. You've not a shred of support for your claim, which isn't surprising.
[/quote]

Note, Larry, that you do NOT get to rearrange arguments so that you are answering claims that were not made. I mean, seriously, is this the extent of your ability to argue? To create strawmen?

>> <<<<>> You don't have to be sued in order to apply for intervention -- obviously! <<

Nobody said you did.<<<<< <<

>> You sure as hell implied it when you said, "Notice, though, that no action is proposed against FTE, nor has it been." Exactly what was the point of that remark? <<

I implied nothing, Larry. Nothing is stopping FTE from marketing and selling their books. No injunctions, nothings. They are perfectly free to continue selling the books. They just aren't likely to have any public schools purchasing the books as classroom textbooks. The book still has the same audience it did before.

>> <<<<<<>> It is -- it showed a lack of diligence in pursuing the case. <<

No, it shows that they decided not to appeal. Attorneys are not mandated to appeal cases they lose.<<<<<< <<

>> Again, you are missing my point. I never said that the defendants were required to appeal -- I only said that their failure to appeal shows that FTE's interests were, in retrospect, not adequately protected. <<

Again, you are not really making a point. You are simply repeating what you have already said. Not appealing is indicative of nothing more than the party making a decision that the case was not worth pursuing further. FTE's interest in having ID ruled to be suitable for inclusion in science classes was more than adequately represented. Adequate representation != filing appeals, no matter how many times you claim otherwise.

>> <<<<<<>> Anyway, this is a real dilemma which you refuse to recognize -- what if existing parties appear to be adequately representing the interests of a would-be intervenor but later crap out? <<
I'm not refusing to to recognize anything. You're assuming that attorneys regulary bring or defend against lawsuits with the intention of losing them.<<<<< <<

>> It was the Dover school board and not the defense attorneys who made the decision to not appeal. <<

And you still haven't shown that this shows a lack of adequate representation.

>> >>>>>>You haven't shown the FTE interests were distinct from the defense's<<<<<< <<

>> OK, if you really want to know, there were two separate issues: (1) ID and (2) the book. <<

Actually, there was ONE issue in the case: whether or not ID is science and therefore something that should be taught in public school science classes. The book is evidence of the creationist basis of ID.

>> The judge could have decided that ID is OK but FTE's book is not, just as a judge could decide that creation science is OK but the Bible is not, or that Darwinism is OK but Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God is not. <<

The judge didn't rule against the book. He ruled against ID being considered science and teachable in science classes. The book was evidence that ID is creationism.

>> The defense was primarily interested in defending ID and not the book. <<

Since the book was not on trial and was being used as evidence, so what? The issue before the court was whether or not ID is a scientific concept. You have as yet failed to provide a real case for FTE being allowed to intervene. What was FTE going to argue that the defense was not arguing? Were they going to claim that "Of Pandas and People" is not an ID book? That would be laughable on its face. Were they going to argue that the paper trail that is the revision history of "Pandas" doesn't show that Creationism was replaced with Design after the Edwards decision? The defense argued that. Face the fact, Larry, that FTEs interests in the case was not distinct from the interests of the defense. Both wanted ID to be declared to be a scientiic theory.

>> Any claim that the TMLC was interested in defending the book is utterly destroyed by the fact that the TMLC was opposed to allowing the FTE's own attorneys and expert witnesses into the case. <<

You do realize that your claim here makes no sense. The defense presented several reasons why the intervention should be denied to FTE. The book wasn't an issue in the trial, it was evidence. The book has not been declared to be anything as a result of the trial, contrary to your silly fantasies otherwise.

>> Help from the FTE would likely have reduced the TMLC's own legal expenses, and as for the plaintiffs' attorney fees, the Dover school board and not the TMLC was liable for those. <<

FTE was NOT offering to HELP the defense, Larry. Just saying that they were over and over again simply shows the vacuity of your argument. I never mentioned plaintiffs' attorney fees, that's your little insertion. The defense felt that intervention would place an undue financial burden upon themselves.

>> If someone had offered to help me with my lawsuits, you can bet your sweet bippy that I would not have turned it down. So think that over for a while. <<

FTE wasn't offering to help anybody, so your point is moot. Maybe you should think on why, exactly, no one offered to help you.

>> Rob, the only reason why I continue to answer your crappy arguments is that it pressures me to improve my arguments. <<

Apparently that pressure hasn't actually effected you, yet, since your arguments have not improved.

>> That is why I suspect that you are really on my side but are just playing the devil's advocate. <<

You're wrong, but I guess the world needs egomaniacal nitwits, too.

>> >>>>>You repeat the unappealability of the denial of intervention as if it should suddenly be meaningful now when it wasn't previously.<<<<<< <<

>> "Previously"? This was the first time that I raised the issue of the appealability of the denial of the motion to intervene. And I take back my statement that this denial was not appealable -- Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure allows interlocutory appeals. A real attorney would have caught my mistake immediately. <<

You've used the unappealability of the denial to intervene SEVERAL times in this thread already, Larry. Don't you bother actually reading what you write? It still doesn't change the fact that is not relevant to the discussion at hand. There's no reason to go any further than the fact that your argument was and is not relevant.

>>>>>>> FRCP Rule 24(b), "permissive intervention," allows intervention even when the original defendant(s) and the applicant for intervention have the same interests in the case. <<

>> Uh, no: "Additionally, if the interests of the proposed intervenors are already represented in the litigation, courts deny such application to intervene.
Hoots, 672 F.2d at 1136."<<<<<<< <<

>> But that provision was in FRCP Rule 24(a), "intervention of right," and not in FRCP Rule 24(b), "permissive intervention." The framers of Rule 24 obviously intended Rule 24(b) to be more flexible than Rule 24(a) in this regard (but not in regard to the issues of delay and prejudice). <<

Rule 24(b) still requires that the applicant's interests will not be adequately represented by an existing party. They need to actually be adding something to the case, which FTE was not. It is completely at the discretion of the judge, which is why denial of permissive intervention is not appealable. But FTE was unable to show that it should be allowed to intervene at any rate.

>> <<<<<<>> And they were trying to show that ID was just mentionable, not necessarily teachable. <<
Kitzmiller was about "presentation of "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to evolution as an "explanation of the origin of life"." Notice that there's nothing here about the mere "mention" if ID.<<<<<<< <<

>> But ID was not actually being taught -- that was my point. <<

The statement that the science teachers were to be forced to read basically lays out the entire ID claim. It is still nothing more than trying to link, in the minds of the students, a non-science (ID) with science (Biology). The statement was not, something akin to "Some people believe, so and so," which would still be questionable but would at least be just a mention it, instead read:
[quote]
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.
[/quote]

This is actually the sum and total of what ID presents. And the statement also implies (falsely) that there is some equivalency between Evolution and ID, and equivalency which ID has not earned. ID has earned no legitimacy, while Evolution has. Also note the disingenuous way that the statements tries to drag Evolution into "Origin of Life" which is explicitly NOT something Evolutionary theory deals with, but which IS a standard Creationist tactic (unreasonably enlarging the scope of what a theory seeks to explain until you find something that it doesn't explain and then damning the theory for not explaining everything).

>> And as attorney Edward Sisson pointed out, the fact that only Darwinism is actually being taught shows that it is the Darwinists who are the real "favored insiders." <<

You know, it's funny how you are incapable of actually matching a source's area of expertise with the topic being referred to. So now, according to you, an attorney, once again from the losing side of the case, should be regarded as an expert on what science is. Sad, Larry, really sad.

>> >>>>>>The fact that you can quote parts of FRCP 24 doesn't mean you're capable of any greater feat that spouting what you've seen without any real understanding, and it shows.<<<<< <<

>> The issue here is not "understanding" -- the issue here is exactly what Rules 24(a) and 24(b) say, verbatim. There is no issue of interpretation here. <<

As I said, you're simply spouting what you read without understanding what you read. You've read the novel, but you lost the story.

>> >>>>>Again, permissive intervention is discretionary, I suggest you look that word up, Larry, since you seem to have a problem understanding it.<<<<<< <<

>> The application of Rule 24(b), "permissive intervention," is discretionary; the standards to be applied are not. "The world must construe according to its wits -- this court must construe according to the law." -- Sir Thomas More in the play "A Man for All Seasons." <<

Poor Larry, still trying to produce meaning from inanities. Your quote is meaningless, Larry. Whether a party is allowed permissive intervention is PURELY at the discretion of the judge. There is not MUST to it. The rules for permissive intervention state the qualifications an applicant MUST have to even have their application for permissive intervention considered.

>> >>>>>>If they are truly there to "help" they would not be intervening in the case, they would be working with whomever they were seeking to help.<<<<<<< <<

>> What better way to help than by having your own attorneys and expert witnesses in the courtroom and filing your own briefs which will add to whatever the original defendants have to say? <<

They are, again, not helping any side but their own. Remember, adversarial system and all that. If their interests are the same as an existing party in the case, they can't intevene by right and they are normally denied permissive intervention. The intervening parties are not working for any other party in the case, they are looking out solely for their own interests. If they want to help one side they can file as amicus parties, in which case they actually ARE helping another party in the case.

>> >>>>>>The intervenor is presenting a case of their own.<<<<<< <<

>> Not necessarily. Under Rule 24(b), the following condition is sufficient grounds for granting "permissive intervention": "an applicant's claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common." <<

Necessarily. They are injecting themselves as separate parties to the case. They aren't, as you want to presume, signing on to help one party in the case. They have explicitly stated that their interests are separate from those of the other parties.

>> >>>>>> Should FTE have been allowed to intervene, they would have been defending their book, calling and cross-examing witnesses in regards to their book, when ID is the subject of the trial.<<<<<< <<

>> So who was there to defend FTE's book when the FTE was not there? <<

The book in question was not the subject of the trial. It was evidence and nothing more. FTE wanted to make the book the issue, which would have been inappropriate.

>>You have just admitted that FTE's interests were not adequately represented by the original defendants! <<

Wow, talk about oddball leaps, Larry. No such thing has been stated, except by you. FTE explicitly had no separate issue in the case, which was about the status of ID and not their book. You still have problems with the whole logic thing, don't you, Larry.

>> >>>>> Oh, and I also see a lack of John West actually showing anybody anything more than his sour grapes.<<<<<< <<

>> Oh, so when people lose, they are just supposed to stay silent and "get over it." <<

When all they have is fact-free claims of "we wuz robbed, boo-hoo-hoo," yes, they should shut up and get over it. If they actually have a case to make, they should make it. Neither you nor John West have made a case.

>> >>>>>>The key here is "in its discretion."<<<<<<< <<

>> Wrong -- the key here is "properly concluded." The SC did not merely say that the District Court did not abuse its discretion. <<

Yes that is what the Supreme Court said.<<<<<<< <<

>> So you agree that the "key" is "properly concluded" and not "in its discretion." In fact, "in its discretion" was superfluous -- the SC could have simply said, "The District Court..... properly concluded that a Monday-morning 'battle of the experts' over possible technical meanings of terms in the statute would not illuminate the contemporaneous purpose of the Louisiana Legislature when it made the law." <<

You know, just when I think your rancid dishonesty couldn't drop any lower, it does.

[quote]
>> Wrong -- the key here is "properly concluded." The SC did not merely say that the District Court did not abuse its discretion. <<

Yes that is what the Supreme Court said. Sorry that you lack the reading skills to see that.
[/quote]

You see the highlighted section? That is, if you paid any attention at all, what I was responding to. Even one with really poor comprehension skiils should have been able to determine that I was not affirming your claim. You really need to work on that reading comprehension. Either that or you are desperately in need of an ethics class.

>> >>>>>>I don't resort to insults except in the cases where someone has attempted to insult me first.<<<<<< <<

>> Bullshit. <<

Well, there's a rational, cogent, statement. Oh, sorry, it's just another blatant assertion. Show me where I have initiated a round of insults.

>> >>>>>Pointing out that your legal career was an abysmal failure is not ad hominem, especially when it is being brough up in relation to one of your claims that you are some great legal mind.<<<<<< <<

>> So you know everything about my "legal career"? And you think that winning cases is the only measure of legal competence? Your inanity is breathtaking -- you have no idea how the courts operate or how they treat pro se litigants. When I sued the County of Los Angeles, the county's attorney said over and over again that I failed to give notice of my suit but the law said that notice was required only for suits for money (my suit was not), and the judge never reprimanded this attorney for making frivolous defenses. <<

Doesn't seem to change the fact that your legal career isn't what can be considered a high-water mark in legal history. But you go ahead and Al Bundy around relying on that experience to bolster any claims you make in legal matters.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 9:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> You said -- False. You just didn't know your options.<

Which is true. I gave you a reason. The reason that you had to go to a professional process server was that you didn't know your options.

> You did not state any alternatives. <

It is not my job to educate you. That would probably be a hopeless task anyway.

> Because I was a party to the cases, I could not serve process myself <

Duh!

> and I had no one to do it for me <

I'm sure your friend Bill Carter could have done it for you.

> For me it was an especially big expense <

Ignorance is often expensive.

> In case you didn't notice, the affidavit that FTE president Jon Buell filed in a federal court in Pennsylvania was certified by a Texas-registered notary public. <

What is the point? A Texas notary public can notarize the signature of a document presented in Texas. It is not necessary for the person whose signature is being notarized even to be a resident of the state and the place where the document is filed has no bearing at all on who can notarize it.

Incidentlly I used to be a notary public before the cost of insurance for such activities went up. So was Bill Carter when he was in Orange County (How did I know that?)

> So VIW, you don't know your sorry ass from a hole in the ground <

I seem to know a lot more than you do. It is amazing how little you know about court proceedures.

> and I am really pissed off that you are imposing upon my no-deletions policy <

I have predicted that you will eventually give that policy up as you continue to lose every argument and and your lies are pointed out. You are probably getting tired of making an ass of yourself.

> I demand that you cease and desist forthwith. <

And then come back under an assumed name as you have done many a time?

Don't get so upset just because you are being shown up to be a fool. You are getting what you want out of it - attention.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 10:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

Rod,

The real humor in this situation is that after your very well written post, Larry will pretend that you didn't address any of his points. Just watch. It's hilarious.

> In fact, if they had been allowed to intervene, they would have been at least as likely to hinder the defense. <

This is reminiscent of Larry's work in the smog fee cases where the other litigants on Larry's side just wished that he would go away.

> Show me where I have initiated a round of insults. <

He won't. He accuses me of the same thing. In every case where there are insults, he has initiated them. Therefore I feel no compunction in calling him a pathetic asshole.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 11:05:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Rob Serrano said ( 6/20/2006 09:39:37 PM ) --

>>>>>>Notice how "quick search" appears nowhere in what you said until you were caught.<<<<<

"Caught"? LOL I later clarified my statement by saying that I just did a quick search -- there is no dishonesty there.

>>>>>Still showing that you don't know what ad hominem means. John West has no legal training, his opinion on such matters is not compelling.<<<<<

There we go again, another ad hominem attack -- saying that John West's opinion is "not compelling" because he has no legal training.

>>>>>Who said anything about plaintiffs' attorney's fees? The defendants felt the intervention would place an undo financial burden upon themselves. Defense lawyers don't come free any more than the plaintiffs' attorneys.<<<<<<

Do you mean that you did not know that the Thomas More Law Center represented the defendants for free?

>>>>>>Once again, a paragraph in which, for the sake of accuracy, the whole thing should be prefaced with "Larry wants you to believe," because, once again it's nothing more than bald assertion. You've not a shred of support for your claim, which isn't surprising.<<<<<<

What in the hell are you talking about? I said that the plaintiffs subpoenaed very detailed information about FTE's books -- manuscripts, memos, emails, phone records, etc. -- and I backed up that statement with Jon Buell's affidavit.

>>>>>The judge didn't rule against the book. He ruled against ID being considered science and teachable in science classes. The book was evidence that ID is creationism.<<<<<<

He did too rule against the book. The opinion focused very heavily on the book -- the book was named 74 times in the opinion, and about half of those times concerned the contents of the book. Of Pandas and People is just one of many books about ID. The only other book that got some attention in the Dover opinion was Darwin's Black Box, and that was probably because the author, Michael Behe, was an expert witness in the case. ID does not rise or fall on the basis of Of Pandas and People, just as Darwinism does not rise or fall on the basis of Origin of Species or Seeking Darwin's God.

>>>>>Since the book was not on trial and was being used as evidence, so what?<<<<<<

The book was on trial -- see the above.

>>>>> FTE decided to do nothing for months. Their motion simply was not timely.<<<<<

The fact that FTE had done nothing for months (and they had no particular reason for doing anything, because until they got the subpoena they had no evidence that the plaintiffs would try to make the book central to the case) was far less significant than the following facts: (1) 3-4 months until the start of the courtroom testimony; (2) no new discovery materials; and (3) no new witnesses. So you think that FTE should have been "punished" just for being late (and they had good justification for being late), even if the lateness had no practical effect.

>>>>>>denial of permissive intervention is not appealable.<<<<<<

Wrong. Nothing says that the denial of permissive intervention or intervention of right is not appealable.

I found out that Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP) does not prohibit interlocutory appeals: "An interlocutory appeal, in the law of civil procedure is an appeal of a ruling by a trial court that is made before the trial itself has concluded. Most jurisdictions generally prohibit such appeals, requiring parties to wait until the trial has concluded before they challenge any of the decisions made by the judge during that trial. However, many jurisdictions make an exception for decisions that are particularly prejudicial to the rights of one of the parties." One of the justifications used for allowing an interlocutory appeal is that the matter effectively becomes unreviewable if immediate appeal is not allowed, and that justification certainly applies to denials of intervention. Furthermore, if any rule in the FRAP could be interpreted as barring appeal of a denial of intervention, then FRAP Rule 2, "Suspension of Rules," gives the appeals court the authority to suspend such a rule. Rob, I just run circles around you when it comes to knowledge of the law -- you just don't stand a chance.

