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.

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

Cowardly hypocrite Ed Brayton has refused my challenge

Ed Brayton is not only a hypocrite -- he is a cowardly hypocrite. I sent an email to him saying, "Ed, It is easy for you and your pals to take cowardly potshots at me from the safety of your blog, where I am banned. So I am challenging you to either unban me on your blog or debate me on my blog." In a post titled "Larry's Plea for Attention", Ed turned down my challenge. Well, Ed, I certainly do not need to plead for attention from you -- I get plenty of attention from you whether I want it or not.

Ed wrote, "You're banned here because you annoy me." OK, you trolls, let's hear again that Ed is tolerant of comments that he disagrees with.

Of course, my blog takes potshots at Ed, too -- but the difference is that Ed and his pals are free to post comments over here (and both Ed and his pals have posted comments here) while I cannot post comments over there. Ed and his pals have been taking potshots at me where I am an unable to respond. I cannot even directly respond to Ed's articles that are entirely devoted to attacking my ideas. That's cowardice on the part of Ed and his pals.

Ed Brayton has no credibility. He is just a big bag of hot air.

POSTSCRIPT (the following section was added several hours after the above section was posted):

In his above article, Ed also attacked my remarks about the Edwards v. Aguillard case in my article (post) titled "The case against expert witness testimony in monkey trials". Ed said,

As usual, Larry completely misreads the opinion. Notice that the statement from the court is very specific in saying that expert testimony would not illuminate the purpose of the Louisiana legislature when it made the law. Why is this important? Because the district court's ruling considered only the purpose prong of the Lemon test, not the effect or excessive entanglement prongs. (emphasis in original)

So? The Dover case could also have been decided solely on the basis of the Lemon test's "purpose" prong, because of the obvious religious motivations of the school board members.

Furthermore, I also addressed the issue of the applicability of expert witness testimony to the effect prong -- I said, "(7) -- in establishment clause cases, expert testimony often does not illuminate the purposes of the government or the perceptions of the local community, i.e., this testimony is a "Monday morning battle of the experts" (emphasis added to original). The "effect" prong in these cases was primarily concerned with the perceptions of the local citizens as to whether or not there appeared to be a government endorsement of religion. However, the highly advanced knowledge presented by the expert witnesses in three weeks of testimony in the Dover case far exceeded what a fairly well-informed but not expert local citizen -- or that citizen's proxy, the imaginary "objective" or "reasonable" observer -- would be expected to know. According to the Dover opinion (page 16), the "reasonable observer is an informed citizen who is more knowledgeable than the average passerby," but there is no requirement that the reasonable observer be exceptionally well informed and I assert that such a requirement would be unreasonable because the reasonable observer is supposed to represent the typical well-informed citizen.

As for the Lemon test's third prong, the "entanglement" prong," Justice O'Connor said that this prong applies only where the government is directly involved with a religious organization, as in giving aid to religious schools. Where this prong is applicable, it is often incorporated into the second ("effect") prong, as noted in the Selman v. Cobb County district-court decision.

Ed said,
Judge Jones didn't need to refer to expert testimony to conclude that the board acted for a religious purpose, all he needed was the fact witnesses' testimony - just like in Edwards.

YES! So you actually agree that the expert witness testimony was not necessary in the Dover case -- Judge Jones could have ruled against the defendants solely on the basis of their religious motivations.

I'll bet that Ed is now going to complain that I "quote mined" him.

Note -- my original statement has been revised as follows:

"Unfortunately, the courts in later cases did not follow Edwards' lead of refusing to hear the testimony of expert witnesses who had played no part in directly influencing the government policies where such testimony was arguably not necessary for deciding the case."

Labels:

19 Comments:

Blogger LarryFarfarafararman said...

Ed's brother never confirmed to me that Ed was batshit crazy. So that's one huge difference between you and Ed.

Tuesday, July 04, 2006 5:41:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>Ed's brother never confirmed to me that Ed was batshit crazy. So that's one huge difference between you and Ed.<<<<<

You're the crazy one, Ed.

Tuesday, July 04, 2006 5:52:00 PM  
Blogger LarryFarfarafararman said...

Not Ed, crazypants. Guess again.

Tuesday, July 04, 2006 6:25:00 PM  
Blogger LarryFarfarafararman said...

Am I Larry Falafelman's split personality? Am I that Janelle girl, after figuring out that you and Davetard and Dembski are frauds? Am I your imagination, trying to get you to commit satanic acts? who knows?

Tuesday, July 04, 2006 6:27:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

I admit it. I am a Cowardly hypocrite. That is why I refuse the challenge of Voice in the Wilderness to answer his questions.