>>>>>Face the fact, Larry, that FTEs interests in the case was not distinct from the interests of the defense.<<<<<<

Wrong. ID and the book were potentially two separate issues. Hell, the Thomas More Law Center might have tried to sacrifice the book in an attempt to save ID -- for example, the TMLC might have told the court that the book is crap and does not truly represent ID. Anything was possible -- no one has a crystal ball that tells how litigation is going to proceed.

Also, FTE is obviously the best qualified to defend its own book. It is disingenuous to claim that the Thomas More Law Center could do as good a job of defending the book as FTE could do.

Finally, as I said before, future financial losses need not be certain or precisely predictable in order to give legal standing in court.

>>>>>>> And as attorney Edward Sisson pointed out, the fact that only Darwinism is actually being taught shows that it is the Darwinists who are the real "favored insiders." <<
So now, according to you, an attorney, once again from the losing side of the case, should be regarded as an expert on what science is<<<<<<

No, this is a question of law, not science. And I don't think we will be on the losing side for long -- the Selman v. Cobb County textbook sticker lawsuit is in very bad shape.

>>>>>You see the highlighted section? That is, if you paid any attention at all, what I was responding to.<<<<<

How in the hell was I supposed to know what you were responding to? Anyway, the important thing is not what I said, but what the Supreme Court said -- the SC said that the district court had "properly concluded" that the expert witness testimony should not be heard. In other words, the SC was agreeing with the district court decision and was not merely saying that there was no abuse of discretion. I mean, this is plain English -- and you say that I do not have reading comprehension skills? Sheeeeesh.

Rob, as I said, debating you has improved my arguments, but again I am reaching the point of diminishing returns where the improvement in my arguments is just not worth the effort required to debate your nonsense. I am about to give up on you.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:24:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> There we go again, another ad hominem attack -- saying that John West's opinion is "not compelling" because he has no legal training. <

There we go again, Larry continuing to prove that he not only doesn't know the meaning of "ad hominem" but also doesn't know how to look it up or understand what he reads.

>>>>>Since the book was not on trial and was being used as evidence, so what?<<<<<<

> The book was on trial -- see the above. <

The above only showed that it was being used as evidence.

> far less significant than the following facts: <

(Followed by mindless repetition in the belief that an argument that failed before will succeed if repeated.)

> Rob, I just run circles around you when it comes to knowledge of the law -- you just don't stand a chance. <

All you prove is that you still don't understand the meaning of the word "interlocutory".

> Hell, the Thomas More Law Center might have tried to sacrifice the book in an attempt to save ID -- for example, the TMLC might have told the court that the book is crap and does not truly represent ID. <

But they didn't so what is the point.

> Also, FTE is obviously the best qualified to defend its own book. <

Which was not on trial.

> It is disingenuous to claim that the Thomas More Law Center could do as good a job of defending the book as FTE could do. <

it is disingenuous to continue to claim that the book was on trial after Rod has cut your argument to shreds.

> Finally, as I said before, future financial losses need not be certain or precisely predictable in order to give legal standing in court. <

This is one of the reasons that your first pathetic attempt at palming yourself off as an interested party in the smog impact fee case was thrown out. You were outraged that you did not have to pay it. You had no dog in the hunt.

> the Selman v. Cobb County textbook sticker lawsuit is in very bad shape. <

They have won all of the battles and you say they are in danger of losing the war.

>>>>>You see the highlighted section? That is, if you paid any attention at all, what I was responding to.<<<<<

> How in the hell was I supposed to know what you were responding to? <

You would have to read the highlighted section, dunce. Why do you think it was highlighted. It looks like you don't bother to read his posts before you attempt to respond to them. Your statement makes you look like a buffoon.

> and you say that I do not have reading comprehension skills? Sheeeeesh. <

Two examples of your problem have been shown above.

> I am reaching the point of diminishing returns <

You have zero returns. You just can't seem to get beyond your basic deficiencies in argument. I think that it is hopeless.

> I am about to give up on you. <

It is wise of you to admit defeat. You were getting nowhere. You seem to lack the basic debating skills to prove that the Sun rises in the East. Taking a side as silly as the idea that ID is not creationism puts you into a hopeless position.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 6:29:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice, Rod,

Don't you know that this is my blog and I am therefore always right?

If you keep this up, I will tell Mom.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 7:02:00 AM  
Blogger Dave Fafarman said...

ViW said:
< What is the significance of the order of the questions? Am I supposed to wait until hell freezes over and Larry replies to the first one before I answer? >

You are correct; sorry. I should know better. Never mind about the sequence. At least, I am gratified that he has not (this time) called me "fake" (or worse).

< I was willing to plead "no contest" after your last guess. If you want to ask more questions, are you ready to return the acorns? >

Hey, ViW, I was under the impression that you made "good delivery" of acorns. How do you know that I haven't prepared and eaten them already? Just what are these acorns anyway?? And what does "no contest" mean here? Did you prefer JVP's resume to your own?

(BTW, please stop referring to Rob as "Rod". He seems to be too polite to complain.)

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 9:36:00 AM  
Blogger Dave Fafarman said...

Larry said:
< I agree that what the Dover school board spent on the case was bad money. The Kitzmiller opinion is not even worth the paper it's printed on, let alone its $1 million cost to the Dover school district. But my point was that for just a few thousand dollars more, the board might have gotten something that was worth something ... >

So, you think that, if the IDists had won, the Dover school board would have gotten some sort of value for its money? But what if the value of an education in ID is less than zero? It is, after all, the default opinion of the casual and thoughtless observer, having been "discovered" at around the same time that PI was found to equal 3. One hardly needs to be trained in order to come up with it.

A few days ago I was looking at a frankly creationist post (wish I could remember where I saw it -- I'd quote it). A pro-evolution poster had previously pointed out a long list of vestigial organs that made no sense from a creationist viewpoint. The creationist's response was effectively a yawn -- a "so what?" Creationism is profoundly stultifying to the pursuit of knowledge.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 9:55:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In the Wilderness said --

>>>>>>>I gave you a reason. The reason that you had to go to a professional process server was that you didn't know your options.<<<<<<

VIW, that is so stupid that it's not even funny.

I don't know who you think you are impressing with your "cleverness." Your breathtaking inanity (trademarked by Judge Jones) is in the same category as the following gems --

From Bill Carter (?) --
When one fails to recognize that he or she has performed poorly, the individual is left assuming that they have performed well. -- Scott Granneman

============================

From Anton Chekhov's "The Three Sisters" --

VERSHININ. .... the railway station is fifteen miles away. . . . And no one knows why it's so.

SOLYONY. I know why it is. [They all look at him.] Because if the station had been near it would not have been so far, and if it is far, it's because it's not near.

[An awkward silence.]

TUZENBAKH. He's fond of his joke, Vassily Vassilyevitch.

===========================

OK, VIW, you've had your fun. This is getting old.

You have the mentality of a tagger. Get a life.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 10:56:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

Larry said ...

> In case you didn't notice, the affidavit that FTE president Jon Buell filed in a federal court in Pennsylvania was certified by a Texas-registered notary public. <

And then he ducked my response to this. I guess he realized what a meaningless observation it was. He probably didn't want to show further ignorance of legal procedures.

I can count this as one more acorn.

The Real Dave said ...

> Hey, ViW, I was under the impression that you made "good delivery" of acorns. <

You have never stated if you accepted my offer of "no contest" so I did not deliver them. I could have sent them as your address is public information. Why have you claimed on the Guest Gear blog to be in Richmond? You are in El Sobrante. You didn't work in Richmond either.

> Just what are these acorns anyway?? <

They are the things from which mighty oaks grow.

> And what does "no contest" mean here? <

The same as in court. You must know more about law than your brother. Who doesn't?

To know more about "no contest", look up Informix in Wikipedia. Several of your former colleagues know what it means.

> Did you prefer JVP's resume to your own? <

I am very impressed by JVP's resume.

> BTW, please stop referring to Rob as "Rod". <

Sorry, My error. He seems to be doing very well here. He has conclusively won every argument so far, then again, so has Kevin, so has most everybody. Larry only wins when he argues with himself, which happens surprisingly often.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 11:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> VIW, that is so stupid that it's not even funny. <

You mean that you don't understand it? I thought that even a dimwit like yourself would get it. I tried to use simple words. Perhaps I overestimeted you.

> " Your breathtaking inanity (trademarked by Judge Jones) <

There you go with another of your baseless attacks on Judge Jones. Why should anyone take you seriously? I don't.

> From Bill Carter (?) --
When one fails to recognize that he or she has performed poorly, the individual is left assuming that they have performed well. -- Scott Granneman <

You are so simple that you see some connection between that and Anton Chekov's "The Three Sisters"? It appears that you did not understand either quote. Then again, you rarely understand anything.

> OK, VIW, you've had your fun. This is getting old. <

I am enjoying it.

> Get a life. <

I would suggest you do the same. I know that you are incapable of getting a job, but perhaps you could find something more fruitful than losing absurd legal cases or trying to defend indefensable positions on a blog.

I have a project for you. Why don't you try to lose your status as the oldest virgin in Los Angeles? The zoo is only 15 miles away. I am sure that you could find your soulmate there.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 11:16:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In The Wilderness said...

>>>>>>Larry said ...

> In case you didn't notice, the affidavit that FTE president Jon Buell filed in a federal court in Pennsylvania was certified by a Texas-registered notary public. <

And then he ducked my response to this. I guess he realized what a meaningless observation it was.<<<<<<

VIW, I am going to be "ducking" a lot of your responses. In fact, I am not even going to be reading your responses. Most of your responses are so asinine that it is not worth my while to read your posts. The only reason why you are still here is that I have a no-deletions policy.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 11:23:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

As much as I hate to do it, I've got to respond to the fake Dave's post (who is the fake Dave? Ed Brayton himself, maybe?)

From post of 6/20/2006 02:48:27 PM --

>>>>>>I think the point's to Larry here -- it is true, as he claimed, that plaintiffs were seeking whatever info they could get (so, what else is new?).<<<<<<

The lawsuit was supposed to be about ID. So if the plaintiffs were seeking "whatever info they could get," then why did they single out Of Pandas and People? Why didn't they seek manuscripts, emails, letters, phone records, memos, etc., concerning other books about ID, e.g., Darwin's Black Box and No Free Lunch? And why didn't the defendants seek similar information about Darwin's Origin of Species and Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God? Anyway, I assert that this kind of info goes far beyond what the imaginary "objective" or "reasonable" observer of the judicial Lemon and endorsement tests should be expected to know.

Here is FTE's own statement concerning the Dover case.

>>>>>>However, in response to Buell's affidavit, the protective order was granted. That hardly seems to fit the picture of "the evil Judge Jones" or a court system designed to railroad FTE<<<<<<

Looks like the Darwinists are starting to waffle -- saying stuff that is sort of like, "well, maybe Judge Jones is not quite as evil as he appears to be at first sight."

I believe that it was a Texas judge and not Judge Jones who quashed the FTE subpoena. And Jones went on a fishing expedition demanding that expert witness Dembski submit the draft materials for The Design of Life; this may have caused Dembski to quit -- I don't know. Jones' order made some feeble and largely worthless attempts to ensure that the draft materials would be kept confidential.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

Larry Admits Defeat!!!

>>>>>>Larry said ...

> In case you didn't notice, the affidavit that FTE president Jon Buell filed in a federal court in Pennsylvania was certified by a Texas-registered notary public. <

And then he ducked my response to this. I guess he realized what a meaningless observation it was.<<<<<<

> VIW, I am going to be "ducking" a lot of your responses. <

Larry has shown that he has no answer to this. He made a stupid statement about who had notarized a document and now he realizes that, as usual, he has no idea what he is talking about. I love it! This is worth an entire bag of acorns.

> In fact, I am not even going to be reading your responses. <

It doesn't look like you read anyone's responses before making your pathetic attempts to respond to them.

Your brother's posts are so good that you haven't even tried to answer them.

From now on, you will be referred to as Larry(?) in honor of Bill Carter.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:28:00 PM  
Blogger Rob Serrano said...

larry fafarman said...

>> Rob Serrano said ( 6/20/2006 09:39:37 PM ) --

>>>>>>Notice how "quick search" appears nowhere in what you said until you were caught.<<<<< <<

>> "Caught"? LOL I later clarified my statement by saying that I just did a quick search -- there is no dishonesty there. <<

Caught as in when it was pointed out that intentionalism is a term used to describe a theory of interpreting the constitutionm suddenly you had only done a "quick search" on Google.

>> >>>>>Still showing that you don't know what ad hominem means. John West has no legal training, his opinion on such matters is not compelling.<<<<< <<

>> There we go again, another ad hominem attack -- saying that John West's opinion is "not compelling" because he has no legal training. <<

His opinion is purely a result of bitterness at losing, he has no special legal training that would make his argument compelling. There is no support for his claim, except that you want it to be true and therefore blidly accept his statement as true

>> >>>>>Who said anything about plaintiffs' attorney's fees? The defendants felt the intervention would place an undo financial burden upon themselves. Defense lawyers don't come free any more than the plaintiffs' attorneys.<<<<<< <<

>> Do you mean that you did not know that the Thomas More Law Center represented the defendants for free? <<

Their attorneys were not working for free, or didn't you get that memo. TMLC working for free meant the cost for all fees incurred by the defense was being paid directly by TMLC.

>> >>>>>>Once again, a paragraph in which, for the sake of accuracy, the whole thing should be prefaced with "Larry wants you to believe," because, once again it's nothing more than bald assertion. You've not a shred of support for your claim, which isn't surprising.<<<<<< <<

>> What in the hell are you talking about? I said that the plaintiffs subpoenaed very detailed information about FTE's books -- manuscripts, memos, emails, phone records, etc. -- and I backed up that statement with Jon Buell's affidavit. <<

Do try to remember what you've actually said, Larry. Otherwise you just continue to embarrass yourself. You stated that the subpoena was evidence that FTE was being targeted by the prosecution and that they therefore should have been allowed to intervene. But a subpoena is not evidence of targeting, it is evidence that a party in the case believes you have information they require. The prosecution believed -- rightly, apparently -- that FTE and its book contained information that was pertinent to the issue at hand, namely whether ID was science or simply creationism renamed. Simply receiving a subpoena does not suddenly give you the right to intervene in a case.

>> >>>>>The judge didn't rule against the book. He ruled against ID being considered science and teachable in science classes. The book was evidence that ID is creationism.<<<<<< <<

>> He did too rule against the book. The opinion focused very heavily on the book -- the book was named 74 times in the opinion, and about half of those times concerned the contents of the book. <<

Citing the book in the decision does not mean that Judge Jones ruled against the book. The book was evidence in the case, it would be absurd for Judge Jones to not refer to it.


>> Of Pandas and People is just one of many books about ID. <<

None of which you've read, according to your own statements.

>> The only other book that got some attention in the Dover opinion was Darwin's Black Box, and that was probably because the author, Michael Behe, was an expert witness in the case. <<

You mean the other book that got some mention in the case was cited in Judge Jones' opinion? Imagine that, Larry. A judge actually refering to evidence presented to him in his decision. Whatever will they think of next?

>> ID does not rise or fall on the basis of Of Pandas and People, just as Darwinism does not rise or fall on the basis of Origin of Species or Seeking Darwin's God. <<

The relevance of this statement being? ID doesn't depend on "Of Pandas and People" but "Of Pandas and People" depends on ID. It's not like you can argue that "Pandas" covers anything but ID. But that also means that FTE's interest in the case were not distinct from the defenses, hence the intervention denial.

>> >>>>>Since the book was not on trial and was being used as evidence, so what?<<<<<< <<

>> The book was on trial -- see the above. <<

Truth by assertion, once again. You have yet to actually support this claim.

>> >>>>> FTE decided to do nothing for months. Their motion simply was not timely.<<<<< <<

>> The fact that FTE had done nothing for months (and they had no particular reason for doing anything, because until they got the subpoena they had no evidence that the plaintiffs would try to make the book central to the case) was far less significant than the following facts: (1) 3-4 months until the start of the courtroom testimony; (2) no new discovery materials; and (3) no new witnesses. So you think that FTE should have been "punished" just for being late (and they had good justification for being late), even if the lateness had no practical effect. <<

We've already gone over this, Larry. You were wrong the first dozen times you said it, why do you think you're going to be less wrong now? They had NO GOOD REASON for being late. Companies regularly keep track of court cases that pertain to them or may effect them, especially when their product figures into the case. It is disingenuous, to say the least, to wait all those months and then try to make the "We didn't know" defense. And, even if they had applied to intervene in a timely manner, they failed all of the other tests to determine whether they should be allowed to intervene

>> >>>>>>denial of permissive intervention is not appealable.<<<<<< <<

>> Wrong. Nothing says that the denial of permissive intervention or intervention of right is not appealable. <<

Denial of permissive intervention is not appealable because permissive intervention is solely at the discretion of the trial judge. They don't ever have to be granted.

>> I found out that Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP) does not prohibit interlocutory appeals: "An interlocutory appeal, in the law of civil procedure is an appeal of a ruling by a trial court that is made before the trial itself has concluded. Most jurisdictions generally prohibit such appeals, requiring parties to wait until the trial has concluded before they challenge any of the decisions made by the judge during that trial. However, many jurisdictions make an exception for decisions that are particularly prejudicial to the rights of one of the parties." <<

Oh look, Larry found another law quote he thinks supports his claims. Let's see if he can make this one fly:

>> One of the justifications used for allowing an interlocutory appeal is that the matter effectively becomes unreviewable if immediate appeal is not allowed, and that justification certainly applies to denials of intervention. Furthermore, if any rule in the FRAP could be interpreted as barring appeal of a denial of intervention, then FRAP Rule 2, "Suspension of Rules," gives the appeals court the authority to suspend such a rule. <<

Ooh, I'm sorry. And here I thought you were going to try to astound me with some feat of legal reasoning. But once again you fail to even show how your latest quote even applies to this case.

>> Rob, I just run circles around you when it comes to knowledge of the law -- you just don't stand a chance. <<

Oh, Larry, Larry, Larry. The sum total of your so-called "legal knowledge" seem to consist of skimming and regurgitating (or cutting and pasting) actual laws and failing to actually show that they apply to the case at hand, much less that you have any real knowledge of what they mean, or how they are used.

>> >>>>>Face the fact, Larry, that FTEs interests in the case was not distinct from the interests of the defense.<<<<<< <<

>> Wrong. ID and the book were potentially two separate issues. <<

But they were not separate issues for the purposes of this trial. ID was the issue in this trial. The book was just evidence.

>> Hell, the Thomas More Law Center might have tried to sacrifice the book in an attempt to save ID -- for example, the TMLC might have told the court that the book is crap and does not truly represent ID. <<

What is this, truth by "What If?" Whether they "might have" taken some step or another is not an argument, especially in light of the fact that they didn't.

>> Anything was possible -- no one has a crystal ball that tells how litigation is going to proceed. <<

The lack of crystal balls as a legal defense. This is truly one of your stupider games, Larry. And that's saying a lot.

>> Also, FTE is obviously the best qualified to defend its own book. It is disingenuous to claim that the Thomas More Law Center could do as good a job of defending the book as FTE could do. <<

The book wasn't on trial, ID was.

>> Finally, as I said before, future financial losses need not be certain or precisely predictable in order to give legal standing in court. <<

FTE's entire argument was found to be non-compelling. It managed to succeed at none of the required tests to be allowed to intervene. In order to be granted intervention by right, they had to meet all of the tests. And they didn't show that they would add anything to the case beside prejudicing the existing parties and imposing upon them an extra financial burden.

>> >>>>>>> And as attorney Edward Sisson pointed out, the fact that only Darwinism is actually being taught shows that it is the Darwinists who are the real "favored insiders." <<
So now, according to you, an attorney, once again from the losing side of the case, should be regarded as an expert on what science is<<<<<< <<

>> No, this is a question of law, not science. <<

No, it's always been a question of science. The only reason it became a matter for the courts is because the DI and a few other agendized idiots have taken steps that require mediation by the courts.

>> And I don't think we will be on the losing side for long -- the Selman v. Cobb County textbook sticker lawsuit is in very bad shape. <<

According to you, and we KNOW how far your credibility goes, don't we, Larry? We also know how well your crystal ball works.

>> >>>>>You see the highlighted section? That is, if you paid any attention at all, what I was responding to.<<<<< <<

>> How in the hell was I supposed to know what you were responding to? <<

It's called reading, Larry. I'm sure your local community college can provide remediation on that if you need it.

>> Anyway, the important thing is not what I said, but what the Supreme Court said -- the SC said that the district court had "properly concluded" that the expert witness testimony should not be heard. In other words, the SC was agreeing with the district court decision and was not merely saying that there was no abuse of discretion. I mean, this is plain English -- and you say that I do not have reading comprehension skills? Sheeeeesh. <<

Actually, Larry, you still fail to actually comprehend what was said. The SC was explicit affirming that the judge in Edwards had not abused his discretion in excluding the expert witnesses. The key is "discretion," and your failure to realize that is a failure that rests squarely on you.

>> Rob, as I said, debating you has improved my arguments, but again I am reaching the point of diminishing returns where the improvement in my arguments is just not worth the effort required to debate your nonsense. <<

Then why have your arguments not improved any. I would settle for your arguments taking on the semblance of reality.

>> I am about to give up on you. <<

That would be because you've lost the argument.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 2:16:00 PM  
Blogger Dave Fafarman said...

ViW said:
> Hey, ViW, I was under the impression that you made "good delivery" of acorns. <

< You have never stated if you accepted my offer of "no contest" so I did not deliver them. >

Hmm. Bit of a misunderstanding perhaps. I understood the acorns to be "virtual acorns" (which seems to me to accord better with the way you have usually used the term), and delivered when you mentioned them.

As an interested party, I cannot "accept" the offer of "no contest". That would seem to require a judge, which we do not have.

< Why have you claimed on the Guest Gear blog to be in Richmond? >

Courtesy to someone in a foreign country (or out of the county for that matter).

How many questions do each of us (Bill and I) have remaining? I think I would like to "spend" mine on my second question above.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 2:32:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> I understood the acorns to be "virtual acorns" <

I would accept virtual acorns since If I were to win, you would not have my mailing address. In the event you won, I would actually mail the acorns. Both your and Bill Carter's addresses are available from the same source. I am sure you can guess what that is but Larry(?) won't have a clue.

> As an interested party, I cannot "accept" the offer of "no contest". <

It is a bit awkward since both you and Bill would have to agree. Since you are in daily contact with Bill (according to him), I am sure that I can assume that one can speak for both.

> How many questions do each of us (Bill and I) have remaining? <

I haven't been thinking of this for a while so I will have to look back. It seemed to me that I was giving each of you five guesses each and five questions between you. I will have to go back and see what constituted a guess and what a question. When you named two people as possibilities, that could count as one question or two guesses depending on how you look at it. I will yield to your judgment on this one.

> I think I would like to "spend" mine on my second question above. <

I don't know what you mean. The only question I saw was: "How many questions do each of us (Bill and I) have remaining?" Conceivably one could count that as an answered question, but I am not that unfair. Make your actual question clearer and I will answer it.

It looks like Rob (Thanks for the correction) has Larry(?) completely treed. Larry(?) is threatening to stop responding to him too, which is, of course, and admission of defeat in his contest with Rob too.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 3:37:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot. - Mark Twain, Huckleberry Finn, 1884

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 4:07:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Rob Serrano said ( 6/21/2006 02:16:39 PM ) --

>>>>>His opinion is purely a result of bitterness at losing, he has no special legal training that would make his argument compelling.<<<<<<<

When you Darwinists lose the Selman textbook sticker case -- which now looks quite likely -- I can assure you that you will never hear the end of it from us.

>>>>>>Their attorneys were not working for free, or didn't you get that memo. TMLC working for free meant the cost for all fees incurred by the defense was being paid directly by TMLC.<<<<<<

You were talking about the costs being incurred by the defendants.

>>>>>>But a subpoena is not evidence of targeting, it is evidence that a party in the case believes you have information they require.<<<<<<<

The kind of information that the plaintiffs were demanding from FTE was evidence of targeting.

>>>>>>Citing the book in the decision does not mean that Judge Jones ruled against the book. The book was evidence in the case, it would be absurd for Judge Jones to not refer to it.<<<<<<<

Judge Jones condemned the book. A large part of the opinion was devoted to discussion of the contents of the book (the book was named 74 times in the opinion, about half the time in regard to the book's contents). Do you think that he could have reached the decision that he did without condemning the book?

You can call the book "evidence" or whatever you like, but that does not change the fact that the book was central to the decision.

>>>>>They had NO GOOD REASON for being late.<<<<<<

And your point is? If -- as you claim -- FTE had no reason for intervention after getting the subpoena, then FTE had even less -- MUCH less -- reason for intervention before getting the subpoena. So what would have been the point of seeking intervention before getting the subpoena?

In regard to the delay issue, Judge Jones was just maliciously punishing FTE for allegedly being slow in applying to intervene. Again: (1) there were 3-4 months until the start of courtroom testimony, (2) no new discovery material, and (3) no new expert witnesses.

>>>>>>Denial of permissive intervention is not appealable because permissive intervention is solely at the discretion of the trial judge.<<<<<

Wrong. Nothing says that permissive intervention or intervention of right is solely at the discretion of the trial judge. A denial of intervention is subject to interlocutory appeal, just like any other court order that effectively becomes unreviewable if an appeal is not immediately granted. You have not shown anything to the contrary.

>>>>>>What is this, truth by "What If?" Whether they "might have" taken some step or another is not an argument, especially in light of the fact that they didn't. <<<<<

That is just hindsight. That is not a valid argument when trying to justify decisions made before an event.

>>>>>>The lack of crystal balls as a legal defense.<<<<<

Judge Jones seemed to think that he had a crystal ball. Could he have foretold that the book would be central to his decision?

>>>>>No, it's always been a question of science.<<<<<<

Wrong. The question of "favored insiders" and "favored outsiders" in regard to establishment clause cases is a legal question, not a scientific one.

>>>>>>> And I don't think we will be on the losing side for long -- the Selman v. Cobb County textbook sticker lawsuit is in very bad shape. <<
According to you, and we KNOW how far your credibility goes, don't we, Larry?<<<<<

Well, consider this -- the 2300-signature petition that was central to the district court's decision was never found and was not even mentioned in the plaintiffs' pretrial brief.

>>>>>>Actually, Larry, you still fail to actually comprehend what was said. The SC was explicit affirming that the judge in Edwards had not abused his discretion in excluding the expert witnesses. The key is "discretion,"<<<<<<

I already showed that the meaning of the sentence was not changed by removing the phrase, "in its discretion." I am not going to go over this again.

>>>>>>> I am about to give up on you. <<
That would be because you've lost the argument. <<<<<<

No -- because I am tired of wasting my time with you. My debates with you have been a distraction from other things that I wanted to do. Panda's Thumb and Ed Brayton have a much easier way of dealing with unwanted comments -- the comments are simply deleted and the commenters are banned. This of course gives the illusion that Ed Brayton and the bloggers on PT win all their debates.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 4:20:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In the Wilderness and other hecklers are trying to sabotage this blog because they are jealous that I have the brains to set up a blog and they don't.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 4:32:00 PM  
Blogger Dave Fafarman said...

ViW said:
> How many questions do each of us (Bill and I) have remaining? <

< I haven't been thinking of this for a while so I will have to look back. It seemed to me that I was giving each of you five guesses each and five questions between you. I will have to go back and see what constituted a guess and what a question. When you named two people as possibilities, that could count as one question or two guesses depending on how you look at it. I will yield to your judgment on this one. >

Well, please give us a summary as you see it.

> I think I would like to "spend" mine on my second question above. <

< I don't know what you mean. >

The following is the "2nd question" I was referring to:

"Second, to ViW: You claim to know our parents. What were the circumstances of your meeting them?"

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 5:30:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> "Second, to ViW: You claim to know our parents. What were the circumstances of your meeting them?" <

This doesn't seem like a legitimate question. It is similar to asking what my name is. If I said too little, you would not consider it a fair answer and if I said too much I would give myself away. So far your questions have been of a yes or no variety.

As to the number of questions and guesses left, I have to admit that I have lost track. I believe that you have made two plus guesses and asked three plus questions. The plus was when you asked a compound question. It could either count as two guesses or one question. I will leave it up to you to chose. That would leave you one guess and two questions, or two guesses and one question. As far as I can remember, Bill has not made any guesses. I also believe that I have made four hints. The original idea was that if I gave five hints and you still did not guess, I would win, but I am willing to go for complete exhaustion of questions, guesses, and hints to count as a win.

Tell me if your count is different and how you want to count the compound question/guess.

Bill, why haven't you guessed?

Larry(?) hasn't guessed. He probably believes that I am Wellington.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 5:43:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

The fake Dave Fafarman (Ed Brayton?) said ( 6/21/2006 09:55:48 AM ) --

>>>>>>> I agree that what the Dover school board spent on the case was bad money. The Kitzmiller opinion is not even worth the paper it's printed on, let alone its $1 million cost to the Dover school district. But my point was that for just a few thousand dollars more, the board might have gotten something that was worth something ... >

So, you think that, if the IDists had won, the Dover school board would have gotten some sort of value for its money? <<<<<<<

The issue was not winning or losing the case. It was generally agreed that under the judicial Lemon test, the school board had no chance of winning because of the religious motivations of the former school board members. But some of the new school board members said in November that they were not interested in trying to avoid paying the plaintiffs' attorney fees by repealing the ID policy prior to judgment, but that they were just curious about what the judge had to say. So I said that for just a comparatively little more money, they could have also gotten an opinion from the appeals court and maybe even the Supreme Court.

BTW, by allowing a tremendous amount of expert testimony, Judge Jones appeared to commit himself to ruling on the scientific merits of ID just in order to prevent the waste of all that testimony, even though he could have based his decision just on the religious motivations of the former school board members. I have already shown that having a "Monday morning battle of the experts" was contrary to the Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision.

>>>>>>A few days ago I was looking at a frankly creationist post (wish I could remember where I saw it -- I'd quote it). A pro-evolution poster had previously pointed out a long list of vestigial organs that made no sense from a creationist viewpoint. The creationist's response was effectively a yawn -- a "so what?" Creationism is profoundly stultifying to the pursuit of knowledge. <<<<<<<

That is one of the things that I don't like about the name "intelligent design" -- a lot of it is not intelligent at all (one other thing that I do not like about the name is that it implies the existence of a supernatural "designer"). And vestigial organs are only part of the evidence of a lack of apparent intelligence in biological "design." Another piece of evidence is that people are prone to certain kinds of injuries -- and the injuries are more severe -- because of poor design. For example, some injured body parts heal slowly or not at all because of a poor blood supply (an example is the scaphoid bone of the wrist). Poor ligament design makes people prone to a particularly serious mid-foot sprain called a "Lisfranc" sprain. Shrinkage of the popliteal artery at the back of the knee as a result of knee hyperextension can severely impair circulation in the lower leg. The list goes on. So I think the question of whether the "design" is "intelligent" is to a great extent a philosophical one. I often prefer to use non-ID challenges to evolution theory, like challenges based on co-evolution -- see "The Co-evolutionary Paradox".

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 5:45:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

To Voice In the Wilderness, the fake Dave Fafarman, et al. --

I am really pissed off that you guys are misusing this blog for your idle chatter. You should do that elsewhere.

I am really sorry now that I committed myself to a no-deletions policy. I really did not have to do that. It was an extreme overreaction to gross censorship on other Internet forums. At the time I started this blog, I did not think that people would be so unethical and inconsiderate as to take unreasonable advantage of the policy.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 6:09:00 PM  
Blogger Rob Serrano said...

larry fafarman said...

>> Rob Serrano said ( 6/21/2006 02:16:39 PM ) --

>>>>>His opinion is purely a result of bitterness at losing, he has no special legal training that would make his argument compelling.<<<<<<< <<

>> When you Darwinists lose the Selman textbook sticker case -- which now looks quite likely -- I can assure you that you will never hear the end of it from us. <<

It's only your opinion that the Pro-Evolution side will lose. You really need to learn the difference between what you want and what really is.

>> >>>>>>Their attorneys were not working for free, or didn't you get that memo. TMLC working for free meant the cost for all fees incurred by the defense was being paid directly by TMLC.<<<<<< <<

>> You were talking about the costs being incurred by the defendants. <<

Actually, I was talking about costs to the defense, not just the defendants.

>> >>>>>>But a subpoena is not evidence of targeting, it is evidence that a party in the case believes you have information they require.<<<<<<< <<

>> The kind of information that the plaintiffs were demanding from FTE was evidence of targeting. <<

No, it was evidence that FTE had a lot of information the prosecution felt was pertinent to the case.

>> >>>>>>Citing the book in the decision does not mean that Judge Jones ruled against the book. The book was evidence in the case, it would be absurd for Judge Jones to not refer to it.<<<<<<< <<

>> Judge Jones condemned the book. <<

Let me guess, you're still having a problem distinguishing between writing about the book and ruling against it. Well, in a nutshell, too bad. Just blindly repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it any more true.

>> A large part of the opinion was devoted to discussion of the contents of the book (the book was named 74 times in the opinion, about half the time in regard to the book's contents). <<

You're still failing to grasp the fact a simple count of references is meaningless. It certainly doesn't show the Judge Jones ruled against the book.

>> Do you think that he could have reached the decision that he did without condemning the book? <<

Irrelevant, since the subject was whether Judge Jones RULED on the book, which he didn't. Changing the subject does nothing to help your case, Larry.

>> You can call the book "evidence" or whatever you like, but that does not change the fact that the book was central to the decision. <<

So, you're backing off the claim that Judge Jones RULED ON THE BOOK.

>> >>>>>They had NO GOOD REASON for being late.<<<<<< <<

>> And your point is? If -- as you claim -- FTE had no reason for intervention after getting the subpoena, then FTE had even less -- MUCH less -- reason for intervention before getting the subpoena. So what would have been the point of seeking intervention before getting the subpoena? <<

Try keep up, Larry. FTE had no excuse for waiting so long before applying to intervene. Any business that wants to stay in business (and you may not be aware of this) keeps up on legal cases that may effect them, especially those cases that involve a product of theirs in any way. From what I actually said in the first place:

[quote]
We've already gone over this, Larry. You were wrong the first dozen times you said it, why do you think you're going to be less wrong now? They had NO GOOD REASON for being late. Companies regularly keep track of court cases that pertain to them or may effect them, especially when their product figures into the case. It is disingenuous, to say the least, to wait all those months and then try to make the "We didn't know" defense. And, even if they had applied to intervene in a timely manner, they failed all of the other tests to determine whether they should be allowed to intervene
[/quote]

Notice how you want to keep the discussion at the timeliness phase. But Judge Jones already went over the ways that the application failed on every one of the tests that must be passed BEFORE intervention by right applies.
In regard to the delay issue, Judge Jones was just maliciously punishing FTE for allegedly being slow in applying to intervene. Again: (1) there were 3-4 months until the start of courtroom testimony, (2) no new discovery material, and (3) no new expert witnesses.