Tuesday, July 04, 2006 10:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

Larry(?),

Come out from under your rock and answer some questions you coward.

Tuesday, July 04, 2006 11:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

By the way. Thank you for providing the link to Ed's blog. He is showing you to be the Hypocritical idiot that you are.

Tuesday, July 04, 2006 11:06:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

The title of this thread was in error. It should be Cowardly hypocrite Larry Fafarman has refused all challenges

Wednesday, July 05, 2006 5:45:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well it looks like there has been no improvement in "Larry's Cry Room". I will still stop by and check every now and then to see if the jackass has imploded any further. He is now nearing the Schwarzschild radius and I presume that he will soon disappear.

Wednesday, July 05, 2006 7:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Spongebob Squarepants said...

Ed's Blog is very predictive:

"The Dave and Larry show - coming to a stage near you. I wonder if Larry will also play multiple characters - me, his brother, anyone else he feels lke impersonating these days. That would make for quite a funny show as he comes out first as himself, then as his brother, then he comes out and accuses other people of being his brother, and so forth. Needless to say, this play would be a farce, as is their collective understanding of these legal issues."

Wednesday, July 05, 2006 8:09:00 AM  
Anonymous Bill Carter said...

> I cannot even directly respond to Ed's articles that are entirely devoted to attacking my ideas. <

You are afraid to respond to questions asked of you on your own blog.

That's cowardice on your part.

Why are you still hiding, Larry(?)?

Wednesday, July 05, 2006 8:17:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ed is right. You even make Dumbski look good.

Wednesday, July 05, 2006 11:51:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ed is right. You even make Dumbski look good.

Wednesday, July 05, 2006 11:52:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous said...

>>>>>Ed is right. You even make Dumbski look good.<<<<<<

If Ed thinks I am so dumb, then why won't he let me post comments on his blog? What is he afraid of?

Wednesday, July 05, 2006 4:29:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

I confess. I am scared shitless of the questions that Voice in the Wilderness keeps bringing up. I will never answere them. I am trying to distract everyone with a barrage of meaningless posts.

Thursday, July 06, 2006 2:05:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In The Wilderness (Ed Brayton ?) said...
>>>>>Come out from under your rock and answer some questions you coward.<<<<

The problem is that you don't make serious arguments or ask serious questions, so there is nothing to answer. Your posts consist of insults, ad hominems, and breathtakingly inane wisecracks. You just call me wrong, ignorant, and stupid. Your arguments do not even rise to the level of fallacy. Here is a typical argument from you: Q: Why do you think that irreducible complexity is unscientific? Your answer: Irreducible complexity is unscientific because it is unscientific.

Furthermore, I am under no obligation to answer all or any of the comments on this blog. On Panda's Thumb, for example, the bloggers rarely get involved in the discussions. When I posted on Ed Brayton's blog, I never demanded that he answer my comments. Answering comments -- many of them inane -- distracts me from preparing new posts, which is no easy task because many of them require a lot of research.

Thursday, July 06, 2006 2:26:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> The problem is that you don't make serious arguments or ask serious questions, so there is nothing to answer. <

I will make this simple for you. I will ask the most innocuous question that I have asked recently. If you can answer it, you might be able to step up to some tougher ones, but I doubt it.

A while back you made a point out of the fact that a document presented in a Pennsylvania court was notarized by a Texas notary. What do you believe is wrong with that?

There is a very simple question for a start. Now everyone will be able to see that you will either ignore the post or find some breathtakingly inane excuse why you won't answer.

> Here is a typical argument from you: Q: Why do you think that irreducible complexity is unscientific? Your answer: Irreducible complexity is unscientific because it is unscientific. <

Here is a typical argument from you: "Irreducible complexity is scientific because it is scientific." While I have never made the argument that you have cited, you are constantly making the type of statements that I have just cited. You believe that repeating your unsupported claims is proof of them. You are fooling nobody but yourself.

> Furthermore, I am under no obligation to answer all or any of the comments on this blog. <

Then you show yourself to be a hypocrite when you criticize Ed Brayton.

> I never demanded that he answer my comments. <

Why should he answer your inane questions?

> preparing new posts, which is no easy task because many of them require a lot of research. <

You're joking, right. How much time does it take to post the words of Dylan's song or your recent poem? Mostly you just take something that you don't understand, even linking to it, and then give your misinterpretation of it. If it takes a lot of time for you to do this, you sure have little to show for it. Perhaps you could save a little time by stopping your impersonations. (I have to admit that they have decreased in number recently. There was only the pathetic post you labeled "Anonymous".