>>>>>>Denial of permissive intervention is not appealable because permissive intervention is solely at the discretion of the trial judge.<<<<<

>> Wrong. Nothing says that permissive intervention or intervention of right is solely at the discretion of the trial judge. <<

Wow, still having difficulty with actually reading, eh, Larry? Permissive intervention is where a party, which does not have an actual right to intervene in a case is granted permission to intervene. It is at the discretion of the judge, the judge doesn't have to grant permissive intervention to anyone.

>> A denial of intervention is subject to interlocutory appeal, just like any other court order that effectively becomes unreviewable if an appeal is not immediately granted. You have not shown anything to the contrary. <<

Like I said, denial of intervention by right can be appealed. YOU were the one who claimed that intervention denials were simply not appealable. So ask yourself, if FTE's claim was so solid, why didn't they appeal the denial of intervention?

>> >>>>>>What is this, truth by "What If?" Whether they "might have" taken some step or another is not an argument, especially in light of the fact that they didn't. <<<<< <<

>> That is just hindsight. That is not a valid argument when trying to justify decisions made before an event. <<

Wrong again, Larry. Here is what you initially claimed:
[quote]
>> Hell, the Thomas More Law Center might have tried to sacrifice the book in an attempt to save ID -- for example, the TMLC might have told the court that the book is crap and does not truly represent ID. <<
[/quote]

Larry, "X might do Y" is not a valid legal argument.

>> >>>>>>The lack of crystal balls as a legal defense.<<<<< <<

>> Judge Jones seemed to think that he had a crystal ball. Could he have foretold that the book would be central to his decision? <<

Wow, and I thought your "What if?" defense was about as stupid as you could get, now come up with this one. Clue for you, Larry, Judges make decisions based on facts presented to them, not based on paranoid predictions.

>> >>>>>No, it's always been a question of science.<<<<<< <<

>> Wrong. The question of "favored insiders" and "favored outsiders" in regard to establishment clause cases is a legal question, not a scientific one. <<

Ooh, look, Larry once again shows a stunning ability to latch onto new terms and start using them without actually showing he has any idea what he's talking about. The reason Evolution is taught in biology classes and ID is not has nothing to do with "favored insiders," and everything to do with the fact that no so-called "alternative" theory has been able to actually support itself scientifically. The issue is and always been a scientific one. Sisson's assertion if absurd on its face.

>> >>>>>>> And I don't think we will be on the losing side for long -- the Selman v. Cobb County textbook sticker lawsuit is in very bad shape. <<
According to you, and we KNOW how far your credibility goes, don't we, Larry?<<<<< <<

>> Well, consider this -- the 2300-signature petition that was central to the district court's decision was never found and was not even mentioned in the plaintiffs' pretrial brief. <<

I find your celebration premature. You've really presented nothing that shows it to be "in very bad shape." The appelate court refuted no findings from the lower court, they simply found that the gaps in the evidence presented them prevented them from evaluating the case. So they remanded the case to the original court, which has the option of either filling in the gaps in the evidence or starting the case over from the beginning.

>> >>>>>>Actually, Larry, you still fail to actually comprehend what was said. The SC was explicit affirming that the judge in Edwards had not abused his discretion in excluding the expert witnesses. The key is "discretion,"<<<<<< <<

>> I already showed that the meaning of the sentence was not changed by removing the phrase, "in its discretion." I am not going to go over this again. <<

Because you're wrong, you've been wrong, and you continue to be wrong. "Discretion" is important to the sentence, whether you like to believe it or not.

>> >>>>>>> I am about to give up on you. <<
That would be because you've lost the argument. <<<<<< <<

>> No -- because I am tired of wasting my time with you. My debates with you have been a distraction from other things that I wanted to do. Panda's Thumb and Ed Brayton have a much easier way of dealing with unwanted comments -- the comments are simply deleted and the commenters are banned. This of course gives the illusion that Ed Brayton and the bloggers on PT win all their debates. <<

You keep making the false claim that you were banned for disagreeing with them and that has been shown, over and over, to simply be a lie on your part. Admit that your banishment from PT and Dispatches was purely the result of your own actions and you may be able to reclaim some shred of credibility.

We both know you won't do it, though, since honesty is definitely NOT a characteristic that defines you.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 9:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> The fake Dave Fafarman (Ed Brayton?) said <

There you are lying again Larry(?). You know that it is really your brother.

> I am really pissed off that you guys are misusing this blog for your idle chatter. You should do that elsewhere. <

You said that you would not be reading it.

> I am really sorry now that I committed myself to a no-deletions policy. <

You won't keep it, particularly now that you are losing all of your arguments. You have no integrity at all. I am suprised that you have kept it this long (If you really have).

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 11:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

The fake Larry(?) said ...

> The issue was not winning or losing the case. <

They didn't go to court to win their case?

> So I said that for just a comparatively little more money, they could have also gotten an opinion from the appeals court and maybe even the Supreme Court. <

Of what value would additional opinions against them be?

> BTW, by allowing a tremendous amount of expert testimony, Judge Jones appeared to commit himself to ruling on the scientific merits of ID just in order to prevent the waste of all that testimony, <

Another unsupported pronouncement.

> I have already shown <

Stating is not showing.

> That is one of the things that I don't like about the name "intelligent design" -- a lot of it is not intelligent at all <

If you were the designer, you would have done a greater job.

> one other thing that I do not like about the name is that it implies the existence of a supernatural "designer". <

This is intelligent design. Are you talking about something other than intelligent design? You could have fooled me (and you haven't fooled anyone yet).

> Another piece of evidence is that people are prone to certain kinds of injuries <

Like the disintegration of your ligaments and tendons that you were predicting a few years ago?

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 11:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Bill Carter said...

Fake Larry(?),

Don't you think you could do better if you gave up the outright lies? You aren't fooling anyone. How good is your idea if it needs to be supported with deceit?

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 11:54:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Rob Serrano said ( 6/21/2006 09:25:13 PM ) ---

>>>>>>It's only your opinion that the Pro-Evolution side will lose.<<<<<

My prediction that the Darwinists are going to lose the Selman textbook sticker case is well-supported by the facts which I have presented in this blog.

>>>>>>Actually, I was talking about costs to the defense, not just the defendants.<<<<<<

Unless TMLC -- the defense -- was going to attack the book themselves, help from FTE likely would have reduced the TMLC's expenses. The TMLC's opposition to FTE's motion to intervene was very fishy.

>>>>>>No, it was evidence that FTE had a lot of information the prosecution felt was pertinent to the case.<<<<<

Yes -- a lot of information that was useful for falsely attacking the book as well as ID.

>>>>>>Let me guess, you're still having a problem distinguishing between writing about the book and ruling against it.<<<<<<

So Judge Jones said that ID is bad but the book is OK? LMAO And in regard to the motion for intervention, the issue is not whether he actually ruled against the book but whether he could have ruled against the book (which he did).

So the juror said, "we decided that the guy is guilty as charged, but we didn't really convict him. He is only evidence."

<<<<<<>> You can call the book "evidence" or whatever you like, but that does not change the fact that the book was central to the decision. <<

So, you're backing off the claim that Judge Jones RULED ON THE BOOK.<<<<<<

I am not backing off that claim -- I am affirming it.

>>>>>They had NO GOOD REASON for being late.<<<<<<

They had an excellent reason, which I have already shown. And not having a good reason for being late is not grounds for denying intervention.

>>>>>>Notice how you want to keep the discussion at the timeliness phase.<<<<<<

No. When the issue is timeliness, I discuss timeliness. When the issue is something else, I discuss that something else.

>>>>>>Permissive intervention is where a party, which does not have an actual right to intervene in a case is granted permission to intervene. It is at the discretion of the judge, the judge doesn't have to grant permissive intervention to anyone.<<<<<

Yes, but I pointed out that denial of permissive intervention is appealable.

>>>>>Like I said, denial of intervention by right can be appealed.<<<<<

Why is denial of intervention by right appealable while denial of permissive intervention is not?

>>>>>YOU were the one who claimed that intervention denials were simply not appealable.<<<<<

I made a mistake and I corrected it.

>>>>>So ask yourself, if FTE's claim was so solid, why didn't they appeal the denial of intervention? <<<<<<

You'll have to ask them. It was possible that they were not even aware of this option. Interlocutory appeals are rare because appeals courts discourage them -- the appeals courts obviously do not want litigants appealing the decisions on every little motion. But a very strong case can be made for allowing interlocutory appeal of a denial of intervention because such denial is dispositive of the case of the applicant for intervention -- such denial is equivalent to dismissal of the case of an original plaintiff. I think that the rules should be amended to add an explicit right to an interlocutory appeal of a denial of intervention.

<<<<<<>> Hell, the Thomas More Law Center might have tried to sacrifice the book in an attempt to save ID -- for example, the TMLC might have told the court that the book is crap and does not truly represent ID.
Larry, "X might do Y" is not a valid legal argument. <<<<<<

It is a perfectly valid legal argument. What reason could the TMLC have possibly had for opposing FTE's intervention other than to keep open the option of attacking the book themselves?

>>>>>Clue for you, Larry, Judges make decisions based on facts presented to them, not based on paranoid predictions.<<<<<<

And at the time Judge Jones denied FTE's motion to intervene, he did not have all the facts about how the book would affect his final decision.

>>>>>The reason Evolution is taught in biology classes and ID is not has nothing to do with "favored insiders," and everything to do with the fact that no so-called "alternative" theory has been able to actually support itself scientifically. The issue is and always been a scientific one.<<<<<<

When challenges to evolution are attacked in court on the basis of the establishment clause, then according to court precedents the issue of "favored insiders" comes into play.

<<<<<>> Well, consider this -- the 2300-signature petition that was central to the district court's decision was never found and was not even mentioned in the plaintiffs' pretrial brief. <<
You've really presented nothing that shows it to be "in very bad shape." <<<<<<

The plaintiffs' case appeared weak even with the 2300-signature petition.

<<<<<>> I already showed that the meaning of the sentence was not changed by removing the phrase, "in its discretion." <<
Because you're wrong, you've been wrong, and you continue to be wrong. "Discretion" is important to the sentence, whether you like to believe it or not.<<<<<<

I said that I was not going to go over this again, but I will. Again, how could "discretion" be important to the sentence if removing the phrase "in its discretion" does not change the meaning of the sentence? And saying that the district court decided "properly" automatically means that the district court acted within its discretion -- the phrase "in its discretion" is superfluous.

>>>>>>Admit that your banishment from PT and Dispatches was purely the result of your own actions and you may be able to reclaim some shred of credibility.<<<<<<

When hell freezes over. I was just innocently minding my own business when I was banned.

>>>>>>We both know you won't do it, though, since honesty is definitely NOT a characteristic that defines you. <<<<<<<

Oooooh -- another ad hominem.

Anyway, Rob, you have failed to prove your case and it looks like you have just about plumb run out of arguments.

Thursday, June 22, 2006 4:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Bill Carter said...

ViW,

My first guess is that you are Jonathan Vos Post. Is this true?

Thursday, June 22, 2006 9:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

The fake Larry(?) said ...

> My prediction that the Darwinists are going to lose the Selman textbook sticker case is well-supported by the facts which I have presented in this blog. <

Your pronouncements are not facts. Facts, not repitition of proclamations, will be required to win in court. If you want to know how to support your claims, look at Rob's posts and learn.

> Yes -- a lot of information that was useful for falsely attacking the book as well as ID. <

Another unsupported proclamation. The book was not falsely attacked.

> So Judge Jones said that ID is bad but the book is OK? <

Won't you just arguing that the book was not mentioned in the opinion?

> So the juror said, "we decided that the guy is guilty as charged, but we didn't really convict him. He is only evidence." <

I just quoted this to highlight your irrationality.

> I am not backing off that claim -- I am affirming it. <

With another imperial proclamation.

> They had an excellent reason, which I have already shown. <

You should change the name of this blog to "proclaim to me".

> And not having a good reason for being late is not grounds for denying intervention. <

Another unsupported statement. It was in this case.

> No. When the issue is timeliness, I discuss timeliness. When the issue is something else, I discuss that something else. <

You haven't been discussing anything here. You have just made a series of unsupported statements.

> I made a mistake and I corrected it. <

This is a first. Usually you just continue your mistakes.

> Interlocutory appeals are rare because appeals courts discourage them <

On the contrary, judges will often invite them if they are unsure of the ramifications of something at issue. I have seen this happen myself.

> the appeals courts obviously do not want litigants appealing the decisions on every little motion. <

But on other motions, they don't mind. It isn't common but it isn't all that rare either.

> When challenges to evolution are attacked in court on the basis of the establishment clause, then according to court precedents the issue of "favored insiders" comes into play. <

Someone is not a "favored insider" just because their logical arguments are superior. You might as well claim that Rob and Kevin are favored insiders.

> how could "discretion" be important to the sentence if removing the phrase "in its discretion" does not change the meaning of the sentence? <

Why are you stating a hypothetical here? In reality, removing that phrase does change the meaning of the sentence. Don't continue to display your ignorance. You have clearly lost on this one.

>>>>>>Admit that your banishment from PT and Dispatches was purely the result of your own actions and you may be able to reclaim some shred of credibility.<<<<<<

> When hell freezes over. I was just innocently minding my own business when I was banned. <

You will able to reclaim some shred of credibility when hell freezes over.

>>>>>>We both know you won't do it, though, since honesty is definitely NOT a characteristic that defines you. <<<<<<<

> Oooooh -- another ad hominem. <

Again another example to show that you don't know what ad hominem means, and in the same post. Rob's statement that you are not honest is not given as a reason in argument here, therefore it is not an ad hominem. It is a very accurate and valid observation.

> Anyway, Rob, you have failed to prove your case <

He has proven it very well.

> and it looks like you have just about plumb run out of arguments. <

If he hadn't already been so successful, he could do what you do and recycle the old arguments. Since he has made mincemeat out of your pathetic drivel, there is no point in him doing so.

Thursday, June 22, 2006 9:25:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

Bill Carter said...

> ViW,
My first guess is that you are Jonathan Vos Post. Is this true?<

My weekend replacement has finally jumped into the fray. Darn. I thought that I had successfully "tapped a tree". (You will have to find a coon hunter to explain that phrase.) No, I am not JVP. I had you going though!

If the contest is to continue, I think that I will have to give you some help. I will combine the following to be my final hint.

First, go back and look at my previous hints carefully. You may not interpreted them the way that I meant them.

Second, my knowledge of different issues and people surrounding Larry may be the result of coincidence. You may be trying to tie them all together which might lead you astray.

Third, do not assume that if I asked a question, I do not already know the answer. As I pointed out, I have been in court many times.

If Bozo weren't so completely bereft of the capacity for logic, he would have the best chance to win. I could give him limitless guesses and he could strike out. The dimwit would just keep making the same guess over again.

Thursday, June 22, 2006 9:41:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

I am the real Larry. Some asshole has set up this whole blog just to make unsupported claims and make me look like a fool. I think that he is likely one of the Darwinists from Ed Brayton's blog.

I am not the mindless pathetic asshole that the posts under my name would indicate. Fake Larry, I demand that you cease and desist!

Thursday, June 22, 2006 10:25:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In The Wilderness said --

>>>>>>> I am really pissed off that you guys are misusing this blog for your idle chatter. You should do that elsewhere. <

You said that you would not be reading it.<<<<<<

I am going to explain this to you, dumbo, because you are obviously too dumb to figure it out for yourself.

It would be hard enough to attract people over here to read this blog and post legitimate comments without you and your pals cluttering up this blog with your garbage. A visitor might start to read one of your posts in the expectation that you were making a real contribution to the thread and then discover that you were just yakking about something completely off-topic or just making some breathtakingly inane heckling comments, and then leave in disgust. The line between witty ridicule and senseless heckling is not sharply defined, which is one of the reasons why I decided on my no-deletions policy, but a lot of your comments clearly cross the line. I spend many hours working on this blog and you think that you have the right to come here and sabotage it. You are just jealous because you don't have the brains to set up your own blog. My no-deletions policy would be working if it were not for you and maybe a few other trolls (because of posting under multiple names, I don't know how many trolls are actually posting on this blog). Why don't you just get lost, damn you, and leave me alone.

Thursday, June 22, 2006 10:33:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

The fake Larry(?) said ...

> It would be hard enough to attract people over here to read this blog and post legitimate comments without you and your pals cluttering up this blog with your garbage. <

You are the one who is cluttering up this blog with garbage. Why not try to make some more thought-out posts rather than just dropping in whatever your word search has turned up, followed by a failed "interpretation" and a few unsupported claims?

> A visitor might start to read one of your posts in the expectation that you were making a real contribution to the thread <

In which case they would be correct.

> a lot of your comments clearly cross the line. <

A lot of your comments clearly cross the line. That is why we call attention to their shortcomings.

> I spend many hours working on this blog <

So do I, and others.

> you think that you have the right to come here and sabotage it. <

I am not attempting to sabotage it. I am attempting to improve it and save you from your growing insanity.

> You are just jealous because you don't have the brains to set up your own blog. <

You don't even know how to set up a Recent Posts menu despite being told step by step on this blog. I have my own blog. Naming it would blow the contest.

> because of posting under multiple names <

You started the posting under multiple names on other blogs. You are posting under multiple names on this blog too.

> I don't know how many trolls are actually posting on this blog. <

Only one, you, the Fake Larry(?).

> Why don't you just get lost, damn you, and leave me alone. <

Why don't you go back to your junior college and learn something about logical argument. Perhaps you could join their debate club? You might even meet some women there and change your current status.

You said that you would stop reading my posts. As you are a pathalogical liar, I assumed that my posts would be enjoying more of your attention.

Thursday, June 22, 2006 10:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

I have a few suggestions to improve your blog (although any hint of sanity on your part would reduce my enjoyment).

Read and try to understand things that you cite or quote. It would greatly reduce the amount of flak that you are receiving.

Stop pretending that you have given logical arguments when all you have given is repeated unsupported claims.

Your repetition of arguments that you have already lost is clogging up the blog. When you lose an argument, accept it. You don't have to admit your defeat. It is clear enough to everyone. Just don't call attention to it by repeating it.

Post under your own name only. Don't dream up things that you say that your brother has said. It is too easy to tell the difference between the fake Dave that you have created and the sane one who actually posts here, despite your asking your mother to get him to stop.

Your pretense that you don't know Bill Carter, when it has become so obvious that you do, doesn't do much for your credibility. His posts have been very good but you may have discouraged him from posting more.

When you are losing, don't threaten to pick up your marbles and go home. It just calls attention to your failure.

Now, don't say that I have not attempted to contribute to this blog. If you follow my suggestions, it will be improved greatly but it might lose a lot of its entertainment value.

Thursday, June 22, 2006 11:09:00 AM  
Blogger Rob Serrano said...

larry fafarman said...

>> Rob Serrano said ( 6/21/2006 09:25:13 PM ) ---

>>>>>>It's only your opinion that the Pro-Evolution side will lose.<<<<< <<

>> My prediction that the Darwinists are going to lose the Selman textbook sticker case is well-supported by the facts which I have presented in this blog. <<

Your prediction is not based on anything more substantial than your wishful thinking. As is typical of you, you've taken a smattering of facts and, by your normal careless interjection of pure assertion and bizarre interpretations of those facts, warped them until they bear no resemblance to reality.

>> >>>>>>Actually, I was talking about costs to the defense, not just the defendants.<<<<<< <<

>> Unless TMLC -- the defense -- was going to attack the book themselves, help from FTE likely would have reduced the TMLC's expenses. <<

Actually, since the TMLC would then have to be preparing for a potentially two-pronged battle against both FTE and the prosecution, and they would have to interview witnesses AGAIN, taking into consideration what FTE would be asking them. Not to mention that the entire defense would have to prepare for the trial again, with the added burden of having to deal with FTE, as well. So, basically, they would have had to start over from the beginning, and all the time that had already been expended would have likely been wasted.

>> The TMLC's opposition to FTE's motion to intervene was very fishy. <<

It's perfectly rational if you don't insist on seeing conspiracies around every corner.

>> >>>>>>No, it was evidence that FTE had a lot of information the prosecution felt was pertinent to the case.<<<<< <<

>> Yes -- a lot of information that was useful for falsely attacking the book as well as ID. <<

Show me where anything was "falsely" attacked in this case, Larry. Otherwise, I simply have to assume that you've finally realized that you've proven nothing and so are going to start asserting conspiracy to cover up your shortcomings. Pointing out that ID is not science is not a false attack, it is a statement of fact, neither is referring to the book that is the cornerstone of the ID movement in a trial that is specifically about that movement.

>> >>>>>>Let me guess, you're still having a problem distinguishing between writing about the book and ruling against it.<<<<<< <<

>> So Judge Jones said that ID is bad but the book is OK? <<

No, Larry, Judge Jones ruled that ID is not science and does not belong in public school science classes. He didn't rule on the book at all. The book was used as evidence to show that ID is creationism repackaged.

>>LMAO And in regard to the motion for intervention, the issue is not whether he actually ruled against the book but whether he could have ruled against the book (which he did). <<

He didn't rule against the book, that's just an assertion that you repeat endlessly in the hopes that repetition will somehow make it true. That wasn't an issue in the application to intervene, though. The issue was whether FTE had any grounds for intervention which they didn't, as per the denial of the motion to intervene.

>> So the juror said, "we decided that the guy is guilty as charged, but we didn't really convict him. He is only evidence." <<

Even for you, Larry, this is about the stupidest thing you've written. Like I've said before, maybe you'd do better to take a Critical Thinking/Logic class BEFORE you try making statements. Your statement doesn't even work as refutation of what I wrote, it just shows the extremes to which you'll go in your attempt to appear intelligent and/or insightful.

>> <<<<<<>> You can call the book "evidence" or whatever you like, but that does not change the fact that the book was central to the decision. <<

So, you're backing off the claim that Judge Jones RULED ON THE BOOK.<<<<<< <<

>> I am not backing off that claim -- I am affirming it. <<

Apprently you suddenly realized that you had shot yourself in the foot -- again -- and quickly try to change course. Your supposed "affirmation" does nothing to affirm your claim. It simply affirms that you don't really thnk things through before you spout.

>> >>>>>They had NO GOOD REASON for being late.<<<<<< <<

>> They had an excellent reason, which I have already shown. And not having a good reason for being late is not grounds for denying intervention. <<

Your "excellent reasons" amount to the management of FTE not doing their job and looking out for their company's interests. But it doesn't matter though, because timeliness was just one of the ways in which their motion to intervene was denied, as has been shown multiple times, though you, being somewhat dubious in ethical inclination, keep trying to pretend that timeliness was the only reason the motion was denied.

>> >>>>>>Notice how you want to keep the discussion at the timeliness phase.<<<<<< <<

>> No. When the issue is timeliness, I discuss timeliness. When the issue is something else, I discuss that something else. <<

Actually, when the issue is anything other than timeliness, you pretend that it doesn't exist and that you don't have to address it.

>> >>>>>>Permissive intervention is where a party, which does not have an actual right to intervene in a case is granted permission to intervene. It is at the discretion of the judge, the judge doesn't have to grant permissive intervention to anyone.<<<<< <<

>> Yes, but I pointed out that denial of permissive intervention is appealable. <<

Actually, first you said that intervention denials were not appealable, then you go they are appealable. Permissive Intervention denials are not appealable, Intervention by Right IS appealable, often immediately so.

>> >>>>>Like I said, denial of intervention by right can be appealed.<<<<< <<

>> Why is denial of intervention by right appealable while denial of permissive intervention is not? <<

Because in Intervention by Right, the party asserts that it has a RIGHT to intervene in the case. If it shows that it has the right to intervene (it has successfully argued all the points of the test), the Judge is to allow the intervention. The party denied intervention by right can appeal that the denial was improper which would have the effect of allowing the intervention.

In Permissive Intervention the intervening party has no real right to intervene, but the applicant asserts that they have an interest in the case and would add to the case something not already being presented by the existing parties. Denials of Permissive Intervention are not appealable because they are solely at the discretion of the trial judge. Since the party seeking the Permissive Intervention have no right to intervene in the case, there's no real ground to appeal the denial.

>> >>>>>YOU were the one who claimed that intervention denials were simply not appealable.<<<<< <<

>> I made a mistake and I corrected it. <<

Good. Now if you would just start correcting your other mistakes.

>> >>>>>So ask yourself, if FTE's claim was so solid, why didn't they appeal the denial of intervention? <<<<<< <<

>> You'll have to ask them. It was possible that they were not even aware of this option. <<

So, their lawyers were not competent enough to be aware of the rules, but you would have me believe that they WOULD somehow be more able to present a case than the TMLC?

>> Interlocutory appeals are rare because appeals courts discourage them -- the appeals courts obviously do not want litigants appealing the decisions on every little motion. <<

So, you're arguing that these "competent" attorneys representing the FTE don't even know the rules. And you think these people are capable of arguing a case of any sort.

>> But a very strong case can be made for allowing interlocutory appeal of a denial of intervention because such denial is dispositive of the case of the applicant for intervention -- such denial is equivalent to dismissal of the case of an original plaintiff. I think that the rules should be amended to add an explicit right to an interlocutory appeal of a denial of intervention. <<

Denials of Intervention by right are immediately appealable. If FTE or its lawyers felt their case was strong enough, why didn't they appeal? You still haven't answered that question.

>> <<<<<<>> Hell, the Thomas More Law Center might have tried to sacrifice the book in an attempt to save ID -- for example, the TMLC might have told the court that the book is crap and does not truly represent ID.
Larry, "X might do Y" is not a valid legal argument. <<<<<< <<

>> It is a perfectly valid legal argument. What reason could the TMLC have possibly had for opposing FTE's intervention other than to keep open the option of attacking the book themselves? <<

I've already stated the reasons they had for opposing the intervention. You know the parts about prejudicing the parties, adding unnecessary expense, its interests in the case were the same as the defenses, etc.

>> >>>>>Clue for you, Larry, Judges make decisions based on facts presented to them, not based on paranoid predictions.<<<<<< <<

>> And at the time Judge Jones denied FTE's motion to intervene, he did not have all the facts about how the book would affect his final decision. <<

Irrelevant. In order to know that he would have already had to know what his final decision would be. No judge knows their final decision at that stage. What you're claiming is that judges should be forced to allow any motion that comes their way, which is about the silliest thing you've come up with.

>> >>>>>The reason Evolution is taught in biology classes and ID is not has nothing to do with "favored insiders," and everything to do with the fact that no so-called "alternative" theory has been able to actually support itself scientifically. The issue is and always been a scientific one.<<<<<< <<

>> When challenges to evolution are attacked in court on the basis of the establishment clause, then according to court precedents the issue of "favored insiders" comes into play. <<

Except that "favored insiders" are the IDists and not the Evolution Scientists. Evolution is science. "Favored Insiders" refers cases such as Prayer in School, where the Christians (or whatever religion) are made to feel like they are "Favored Insiders" while everyone else is made to feel like "outsiders." It applies more to ID than to Evolution because ID is purely a religious argument, whereas Evolution is actual science. Try as you all might, no amount of asserting that Evolution is Religion is going to make the "Favored Insiders" argument hold water.

>> <<<<<>> Well, consider this -- the 2300-signature petition that was central to the district court's decision was never found and was not even mentioned in the plaintiffs' pretrial brief. <<
You've really presented nothing that shows it to be "in very bad shape." <<<<<< <<

>> The plaintiffs' case appeared weak even with the 2300-signature petition. <<

That's what you say. Show me that it is true.

>> <<<<<>> I already showed that the meaning of the sentence was not changed by removing the phrase, "in its discretion." <<
Because you're wrong, you've been wrong, and you continue to be wrong. "Discretion" is important to the sentence, whether you like to believe it or not.<<<<<< <<

>> I said that I was not going to go over this again, but I will. Again, how could "discretion" be important to the sentence if removing the phrase "in its discretion" does not change the meaning of the sentence? <<

It does change the meaning of the sentence.

>> And saying that the district court decided "properly" automatically means that the district court acted within its discretion -- the phrase "in its discretion" is superfluous. <<

I strongly suggest that you take a course in English. The court could have also decided "properly" in a non-discretionary issue. Are you getting this yet, Larry?

>> >>>>>>Admit that your banishment from PT and Dispatches was purely the result of your own actions and you may be able to reclaim some shred of credibility.<<<<<< <<

>> When hell freezes over. I was just innocently minding my own business when I was banned. <<

Oh please, Larry, your sad little lies aren't any more convincing now than they were when you began.

>> >>>>>>We both know you won't do it, though, since honesty is definitely NOT a characteristic that defines you. <<<<<<< <<

>> Oooooh -- another ad hominem. <<

Ooooh, you still don't know what an ad hominem is. Remedial lesson for you, Larry, If I were to say something akin to: "You're wrong because you're a psychopathic little mouthbreathing dipshit," THAT would be an ad hominem, since I would be denying your claim by attacking you personally. Pointing out the ways in which you are wrong and then calling you a dipshit would not be ad hominem.

>> Anyway, Rob, you have failed to prove your case and it looks like you have just about plumb run out of arguments. <<

You keep claiming that and they only one around here who appears as if they are running out of arguments is you, given that you basically just repeat the same claim over and over again, somehow hoping that you'll magically become right.

Thursday, June 22, 2006 10:47:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Rob Serrano said ( 6/22/2006 10:47:14 PM ) --

>>>>>>> My prediction that the Darwinists are going to lose the Selman textbook sticker case is well-supported by the facts which I have presented in this blog.
Your prediction is not based on anything more substantial than your wishful thinking.<<<<<<<

An alleged 2300-signature petition that was the main basis for the decision was never found, its existence was never verified, and it was not even mentioned in the plaintiffs' pretrial brief. And you are still trying to tell me that the decision is not in trouble?

>>>>>Actually, since the TMLC would then have to be preparing for a potentially two-pronged battle against both FTE and the prosecution, and they would have to interview witnesses AGAIN, taking into consideration what FTE would be asking them. <<<<<<

LOL -- you have been arguing that FTE intervention should not be allowed because the FTE allegedly has the same interests as the defendants and the TMLC, and now you are saying that the TMLC might have had to battle the FTE as well as battle the plaintiffs? You don't know whether you are coming or going.

>>>>>>So, basically, they would have had to start over from the beginning, and all the time that had already been expended would have likely been wasted.<<<<<<

That's bullshit and you know it. FTE would have brought in little or no additional discovery material and no new witnesses -- I already went over this several times. All or most of the TMLC's discovery, arguments and strategy could have still been used.

>>>>>>> The TMLC's opposition to FTE's motion to intervene was very fishy.
It's perfectly rational if you don't insist on seeing conspiracies around every corner.<<<<<<

You are very naive. You just don't know how the courts operate. In my lawsuits, I saw obvious collusion between the government attorneys and the courts -- and no, it was not just paranoia. Part of their strategy is to intimidate pro se litigants by making the collusion glaringly obvious. For example, when I sued Los Angeles County, the county attorney's sole defense was that I failed to give advance notice of my suit, but advance notice is required only for a monetary suit, which my suit was not. So was the judge restricted to ruling only on that defense? Of course not -- the judge ruled against me on some other basis. The attorney and the judge had it all planned in advance. Rob, you are such a goddam stupid idiot.

Anyway, the issue here is not just conspiracies -- you're the one who said that the TMLC might have had to battle the FTE as well as battle the plaintiffs.

>>>>>> Yes -- a lot of information that was useful for falsely attacking the book as well as ID. <<
Show me where anything was "falsely" attacked in this case<<<<<<

I added the word "falsely" for extra effect.

>>>>>Pointing out that ID is not science is not a false attack, it is a statement of fact<<<<<

Aha -- guilty until proven innocent.

>>>>>> So Judge Jones said that ID is bad but the book is OK?
No, Larry, Judge Jones ruled that ID is not science and does not belong in public school science classes. He didn't rule on the book at all. <<<<<<<

There is no constitutional separation of bogus science and state. I have already pointed this out many times.

>>>>>>He didn't rule against the book<<<<<<

For the umpteenth time, he did rule against the book. He did not say that the book is OK but ID is not OK. The book was not just evidence.

>>>>>> So the juror said, "we decided that the guy is guilty as charged, but we didn't really convict him. He is only evidence."
Even for you, Larry, this is about the stupidest thing you've written.<<<<<

I was just trying to show how stupid you sound.

>>>>>Your "excellent reasons" amount to the management of FTE not doing their job and looking out for their company's interests.<<<<<<

I've been through this already -- the subpoena was a tip-off that the book was being targeted.

>>>>>Permissive Intervention denials are not appealable <<<<<<

Nothing in the rules says that denial of permissive intervention is not appealable. "The world must construe according to its wits -- this court must construe according to the law." -- Thomas More in the play "A Man for All Seasons."

>>>>>> Interlocutory appeals are rare because appeals courts discourage them -- the appeals courts obviously do not want litigants appealing the decisions on every little motion. <<
So, you're arguing that these "competent" attorneys representing the FTE don't even know the rules.<<<<<<

I never assume that attorneys know about or think of everything. An attorney once praised me for noticing something important about his case that he did not notice. Attorneys do not always ridicule my ideas, as you seem to assume. Attorneys often have much more respect for my ideas than non-attorneys do.

>>>>>Denials of Intervention by right are immediately appealable. If FTE or its lawyers felt their case was strong enough, why didn't they appeal? You still haven't answered that question.<<<<<

As I said, you will have to ask them.

>>>>>> It is a perfectly valid legal argument. What reason could the TMLC have possibly had for opposing FTE's intervention other than to keep open the option of attacking the book themselves <<
I've already stated the reasons they had for opposing the intervention.<<<<<<

And I have refuted all of them.

>>>>>> And at the time Judge Jones denied FTE's motion to intervene, he did not have all the facts about how the book would affect his final decision.>>>>
Irrelevant. In order to know that he would have already had to know what his final decision would be. No judge knows their final decision at that stage. <<<<<<<

What he did know at that stage was that the plaintiffs were trying to make the book central to the case.

>>>>>Except that "favored insiders" are the IDists and not the Evolution Scientists. <<<<<

The fact that only Darwinism is actually taught makes the Darwinists look like the favored insiders, as attorney Edward Sisson astutely observed.

>>>>>> The plaintiffs' case appeared weak even with the 2300-signature petition. <<
That's what you say. Show me that it is true.<<<<<<

At the appeals court oral hearing, one judge said that he didn't see how any part of the disclaimer sticker could be contested -- he said, "evolution is a theory and not a fact -- the book supports that." Another judge said that he saw nothing to support the view that students were being misled by the stickers. All of this stuff has nothing to do with the alleged 2300-signature petition. Furthermore, the appeals court did not have to accept the view that the alleged petition showed that the stickers' supporters were favored insiders.

>>>>>> And saying that the district court decided "properly" automatically means that the district court acted within its discretion -- the phrase "in its discretion" is superfluous. <<
The court could have also decided "properly" in a non-discretionary issue.<<<<<<

The important thing is that the word "properly" shows that the Supreme Court agreed with the reasoning of the lower court. So you are saying it is not precedent when the SC agrees with the reasoning of a lower court on a discretionary issue? LMAO

>>>>>you still don't know what an ad hominem is<<<<<

Saying that I am wrong because I am dishonest is an ad hominem.

Anyway, Rob, it is clear that I am now wasting my time with you. There is just a limited number of ways in which I can completely refute all of your arguments, and I have now used practically all of those ways.

Friday, June 23, 2006 2:09:00 AM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

On interlocutory appeals:

Interlocutory appeals are normally not allowed, except by statute. Rules 3 (appeal as of right) and 5 (by permission) of the FRAP cover the filing of such appeals. The actual statute governing interlocutory appeals is 28 U.S.C. § 1292. Let's take a look at the full text of section 1292, paragraph by paragraph, and see whether it permits appeal of intervention:

(a) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d) of this section, the courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from:

(1) Interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States, the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, the District Court of Guam, and the District Court of the Virgin Islands, or of the judges thereof, granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court;

Not applicable - denial or granting of intervention is not an injunction

(2) Interlocutory orders appointing receivers, or refusing orders to wind up receiverships or to take steps to accomplish the purposes thereof, such as directing sales or other disposals of property;

Not applicable - intervention of this type is not to determine a receivership

(3) Interlocutory decrees of such district courts or the judges thereof determining the rights and liabilities of the parties to admiralty cases in which appeals from final decrees are allowed.

Not applicable - this is not an admiralty case

(b) When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order. The Court of Appeals which would have jurisdiction of an appeal of such action may thereupon, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order, if application is made to it within ten days after the entry of the order: Provided, however, That application for an appeal hereunder shall not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district judge or the Court of Appeals or a judge thereof shall so order.

This is applicable - however, it requires the trial judge to send it to appeal and the ciircuit court to accept the appeal (this is "appeal by permission", btw)

(c) The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction—

(1) of an appeal from an interlocutory order or decree described in subsection (a) or (b) of this section in any case over which the court would have jurisdiction of an appeal under section 1295 of this title; and
(2) of an appeal from a judgment in a civil action for patent infringement which would otherwise be appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and is final except for an accounting.

Not applicable - the circuit court having jurisdiction would be the 3rd Circuit

(d)

(1) When the chief judge of the Court of International Trade issues an order under the provisions of section 256 (b) of this title, or when any judge of the Court of International Trade, in issuing any other interlocutory order, includes in the order a statement that a controlling question of law is involved with respect to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from that order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order, if application is made to that Court within ten days after the entry of such order.
(2) When the chief judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims issues an order under section 798 (b) of this title, or when any judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims, in issuing an interlocutory order, includes in the order a statement that a controlling question of law is involved with respect to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from that order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order, if application is made to that Court within ten days after the entry of such order.
(3) Neither the application for nor the granting of an appeal under this subsection shall stay proceedings in the Court of International Trade or in the Court of Federal Claims, as the case may be, unless a stay is ordered by a judge of the Court of International Trade or of the Court of Federal Claims or by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or a judge of that court.

Not applicable - no judge issued any such order

(4)

(A) The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction of an appeal from an interlocutory order of a district court of the United States, the District Court of Guam, the District Court of the Virgin Islands, or the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, granting or denying, in whole or in part, a motion to transfer an action to the United States Court of Federal Claims under section 1631 of this title.
(B) When a motion to transfer an action to the Court of Federal Claims is filed in a district court, no further proceedings shall be taken in the district court until 60 days after the court has ruled upon the motion. If an appeal is taken from the district court’s grant or denial of the motion, proceedings shall be further stayed until the appeal has been decided by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The stay of proceedings in the district court shall not bar the granting of preliminary or injunctive relief, where appropriate and where expedition is reasonably necessary. However, during the period in which proceedings are stayed as provided in this subparagraph, no transfer to the Court of Federal Claims pursuant to the motion shall be carried out.

Not applicable - no such motion was made

(e) The Supreme Court may prescribe rules, in accordance with section 2072 of this title, to provide for an appeal of an interlocutory decision to the courts of appeals that is not otherwise provided for under subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d).

Possibly applicable - but we need to look at the rules of the Supreme Court to find out if intervention is included. The 3 tests for determining whether an interlocutory appeal stem from a Supreme Court case, Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser et al., 490 U.S. 495 (1989), as indicated in Larry's link to interlocutory appeals above:

...under the relevant statute (28 U.S.C. § 1292) such an appeal would be permitted only if:

1. the outcome of the case would be conclusively determined by the issue
2. the matter appealed was collateral to the merits; and
3. the matter was effectively unreviewable if immediate appeal was not allowed. parentheticals removed

All three tests must be met before an interlocutory appeal would be permitted. Setting aside the first two, the question is whether a denial of intervention is effectively unreviewable if immediate appeal is not allowed. If a party denied intervention is allowed to appeal the final decision of the court, then the denial of intervention is not effectively unreviewable. The statute controlling appeals of final decicions is section 1291.

The courts of appeals (other than the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States, the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, the District Court of Guam, and the District Court of the Virgin Islands, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court. The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall be limited to the jurisdiction described in sections 1292 (c) and (d) and 1295 of this title.

Contemplation of the situation leads to the following consideration: is denial of intervention interlocutory, or is it final? If it is interlocutory, appeals are controlled by section 1292 and must meet fairly strict guidelines to be permitted. If it is final, then it is automatically reviewable under section 1291. It would seem that a grant of intervention would be interlocutory and impermissible for immediate appeal on all three parties - it is not final and they could all review it on the appeal of the final order of the court. Similarly, as far as the defendants and plaintiffs are concerned, a denial of intervention would be considered interlocutory and impermissible for immediate appeal. So what type of order is a denial of intervention to an intervening party? The following excerpt from Shore v. Parklane Hosiery Co., 606 F.2d 354 (2nd Cir. 1979), covers this in detail:

In considering appellants' contentions, we are met at the outset with the question whether the order appealed from should be treated as the grant or the denial of intervention. See Van Hoomissen v. Xerox Corp., 497 F.2d 180, 181 (9th Cir. 1974). A denial of leave to intervene of right is appealable as a final order. New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Regents of the University, 516 F.2d 350, 351 n. 1 (2d Cir. 1975). An order granting intervention is not. Ionian Shipping Co. v. British Law Insurance Co., 426 F.2d 186, 188 (2d Cir. 1970). The reason for this distinction is that the unsuccessful applicant for intervention cannot appeal from any subsequent order or judgment in the litigation, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Baltimore & O. R. R., 331 U.S. 519, 524, 67 S.Ct. 1387, 91 L.Ed. 1646 (1947), and so far as he is concerned, "the lawsuit is all over." Dickinson v. Petroleum Conversion Corp., 338 U.S. 507, 513, 70 S.Ct. 322, 94 L.Ed. 299 (1950). The successful intervenor, on the other hand, acquires "full status" to prosecute a subsequent appeal. Klein v. Nu-Way Shoe Co., Inc., 136 F.2d 986, 989 (2d Cir. 1943). emphasis added

Larry has made two claims regarding appealability of denial of intervention. Both have been wrong. The first, that it was not appealable, without giving any reason why it would be unappealable, is wrong, as it is appealable. The second, that it is appealable because it is an interlocutory order is wrong, because it is not an interlocutory order; instead it is a final order and therefore subject to immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Specifically, it would most likely be appealed for "abuse of discretion," which is reviewable, despite what some others may have said (though the burden of proof is high and on the intervenor).

Friday, June 23, 2006 5:57:00 AM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>Actually, first you said that intervention denials were not appealable, then you go they are appealable. Permissive Intervention denials are not appealable, Intervention by Right IS appealable, often immediately so.<<<

>> >>>>>Like I said, denial of intervention by right can be appealed.<<<<< <<

>>>>>>Why is denial of intervention by right appealable while denial of permissive intervention is not?<<<<<<

>>>Because in Intervention by Right, the party asserts that it has a RIGHT to intervene in the case. If it shows that it has the right to intervene (it has successfully argued all the points of the test), the Judge is to allow the intervention. The party denied intervention by right can appeal that the denial was improper which would have the effect of allowing the intervention.

In Permissive Intervention the intervening party has no real right to intervene, but the applicant asserts that they have an interest in the case and would add to the case something not already being presented by the existing parties. Denials of Permissive Intervention are not appealable because they are solely at the discretion of the trial judge. Since the party seeking the Permissive Intervention have no right to intervene in the case, there's no real ground to appeal the denial.<<<

Rob makes a good point. I may have to revise the final sentence of my previous post. I'll need to take a look at the rule again. There still might be a case for abuse of discretion, but as I said, the burden of proof would be extremely high.

The question at hand - is denial of permission appealable? I'll take evidence for other permissions as well, not just intervention.

Friday, June 23, 2006 6:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> An alleged 2300-signature petition that was the main basis for the decision was never found, its existence was never verified, and it was not even mentioned in the plaintiffs' pretrial brief. And you are still trying to tell me that the decision is not in trouble? <

This is a new tack! Why do you claim that this petition was the main basis for the decision? Earlier you were complaining that it was not considered. You don't know whether you are coming or going.

> FTE would have brought in little or no additional discovery material and no new witnesses <

Then they would have contributed nothing to the case.

> You are very naive. You just don't know how the courts operate. <

Are you talking to yourself again?

> In my lawsuits, I saw obvious collusion between the government attorneys and the courts -- and no, it was not just paranoia. <

Yes. It was just paranoia. The government and the courts didn't take you seriously. Why should they conspire against you?

> Part of their strategy is to intimidate pro se litigants by making the collusion glaringly obvious. <

If their strategy is to intimidate pro se litigants, why to they seem to bend over backwards in so many cases to help the pro persona litigant? Why do Pro per litigants win more than half of their cases? Your good friend, Bill Carter, has represented himself in nearly all of the 8-10 cases that I can find from a quick search and the only one that he seems to have lost appears to be the sole case in which he was represented by an attorney!

> The attorney and the judge had it all planned in advance. <

The paranoids are coming to get me!

> Rob, you are such a goddam stupid idiot. <

What eloquence! I am glad to see that you reject ad hominems.

>>>>>Pointing out that ID is not science is not a false attack, it is a statement of fact<<<<<

> Aha -- guilty until proven innocent. <

What an irrational connection on your part!

> There is no constitutional separation of bogus science and state. I have already pointed this out many times. <

You have pointed out everything many times and your pronouncements have been shot down many times.

> I was just trying to show how stupid you sound. <

And yet you only showed how stupid you are yourself.

> I've been through this already <

Yes. Mindless repetition as a substitute for argument.

> Nothing in the rules says that denial of permissive intervention is not appealable. <

You are repeating this after Kevin has shot it down.

> Mindless repetition of the Thomas More quote <

Dense as a neutron star. You don't see that this court did construe according to the law?

> Attorneys do not always ridicule my ideas, as you seem to assume. <

Sometimes they try to humor you. Then again perhaps it was sarcasm, which you have shown you don't understand.

> Attorneys often have much more respect for my ideas than non-attorneys do. <

They seem to laugh at you even more than the average person does. I don't know how you could quantify the difference.

>>>>>> I've already stated the reasons they had for opposing the intervention.<<<<<<

> And I have refuted all of them. <

And your absurd refutations have been shot down.

> The fact that only Darwinism is actually taught makes the Darwinists look like the favored insiders <

The fact that the flat earth theory is no longer being taught makes the spherical earth theorists look like the favored insiders. The spherical earth concept is just a theory anyway. Some are claiming that the earth is actually an oblate spheroid. Until this is resolved your idea that the earth is flat and sits on the backs of four massive elephants should still be taught.

> as attorney Edward Sisson astutely observed. <

As loser Edward Sisson bleated.

> All of this stuff has nothing to do with the alleged 2300-signature petition. <

You will have to take one side or the other on the 2300-signature petition. It looks like you took too opposing views in the same post!

> So you are saying it is not precedent when the SC agrees with the reasoning of a lower court on a discretionary issue? <

Dimwit! When the SC agrees with the reasoning of a lower court it is precedent. When the lower court makes its judgement, it is not. You seem to be the only one not to see this.

> Saying that I am wrong because I am dishonest is an ad hominem. <

He has given endless reasons that you are wrong. You have given countless instances to show that you are dishonest. As far as ad hominems, you clearly still don’t understand the term.

> There is just a limited number of ways in which I can completely refute all of your arguments <

You have tried a limited number of ways and tried them again, and tried them again. So far you are batting zero.

> and I have now used practically all of those ways. <

And failed. What do you mean by "practically"? Is there anything else that can come out of that neutron star brain of yours?

You have admitted defeat in your arguments with Rob and me. When will you admit defeat in your arguments with Kevin? Your losses are obvious.

It is equally obvious that you have started this blog just to get attention and show that you really exist. Had you considered posting something meaningful? It looks like you intentionally seek out losing propositions to champion.

You remind me of a character in the movie "Ben-Hur". In the rowing scene the timekeeper, a mindless cretin such as yourself, loudly repeats the commands given by others. He ends his part when he loudly repeats the command "Ramming Speed!" and continues beating his drums at an increasingly rapid rate, oblivious to the fact that his own words will lead to his demise in the upcoming collision.

In the beginning you appeared to be just a poor misguided soul who was trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Next you gave evidence of having delusions. In this post you show yourself to be paranoid and give evidence that this condition has existed for some time. If you follow the progress of the discussions on this blog, you will see a textbook case of clinical insanity. When the men in the white coats come to take you away you will recognize them as the agents of the judge and government attorneys who conspired against you in your smog impact fee case.

Friday, June 23, 2006 8:30:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

W. Kevin Vicklund said ( 6/23/2006 05:57:56 AM ) --

>>>>>>Larry has made two claims regarding appealability of denial of intervention. Both have been wrong. The first, that it was not appealable, without giving any reason why it would be unappealable, is wrong, as it is appealable. <<<<<<<

False. I initially said that it was not appealable, but later retracted that statement. I had second thoughts and realized that FTE could have made what is known as an "interlocutory appeal." As you note in a following comment, it is Rob Serrano who has continued to insist that a denial of permissive intervention (as distinguished from intervention of right) is not appealable.

Part of my thinking was this -- After the Dover school board decided to not appeal, FTE could not argue that even though FTE's interests were fairly represented in court, the decision to not appeal was a failure to represent FTE's interests and FTE is therefore entitled to intervene. It would be too late to make such an argument, because the only possible remedy would be to hold the whole trial over again.

>>>>>>The second, that it is appealable because it is an interlocutory order is wrong, because it is not an interlocutory order; instead it is a final order and therefore subject to immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.<<<<<<<

False again. I never called the denial of intervention an "interlocutory order."

>>>>>>Interlocutory appeals are normally not allowed, except by statute. Rules 3 (appeal as of right) and 5 (by permission) of the FRAP cover the filing of such appeals. The actual statute governing interlocutory appeals is 28 U.S.C. § 1292. <<<<<<<

Thanks for pointing out these provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1292 -- I thought that anything about interlocutory appeals in general would be in the FRAP (Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure). The FRAP is actually an appendix to USC Title 28.

Actually, in federal appellate procedure, almost anything is allowed, because FRAP Rule 2, "Suspension of Rules," says, "On its own or a party’s motion, a court of appeals may—to expedite its decision or for other good cause—suspend any provision of these rules in a particular case and order proceedings as it directs, except as otherwise provided in Rule 26 (b)." Rule 26(b) says that the court may not extend the time to file a notice of appeal, petition for permission to appeal, or various appeals of the actions of government agencies or officials (except as authorized by law).

>>>>>Let's take a look at the full text of section 1292, paragraph by paragraph, and see whether it permits appeal of intervention:<<<<<<

It was not really necessary to reproduce the whole thing -- you could have cut out parts that were clearly not applicable.

>>>>>>(e) The Supreme Court may prescribe rules, in accordance with section 2072 of this title, to provide for an appeal of an interlocutory decision to the courts of appeals that is not otherwise provided for under subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d).<<<<<<

Also, § 2072 of USC Title 28 says part --
(a) The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence for cases in the United States district courts (including proceedings before magistrate judges thereof) and courts of appeals.
(b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.
(c) Such rules may define when a ruling of a district court is final for the purposes of appeal under section 1291 of this title


The meaning of the above statutes is not clear. Are the rules described above specifically FRAP rules (as noted, FRAP is an appendix of USC Title 28), or can these rules be in precedents -- i.e., case law -- as in Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser et al., 490 U.S. 495 (1989), which you subsequently cite? The FRAP is completely separate from case law. Also, I thought that the Supreme Court's changes to the FRAP were subject to veto by Congress, but section 2072 does not mention any such veto power. A Law.com article article on a new national rule (maybe to be added to the FRCP as well as the FRAP) allowing citation of unpublished opinions in all federal courts says, "The new rule takes effect unless Congress countermands it before Dec. 1."

Also, if the rules referred to in the above statutes are FRAP rules, then I assert that the Supreme Court may not establish a case law precedent generally barring appeal of denial of intervention, because such a precedent would infringe on the rights of the appeals courts to suspend the FRAP rules pursuant to FRAP Rule 2, "Suspension of Rules" (though the SC could of course decide in an individual case that intervention was not justified). The FRAP takes precedence over Supreme Court decisions.

>>>>>>>The 3 tests for determining whether an interlocutory appeal stem from a Supreme Court case, Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser et al., 490 U.S. 495 (1989), as indicated in Larry's link to interlocutory appeals above:

...under the relevant statute (28 U.S.C. § 1292) such an appeal would be permitted only if:

1. the outcome of the case would be conclusively determined by the issue
2. the matter appealed was collateral to the merits; and
3. the matter was effectively unreviewable if immediate appeal was not allowed. parentheticals removed

All three tests must be met before an interlocutory appeal would be permitted. <<<<<<<

Despite the word "and" shown in bold above, I assert that only one of these tests need be met, not all 3. Obviously the 1st test could never be satisfied for denials of intervention because no one has a crystal ball that would show how intervention would affect the outcome of the case. The test most applicable to denials of intervention would be test #3, "the matter was effectively unreviewable if immediate appeal was not allowed."

Also, I assert that the above precedent just provides guidelines but is not binding, because as I noted above, the FRAP takes precedence over the Supreme Court and any blanket SC restrictions on interlocutory appeals would infringe on the right of the appeals courts to suspend the FRAP rules pursuant to Rule 2.

In another post, W. Kevin Vicklund said ( 6/23/2006 06:23:30 AM ) --
>>>>>>Rob Serrano wrote -- Denials of Permissive Intervention are not appealable because they are solely at the discretion of the trial judge. Since the party seeking the Permissive Intervention have no right to intervene in the case, there's no real ground to appeal the denial.<
Rob makes a good point. I may have to revise the final sentence of my previous post. I'll need to take a look at the rule again. There still might be a case for abuse of discretion, but as I said, the burden of proof would be extremely high.<<<<<<<

I agree that the burden of proof would be extremely high -- but my point is that technically speaking, denial of permissive intervention is appealable. Also, FTE's main goal was intervention of right.

>>>>>>The question at hand - is denial of permission appealable? I'll take evidence for other permissions as well, not just intervention.<<<<<<

I assert that anything is potentially appealable, because FRAP Rule 2 gives the appeals courts the right to suspend the rules. I assert that depending on the discretion of the appeals court, even a ruling that is not final is appealable. Either the appeals courts have the authority to suspend the rules or they do not -- there cannot be any two ways about it. Of course, the law and the FRAP have established certain appeals of right, and in those situations the appeals courts have no discretion to deny the right to appeal.

Friday, June 23, 2006 10:29:00 AM  
Anonymous Garstang said...

> I had second thoughts and realized that FTE could have made what is known as an "interlocutory appeal." <

You may know what "interlocutory" means but so far there has been no evidence of it. I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

> It would be too late to make such an argument <

Please clarify your position. Did you think FTE should have gone for an interlocutary appeal at the time? If so, your statement that "the only possible remedy would be to hold the whole trial over again" makes no sense.

> a court of appeals may—to expedite its decision or for other good cause—suspend any provision of these rules in a particular case and order proceedings as it directs...<

Do you believe that FTE's position was so significant that an appelate court would have suspended any rules? This is giving entirely too much weight to FTE's argument.

> The meaning of the above statutes is not clear. <

Speak for yourself.

> Also, if the rules referred to in the above statutes are FRAP rules, then I assert that the Supreme Court may not establish a case law precedent generally barring appeal of denial of intervention <

But the Supreme Court, being an appelate court, would also have a right to suspend the rules, even the rule that allows lower appelate courts to suspend the rules.

> The FRAP takes precedence over Supreme Court decisions. <

Wow! Where did you come up with that?

> Despite the word "and" shown in bold above, I assert that only one of these tests need be met, not all 3. <

It all depends on what your definition of "and" is.

> Obviously the 1st test could never be satisfied for denials of intervention because no one has a crystal ball that would show how intervention would affect the outcome of the case. <

It is only necessary to show that it could affect the outcome of the case, not specifically how it would. No crystal ball is necessary.

> as I noted above, the FRAP takes precedence over the Supreme Court <

To be taken seriously, this claim would have to have a lot more support than you have given it.

> I assert that anything is potentially appealable, because FRAP Rule 2 gives the appeals courts the right to suspend the rules. <

It appears that you are reading far too much into this "right to suspend the rules".

Friday, June 23, 2006 10:59:00 AM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>>>>Larry has made two claims regarding appealability of denial of intervention. Both have been wrong. The first, that it was not appealable, without giving any reason why it would be unappealable, is wrong, as it is appealable. <<<<<<<

>>>False. I initially said that it was not appealable, but later retracted that statement.<<<

"I didn't lie. I lied and then retracted the lie." The fact that you later retracted a claim doesn't make that claim any less wrong. The fact is, your initial claim that denial of intervention is not appealable was wrong, regardless of whether you retracted it. I do not deny that you retradted it. Unfortunately for you, you retracted it for the wrong reason.

>>>I had second thoughts and realized that FTE could have made what is known as an "interlocutory appeal." As you note in a following comment, it is Rob Serrano who has continued to insist that a denial of permissive intervention (as distinguished from intervention of right) is not appealable.

Part of my thinking was this -- After the Dover school board decided to not appeal, FTE could not argue that even though FTE's interests were fairly represented in court, the decision to not appeal was a failure to represent FTE's interests and FTE is therefore entitled to intervene. It would be too late to make such an argument, because the only possible remedy would be to hold the whole trial over again.<<<

>>>>>>The second, that it is appealable because it is an interlocutory order is wrong, because it is not an interlocutory order; instead it is a final order and therefore subject to immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.<<<<<<<

>>>False again. I never called the denial of intervention an "interlocutory order."<<<

Only an interlocutory order is subject to an interlocutory appeal. Since you said that FTE could make an interlocutory appeal on the denial, you logically implied that a denial of intervention was an interlocutory order. In any case, you were wrong that denial of intervention is subject to interlocutory appeal. Your statement above shows how utterly ignorant you are about interlocutory appeals, orders, and frankly, law in general. It also shows your dishonesty.

>>>>>>Interlocutory appeals are normally not allowed, except by statute. Rules 3 (appeal as of right) and 5 (by permission) of the FRAP cover the filing of such appeals. The actual statute governing interlocutory appeals is 28 U.S.C. § 1292. <<<<<<<

>>>Thanks for pointing out these provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1292 -- I thought that anything about interlocutory appeals in general would be in the FRAP (Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure). The FRAP is actually an appendix to USC Title 28.<<<

The FRAP is a collation of statutes - it takes the relevant statutes and combines them into a single document.

>>>Actually, in federal appellate procedure, almost anything is allowed, because FRAP Rule 2, "Suspension of Rules," says, "On its own or a party’s motion, a court of appeals may—to expedite its decision or for other good cause—suspend any provision of these rules in a particular case and order proceedings as it directs, except as otherwise provided in Rule 26 (b)." Rule 26(b) says that the court may not extend the time to file a notice of appeal, petition for permission to appeal, or various appeals of the actions of government agencies or officials (except as authorized by law).<<<

Yes, Rule 2 is a metarule. Discussion of what is and is not appeallable generally does not take into consideration metarules. It's a God hypothesis - God (the appeals court in this case) can make anything happen, therefore nothing is impossible.

>>>>>Let's take a look at the full text of section 1292, paragraph by paragraph, and see whether it permits appeal of intervention:<<<<<<

>>>It was not really necessary to reproduce the whole thing -- you could have cut out parts that were clearly not applicable.<<<

Only to have you come back and quote mine the other parts? You've played that game too many times for me to take that chance. I've also caught you several times not quoting the parts that you couldn't show not to be applicable against your argument, and I'm avoiding any such counter-claims on your part.

The next segment, which I am putting in italics, is moot, since denial of intervention is a final order, not an interlocutory order, and therefore not subject to the rules for interlocutory appeals.

>>>>>>(e) The Supreme Court may prescribe rules, in accordance with section 2072 of this title, to provide for an appeal of an interlocutory decision to the courts of appeals that is not otherwise provided for under subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d).<<<<<<

>>>Also, § 2072 of USC Title 28 says part --
(a) The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence for cases in the United States district courts (including proceedings before magistrate judges thereof) and courts of appeals.
(b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.
(c) Such rules may define when a ruling of a district court is final for the purposes of appeal under section 1291 of this title

>>>The meaning of the above statutes is not clear. Are the rules described above specifically FRAP rules (as noted, FRAP is an appendix of USC Title 28), or can these rules be in precedents -- i.e., case law -- as in Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser et al., 490 U.S. 495 (1989), which you subsequently cite? The FRAP is completely separate from case law. Also, I thought that the Supreme Court's changes to the FRAP were subject to veto by Congress, but section 2072 does not mention any such veto power. A Law.com article article on a new national rule (maybe to be added to the FRCP as well as the FRAP) allowing citation of unpublished opinions in all federal courts says, "The new rule takes effect unless Congress countermands it before Dec. 1."<<<

Precedent is one such way to establish the rules. The rules governing changes to the FRAP may not be fully descibed in section 2072. Also, since the FRAP is an appendix to Title 28 and therefore part of the U.S.C., it is subject to congressional oversight.

>>>Also, if the rules referred to in the above statutes are FRAP rules, then I assert that the Supreme Court may not establish a case law precedent generally barring appeal of denial of intervention, because such a precedent would infringe on the rights of the appeals courts to suspend the FRAP rules pursuant to FRAP Rule 2, "Suspension of Rules" (though the SC could of course decide in an individual case that intervention was not justified). The FRAP takes precedence over Supreme Court decisions.<<<

Your assertion is both backwards and incorrect. First, if denial of intervention were an interlocutory order (which it is not), by statute it would only be appealable by permission of the trial judge (1292(b)) or by special rules created by the Supreme Court (1292(e)). In order to deny appeal, the Supreme Court would have to do nothing. They would have to make a rule in order to make it appealable by right - it would be denied by default. That is why your argument, were it not already moot, is backwards. Secondly, such a rule would still be subject to the provisions of the FRAP Rule 2 metarule. That is why your argument is wrong - it would either not infringe on the metarule, or it would be specified as an exception to the metarule (under the 1292(e) rule, it would fall under the rules for filing an appeal and thus be subject to Rule 2).

>>>>>>>The 3 tests for determining whether an interlocutory appeal stem from a Supreme Court case, Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser et al., 490 U.S. 495 (1989), as indicated in Larry's link to interlocutory appeals above:

...under the relevant statute (28 U.S.C. § 1292) such an appeal would be permitted only if:

1. the outcome of the case would be conclusively determined by the issue
2. the matter appealed was collateral to the merits; and
3. the matter was effectively unreviewable if immediate appeal was not allowed. parentheticals removed

All three tests must be met before an interlocutory appeal would be permitted. <<<<<<<

>>>Despite the word "and" shown in bold above, I assert that only one of these tests need be met, not all 3. Obviously the 1st test could never be satisfied for denials of intervention because no one has a crystal ball that would show how intervention would affect the outcome of the case. The test most applicable to denials of intervention would be test #3, "the matter was effectively unreviewable if immediate appeal was not allowed."<<<

Mindless disagreement with the Supreme Court again? Actually, the scratching your head just endured over how to apply those rules is part of the reason why a denial of intervention is a final order and not interlocutory. Try turning it around, though. Do the three rules make sense if someone is appealing a grant of intervention? An order granting intervention is considered interlocutory, and therefore not subject to appeal except under section 1292(b), a hypothetical 1292(e) rule, or the FRAP Rule 2 metarule.

>>>Also, I assert that the above precedent just provides guidelines but is not binding, because as I noted above, the FRAP takes precedence over the Supreme Court and any blanket SC restrictions on interlocutory appeals would infringe on the right of the appeals courts to suspend the FRAP rules pursuant to Rule 2.<<<

And that assertion would be wrong (assuming that denial of intervention is an interlocutory orde, which it isn't), because such a rule would be a) granted by a statute, b) unecessary, as it is the default, and c) wouldn't infringe on FRAP 2 in any case.


Once again, a denial of intervention is not an interlocutory order, and is thus not subject to an interlocutory appeal or section 1292. It is instead a final order, and therefore subject to an immediate appeal by right and to section 1291.

>>>In another post, W. Kevin Vicklund said ( 6/23/2006 06:23:30 AM ) --<<<
>>>>>>>>>Rob Serrano wrote -- Denials of Permissive Intervention are not appealable because they are solely at the discretion of the trial judge. Since the party seeking the Permissive Intervention have no right to intervene in the case, there's no real ground to appeal the denial.<<<<<<<<<
>>>>>>Rob makes a good point. I may have to revise the final sentence of my previous post. I'll need to take a look at the rule again. There still might be a case for abuse of discretion, but as I said, the burden of proof would be extremely high.<<<<<<

>>>I agree that the burden of proof would be extremely high -- but my point is that technically speaking, denial of permissive intervention is appealable. Also, FTE's main goal was intervention of right.<<<

That sound you heard was the shifting of goalposts. The questions are, barring the suspension of the rules, is denial of intervention appealable, to what extent is it appealable, and whether it is a Rule 24(a)(2) or Rule 24(b) intervention makes a difference to appealability. You were the one making a big deal about permissive intervention, Larry.

>>>>>>The question at hand - is denial of permission appealable? I'll take evidence for other permissions as well, not just intervention.<<<<<<

>>>I assert that anything is potentially appealable, because FRAP Rule 2 gives the appeals courts the right to suspend the rules. I assert that depending on the discretion of the appeals court, even a ruling that is not final is appealable. Either the appeals courts have the authority to suspend the rules or they do not -- there cannot be any two ways about it. Of course, the law and the FRAP have established certain appeals of right, and in those situations the appeals courts have no discretion to deny the right to appeal.<<<

As I said before, this is a God hypothesis and therefore useless to the discussion. To clarify, we are discussing whether, under the established rules, denial of permissive intervention (or for that matter, any denial of any permission) is appealable. Since FRAP Rule 2 suspends the other rules, it is not germane to the discussion, unless we are discussing any exceptions to FRAP Rule 2, which we are not. Is that clear?

Anyway, Rob, my conclusion, based upon a number of court decisions, is that denial of permissive intervention (Rule 24(b))is indeed immediately appealable, but only on the grounds of "abuse of discretion" (all caveats about metarules apply). However, I didn't find a slam-dunk, Supreme Court case. Additionally, the timeliness requirement for intervention as of right is only appealable on "abuse of discretion." Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, could you point to any rulings that support your argument?

Friday, June 23, 2006 4:26:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

W. Kevin Vicklund said ( 6/23/2006 04:26:44 PM ) --

>>>>>"I didn't lie. I lied and then retracted the lie." The fact that you later retracted a claim doesn't make that claim any less wrong. The fact is, your initial claim that denial of intervention is not appealable was wrong, regardless of whether you retracted it.<<<<<<

But I retracted it a long time ago and you are continuing to harp on it, and you did not even note that I retracted it. That's really nitpicking. You are always trying to be one-up on me. You are just jealous of my superior knowledge of the law, that's all.

>>>>>Only an interlocutory order is subject to an interlocutory appeal. Since you said that FTE could make an interlocutory appeal on the denial, you logically implied that a denial of intervention was an interlocutory order. <<<<<<

No, "interlocutory appeal" does not imply "interlocutory order." The cause of the problem is that the term "interlocutory" can have different meanings, depending on how it is used. Here is Findlaw.com's definition of the term --

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Interlocutory --

Medieval Latin interlocutorius, from Late Latin interloqui to pronounce an interlocutory sentence, from Latin, to speak between

: not final or definitive
Example: an interlocutory order

broadly
: made or done during the progress of an action esp. when delay would cause irreversible injury
Example: an interlocutory appeal

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

So although "interlocutory order" means something not final or definitive, an "interlocutory appeal" can be an appeal of a final order made in the course of a trial (it can also be an appeal of a temporary order if delay could cause irreversible injury or make the matter unreviewable).

>>>>>>Your statement above shows how utterly ignorant you are about interlocutory appeals, orders, and frankly, law in general. It also shows your dishonesty. <<<<<<

I am really getting fed up with the ad hominem attacks from commenters here who are just jealous of my superior knowledge and understanding of the law.

>>>>>>The FRAP is a collation of statutes - it takes the relevant statutes and combines them into a single document.<<<<<<<

Wrong. As I said, FRAP and FRCP are appendices to USC Title 28. Most of the FRAP and FRCP Rules make no references to statutes or sections of the US Code. It was the Supreme Court and not Congress that made that recent FRAP change allowing the citation of unpublished opinions in all federal courts. However, according to news reports, Congress has until Dec. 1 to veto that change, but I found no provision for such a veto in the laws.

>>>>>>>Actually, in federal appellate procedure, almost anything is allowed, because FRAP Rule 2, "Suspension of Rules," says,.......<<
Yes, Rule 2 is a metarule. Discussion of what is and is not appeallable generally does not take into consideration metarules. It's a God hypothesis - God (the appeals court in this case) can make anything happen, therefore nothing is impossible. <<<<<<

I don't know what you mean by "metarule" -- I could not find that term in either a regular or a law dictionary. My point was this -- I saw nothing in the FRAP that appeared to bar appeals of denial of intervention, but if such a bar could be found or contrived, the appeals court has the discretion to suspend it pursuant to Rule 2, "Suspension of the Rules."

Unlike the FRAP, The FRCP, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the Rules of the Supreme Court have no provision allowing the judges to suspend the rules.

<<<<<<It was not really necessary to reproduce the whole thing -- you could have cut out parts that were clearly not applicable.<
Only to have you come back and quote mine the other parts?<<<<<<

Like a typical Darwinist, you have this phobia about quote mining. It is standard practice in the law to just quote the relevant part and give a link or reference for the rest. Anyway, no matter -- this blog is already so badly cluttered with garbage from trolls that a little more garbage is not going to make much difference.

>>>>>The next segment, which I am putting in italics, is moot, since denial of intervention is a final order, not an interlocutory order, and therefore not subject to the rules for interlocutory appeals.
(e) The Supreme Court may prescribe rules, in accordance with section 2072 of this title, to provide for an appeal of an interlocutory decision to the courts of appeals that is not otherwise provided for under subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d).<<<<<<

As I pointed out above, the meaning of "interlocutory" is ambiguous. It can mean not final but it can also mean made or done during the progress of an action, e.g., a trial, and in the latter sense an interlocutory order could be a final order. I think that this ambiguity is creating a lot of confusion. My preferred definition of "interlocutory appeal" is the appeal of any order -- whether that order is final or not -- where delay in the appeal could cause irreversible injury or make the matter unreviewable. Under that definition, an appeal of a grant or denial of intervention is an interlocutory appeal. Anyway, I assert that it is impossible to reach any consensus about the interpretation of the law because there is no clearcut definition of what "interlocutory" means.

>>>>>Precedent is one such way to establish the rules.<<<<<<

I disagree. Adding to the rules by means of precedents would bypass the normal rulemaking procedure for the FRAP (also the FRCP and the Federal Rules of Evidence). In that recent rule change allowing citation of unpublished opinions, the Supreme Court received direct inputs from many interested parties. Furthermore, any new rules established by precedent would not be published in the FRAP and so some judges and litigants might not be aware of such rules. Furthermore, such rules might be stated in different ways, adding to the confusion.

>>>>>since the FRAP is an appendix to Title 28 and therefore part of the U.S.C., it is subject to congressional oversight.<<<<<<

I don't know what role Congress has in the rulemaking processes for the federal courts. That article about the new rule allowing citation of unpublished opinions said that Congress has until Dec. 1 to veto the rule.

>>>>>>>The 3 tests for determining whether an interlocutory appeal stem from a Supreme Court case, Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser et al., 490 U.S. 495 (1989), as indicated in Larry's link to interlocutory appeals above:

...under the relevant statute (28 U.S.C. § 1292) such an appeal would be permitted only if:

1. the outcome of the case would be conclusively determined by the issue
2. the matter appealed was collateral to the merits; and
3. the matter was effectively unreviewable if immediate appeal was not allowed.
<

Kevin said -- All three tests must be met before an interlocutory appeal would be permitted.

Larry said -- Despite the word "and" shown in bold above, I assert that only one of these tests need be met, not all 3.

Kevin said -- Mindless disagreement with the Supreme Court again? Actually, the scratching your head just endured over how to apply those rules is part of the reason why a denial of intervention is a final order and not interlocutory. Try turning it around, though. Do the three rules make sense if someone is appealing a grant of intervention? An order granting intervention is considered interlocutory, and therefore not subject to appeal except under section 1292(b), a hypothetical 1292(e) rule, or the FRAP Rule 2 metarule.<<<<<<

Not only is there no fixed definition of "interlocutory," there is no fixed definition of "final," either. "Final" can mean "permanent" or it can mean "dispositive" (i.e., determining the final outcome). And what is "final" for one party might not be "final" for another party. Both grants and denials of intervention are "final" for all parties in the sense of being permanent (an intervenor can later be kicked out but the only way to eliminate the effect of the intervenor is to hold the trial all over again). A grant of intervention is not final for all parties in the sense that such a grant is not dispositive for all parties, i.e., it does not ultimately determine who is going to win the case. A denial of intervention is dispositive for the intervention applicant but is not dispositive for the original parites, i.e., it does not ultimately determine which of the original parties is going to win the case (however, it is dispositive for the original parties so far as litigation involving the intervention applicant is concerned).

As for your question, "Do the three rules make sense if someone is appealing a grant of intervention?": If these three rules are to be universally applicable, they have to make sense for denials of intervention as well as grants of intervention. I think that the appeals court should just accept the appeals and then decide whether to grant or deny intervention.

>>>>>You were the one making a big deal about permissive intervention, Larry.<<<<<<

Wrong. I just got into an argument with Rob Serrano over whether a denial of permissive intervention is appealable.

>>>>>As I said before, this is a God hypothesis and therefore useless to the discussion.<<<<<

You seem to have this "God hypothesis" thing about FRAP Rule 2, "Suspension of the Rules." I assert that this rule is just as good as any of the other FRAP rules. Would you argue in court that Rule 2 is just a "God hypothesis"?

>>>>>>Anyway, Rob, my conclusion, based upon a number of court decisions, is that denial of permissive intervention (Rule 24(b))is indeed immediately appealable, but only on the grounds of "abuse of discretion" (all caveats about metarules apply). However, I didn't find a slam-dunk, Supreme Court case. Additionally, the timeliness requirement for intervention as of right is only appealable on "abuse of discretion."<<<<<<

I assert that any "abuse of discretion" standard would have to be explicitly in the FRAP. Also, I noticed that you did not jump on Rob for claiming that denial of permissive intervention is not appealable.

The bottom line is this -- if anyone ever persuasively interprets the laws and the FRAP to mean that denials of intervention are not appealable, then the courts of appeal, applying Rule 2, could just suspend the rules and allow appeals of such denials. Isn't that wonderful?

Saturday, June 24, 2006 3:42:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

Kevin said ...

> The fact that you later retracted a claim doesn't make that claim any less wrong. <

Then Larry(?) said ...

> But I retracted it a long time ago and you are continuing to harp on it, and you did not even note that I retracted it. <

Have you ever admitted that you were wrong?

> You are always trying to be one-up on me. <

Projecting again?

> You are just jealous of my superior knowledge of the law, that's all. <

No one is jealous of something that doesn't exist.

>>>>>>Your statement above shows how utterly ignorant you are about interlocutory appeals, orders, and frankly, law in general. It also shows your dishonesty. <<<<<<

Larry(?)'s babble about interlocutory proves his ignorance. He just doesn't understand what he reads.

> I am really getting fed up with the ad hominem attacks <

Then why do you continue to make them?

> from commenters here who are just jealous of my superior knowledge and understanding of the law. <

There are no such commenters.

> I don't know what you mean by "metarule" <

You don't seem to know what is meant by any of the terms used here.

> this blog is already so badly cluttered with garbage from trolls that a little more garbage is not going to make much difference. <

Most of the garbage is your mindless repetition of failed arguments.

> My preferred definition of "interlocutory appeal" is the appeal of any order -- whether that order is final or not -- where delay in the appeal could cause irreversible injury or make the matter unreviewable. <

Unfortunately for you , that is not the definition that the law uses.

> I assert that it is impossible to reach any consensus about the interpretation of the law because there is no clearcut definition of what "interlocutory" means. <

There is a consensus among all but you in this case.

>>>>>Precedent is one such way to establish the rules.<<<<<<

> Furthermore, any new rules established by precedent would not be published in the FRAP and so some judges and litigants might not be aware of such rules. <

You seem to be under the delusion that judges and litigants don't do their homework and know as little about the law as you do. Perhaps that is why you have always lost.

> I don't know what role Congress has in the rulemaking processes for the federal courts. <

That is obvious.

>>>>>You were the one making a big deal about permissive intervention, Larry.<<<<<<

> Wrong. I just got into an argument with Rob Serrano over whether a denial of permissive intervention is appealable. <

In other words, you were making a big deal about permissive intervention.

Let's face it Larry(?). You are just jealous of the other commenters superior knowledge of law.

Saturday, June 24, 2006 6:14:00 AM  
Blogger Rob Serrano said...

W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>> Anyway, Rob, my conclusion, based upon a number of court decisions, is that denial of permissive intervention (Rule 24(b))is indeed immediately appealable, but only on the grounds of "abuse of discretion" (all caveats about metarules apply). However, I didn't find a slam-dunk, Supreme Court case. Additionally, the timeliness requirement for intervention as of right is only appealable on "abuse of discretion." Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, could you point to any rulings that support your argument? <<

From the sources I've found, you are correct. Most of the documents I've found say (if they say anything at all) that it is simply "unappealable," but there are some that state it to be "practically unappealable" (i.e. with such an absurdly high standard as to be basically unappealable). The documents that say it is "practically" unappealable basically agree with you that basically the only grounds for such an appeal would be "abuse of discretion." I am willing to accept that it is practically unappealable, since the burden is "abuse of discretion,"

I haven't come across any "abuse of discretion" limitation on any prong of the test for intervention by right, although, admittedly, that is mostly because certain persons here keep trying to focus on the permissive intervention, which has the weakest case. If any part of that test would be considered fairly flexible, it is the timeliness requirement, that one being the one that is given the least weight (if the other prongs are satisfies but the motion wasn't timely, the timeliness can be ignored), but the judge's discretion on the timeliness issue would tend to benefit the intervenor, unless the judge in question set an absurdly diffifult standard of timeliness.

On the other hand, I tend to view the appealability of the denial of intervention to be mostly a side issue. Sure, it's interesting to talk about it, but I don't see that it actually has much relevance to the case, since no appeals to the denial were made. Even if you assume that all of Larry's claims on the intervention were true (that lack of an appeal shows lack of adequate representation so FTE should have been allowed to intervene, the FTE's lawyers would do a better job representing FTE's interests in the case than the defense lawyers would, etc), if FTE's lawyer could have appealed on either intervention and didn't, it would seriously damage Larry's claim that FTE's lawyers would do a better job at representing their interests in this case than TMLC's lawyers could.

Saturday, June 24, 2006 10:02:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Reply to Voice In The Urbanness post of 6/24/2006 06:14:16 AM --

Urbanass's post is a perfect example of the crap that has been cluttering up this blog. It does not make a single worthwhile contribution to the discussion here, but just consists of ad hominems and breathtakingly inane wisecracks. I am going to respond to it just to show how dumb trolls like Urbanass are.

<<<<<<<> But I retracted it a long time ago and you are continuing to harp on it, and you did not even note that I retracted it. <
Have you ever admitted that you were wrong?<<<<<<<

What in the hell do you think a retraction is, you stupid moron?

<<<<<> You are always trying to be one-up on me. <
Projecting again?<<<<<<<

No, when I find what I think is an error by someone else, I usually don't crow about it and start calling that person ignorant, stupid, etc., except in retaliation for a similar attack on me.

<<<<<> You are just jealous of my superior knowledge of the law, that's all. <
No one is jealous of something that doesn't exist.<<<<<<<

And you have not made a single intelligent contribution to this discussion -- so what does that say about your knowledge?

>>>>>>Larry's babble about interlocutory proves his ignorance. He just doesn't understand what he reads.<<<<<<<

I only gave definitions of "interlocutory" from FindLaw, one of the most respected legal references on the Internet. Nothing important.

<<<<<> I am really getting fed up with the ad hominem attacks <
Then why do you continue to make them?<<<<<<<

An obvious quote mine -- and you Darwinists accuse others of quote mining?

>>>>>>> from commenters here who are just jealous of my superior knowledge and understanding of the law. <
There are no such commenters.<<<<<<<

You are a perfect example of such a commenter.

<<<<<> I don't know what you mean by "metarule" <
You don't seem to know what is meant by any of the terms used here.<<<<<<

I checked the regular dictionary and two major legal dictionaries and could find no definition for "metarule." Obviously hardly even jargon. I finally Googled metarule and found the following definition -- "a rule that describes how other rules should be used." Kevin Vicklund applied this term pejoratively to FRAP Rule 2, "Suspension of Rules," as though a "metarule" is somehow inferior to other rules. He also denounced Rule 2 as a "God hypothesis."

Well, maybe using non-standard terms is really not so bad -- our language expands when increasing usage of a non-standard term eventually makes that term standard. But I don't consider the concept of "metarule" to be sufficiently important to justify adding the word to the English language. "A rule that describes how other rules should be used" -- so what?

<<<<<<> this blog is already so badly cluttered with garbage from trolls that a little more garbage is not going to make much difference. <
Most of the garbage is your mindless repetition of failed arguments.<<<<<<

It is obvious that I have been winning most of my arguments. Most of the garbage here has been posted by trolls who don't even try to counter my arguments.

<<<<<<> My preferred definition of "interlocutory appeal" is the appeal of any order -- whether that order is final or not -- where delay in the appeal could cause irreversible injury or make the matter unreviewable. <
Unfortunately for you , that is not the definition that the law uses.<<<<<<<

AFAICT, it happens to be the de facto definition used by the federal courts. Kevin Vicklund's definition of an "interlocutory appeal" as an appeal of an "interlocutory order" is wrong, because "interlocutory order" usually means a non-final order.

<<<<<<<> I assert that it is impossible to reach any consensus about the interpretation of the law because there is no clearcut definition of what "interlocutory" means. <
There is a consensus among all but you in this case.<<<<<<<

Wrong. FindLaw gave two conflicting definitions of "interlocutory."

> any new rules established by precedent would not be published in the FRAP and so some judges and litigants might not be aware of such rules. <
You seem to be under the delusion that judges and litigants don't do their homework and know as little about the law as you do.<<<<<<<

Judges and litigants are not supposed to know unwritten rules. Unwritten rules established by precedents bypass proper rulemaking procedures. There are different versions of unwritten rules. Different federal circuits will have different unwritten rules (federal appeals courts and district courts do have their own circuit and local rules, but at least these rules are written). Aren't unwritten rules just wonderful?

>>>>>> Perhaps that is why you have always lost.<<<<<

I suppose the great honesty and absense of bias of judges and attorneys are the reasons why hearings in California on motions to dismiss a judge from a case on grounds of bias are held in another county.

<<<<<<> I don't know what role Congress has in the rulemaking processes for the federal courts. <
That is obvious.<<<<<<<

You obviously don't know, either. So your point is --?

>>>>>
>You were the one making a big deal about permissive intervention, Larry.<

> Wrong. I just got into an argument with Rob Serrano over whether a denial of permissive intervention is appealable. <

In other words, you were making a big deal about permissive intervention.<<<<<<<

No, it was Rob who was making a big deal about permissive intervention by insisting that denials of permissive intervention are not appealable. And Kevin Vicklund also disagreed with Rob on this point, yet I did not see an exchange of insults and ad hominems between Rob and Kevin.

>>>>>>Let's face it Larry. You are just jealous of the other commenters superior knowledge of law. <<<<<<<

Let's face it, Urbanass. You are nothing but a stupid piece of shit.

I apologize for this mostly off-topic post, but I just want to give some idea of the crap that I have to put up with because of my no-deletions pledge.

Saturday, June 24, 2006 11:33:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

Larry(?)'s post is a perfect example of the crap that has been cluttering up this blog. It does not make a single worthwhile contribution to the discussion here, but just consists of ad hominems and breathtakingly inane wisecracks.

I am going to respond to it just to show how Larry(?) makes a complete jackass of himself. Thank you Larry(?) for this opportunity.

> No, when I find what I think is an error by someone else, I usually don't crow about it and start calling that person ignorant, stupid, etc. <

> you stupid moron <

>And you have not made a single intelligent contribution to this discussion -- so what does that say about your knowledge? <

You have not been able to understand a single intelligent contribution that anyone has made -- so what does that say about your knowledge? (Larry(?) has still not explained the significance of his observation that a document produced in a Pennsylvania court was notarized by a Texas notary. He won't this time either because he hasn't a clue.

>>>>>>Larry's babble about interlocutory proves his ignorance. He just doesn't understand what he reads.<<<<<<<

> I only gave definitions of "interlocutory" from FindLaw <

Followed by proof that you didn't understand a word of it.

<<<<<> I am really getting fed up with the ad hominem attacks <
Then why do you continue to make them?<<<<<<<

> An obvious quote mine <

How in hell can you consider restating what you said verbatim to be quote mining? It seems like this is yet another one of the many terms you use without understanding.

>>>>>>> from commenters here who are just jealous of my superior knowledge and understanding of the law. <
There are no such commenters.<<<<<<<

> You are a perfect example of such a commenter. <

I have won all of my pro per cases. You have lost all of yours. Is that an example of your "superior knowledge and understanding of the law"?

> I don't consider the concept of "metarule" to be sufficiently important to justify adding the word to the English language. <

It has been and is used regularly. I'm sorry that it is outside your limited vocabulary.

> It is obvious that I have been winning most of my arguments. <

I don't think that it is obvious to anyone but you. Your blog has been described on other blogs as "Larry's Cry Room". You say something unfounded, someone shows your fallacy, and then you repeat the original statement. You consider this to be winning your arguments. Your other tack is when you have no answer, you refuse to answer the question because I have not been polite enough. Nobody is fooled by this. I don't think you can find another being outside of the lesser primates cages who believe that you are winning any arguments.

Most of the garbage here has been posted by trolls who don't even try to counter my arguments.

<<<<<<> My preferred definition of "interlocutory appeal" is the appeal of any order -- whether that order is final or not -- where delay in the appeal could cause irreversible injury or make the matter unreviewable. <
Unfortunately for you , that is not the definition that the law uses.<<<<<<<

> Kevin Vicklund's definition of an "interlocutory appeal" as an appeal of an "interlocutory order" is wrong, because "interlocutory order" usually means a non-final order. <

See! You have proven my case.

> FindLaw gave two conflicting definitions of "interlocutory." <

> Judges and litigants are not supposed to know unwritten rules. <

Written presidents are not unwritten rules. What are you braying about?

> I suppose the great honesty and absense (sic) of bias of judges and attorneys are the reasons why hearings in California on motions to dismiss a judge from a case on grounds of bias are held in another county. <

Possibly it is just a matter of common sense and not giving the appearance of conflict.

> I did not see an exchange of insults and ad hominems between Rob and Kevin. <

Have you seen an exchange of insults by anyone where you weren't involved and initiated it?

I just want to give some idea of the crap that Larry(?) has put on this blog.

Saturday, June 24, 2006 2:15:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home