Well here it is, folks. Larry is a coward and a hypocrite. I gave him one very clear cut and innocuous question and he will duck it so as not to further reveal his ignorance. Naturally he will give a lame excuse for not doing so.

I can just see you frantically trying to find new songs and poems to post to distract people from seeing that you are petrified by questions. You only seem to know two ways to "debate". One is to repeat unsupported claims enlessly in the hope that they will eventually make sense. Another is to either write ad hominems or accuse others of them although you still have shown that you don't understand the term any more than you understand "declaratory relief".

Thursday, July 06, 2006 8:08:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In Wilderness said --

>>>>>A while back you made a point out of the fact that a document presented in a Pennsylvania court was notarized by a Texas notary. What do you believe is wrong with that?<<<<<<

I already gave you my answer to that question -- I said that I'll answer that when you tell me what is wrong with a county sheriff serving process on a state or federal office. A sheriff's office did not tell me why they wouldn't do it. In another case, another sheriff's office was willing to serve process on a state office.

<<<<<<> Furthermore, I am under no obligation to answer all or any of the comments on this blog. <

Then you show yourself to be a hypocrite when you criticize Ed Brayton.<<<<<<

No -- what makes Brayton a cowardly hypocrite is that he pretends to be tolerant of opposing views, then posts articles directly attacking me and my ideas and won't let me defend myself on his blog. And I never demanded that Ed respond to my comments posted on his blog.

<<<<<<> I never demanded that he answer my comments. <

Why should he answer your inane questions?<<<<<<

Why should I answer yours? Furthermore, you are demanding that I answer yours -- many bloggers respond little or not at all to comments posted on their blogs.

>>>>>You're joking, right. How much time does it take to post the words of Dylan's song or your recent poem?<<<<<<

Some articles require more research than others, moron. And that was not a poem -- that was another song.

>>>>>you don't understand the term any more than you understand "declaratory relief". <<<<<<

What would you call, say, a finding that a plaintiff has been libeled? Monetary relief? Injunctive relief?

As for nominal damages, you and Kevin Vicklund consider them to be a fetish with some kind of magical power to prevent cases from being mooted. That is not law -- it's voodoo.

I am still wondering, VIW -- certainly the amusement you get here is not worth all the time that you spend here. My "Philadelphia Lawyer" song lampooning those shysters who represented the Dover plaintiffs was one of the few funny things that I have posted on this blog.

Thursday, July 06, 2006 9:16:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> you posted the same comment in four different places. <

And you dodged my question on four different places.

> I already gave you my answer to that question <

No. You dodged it in four different places.

> I said that I'll answer that when you tell me what is wrong with a county sheriff serving process on a state or federal office. A sheriff's office did not tell me why they wouldn't do it. In another case, another sheriff's office was willing to serve process on a state office. <

Is there anyone except this idiot who can see a relation between my question and his? This shows his cowardace. His lunacy has long since been demonstrated.

> what makes Brayton a cowardly hypocrite is that he pretends to be tolerant of opposing views <

He doesn't suffer fools gladly but he does allow opposing views on his blog. When someone posts something with which he disagrees, he gives his reasons, rather than the personal attacks which seem to be your only weapons.

> I never demanded that Ed respond to my comments posted on his blog.

> many bloggers respond little or not at all to comments posted on their blogs. <

There are many reasons that they may not. Your reason is that you are afraid to show your ignorance. Don't worry, you have nothing to lose. Everyone already has seen your ignorance displayed on this blog.

> Some articles require more research than others <

Your articles seem to be the result of a word search followed by the inevitable misinterpretation.

> What would you call, say, a finding that a plaintiff has been libeled? Monetary relief? Injunctive relief? <

I would call it a finding that a plaintiff has been libeled. Relief may be provided along with the finding but the finding is never relief in itself.

> As for nominal damages, you and Kevin Vicklund consider them to be a fetish with some kind of magical power to prevent cases from being mooted. That is not law -- it's voodoo. <

No. It is your misunderstanding of the situation, despite Kevin's attempts to educate you, that are voodoo. You should not make the assumption that if you don't understand something that means that the explanation is not simple and obvious to sane people.

> I am still wondering, VIW -- certainly the amusement you get here is not worth all the time that you spend here. <

It is worth every minute of it. In contrast, the time you waste trying to convince people that black is white doesn't seem very productive for you.

> My "Philadelphia Lawyer" song lampooning those shysters who represented the Dover plaintiffs was one of the few funny things that I have posted on this blog. <

The fact that you would post it is funny. You are funny. The funniest thing is probably your impersonations. I expected to see you post as "anonymous" again and congratulate yourself for your latest efforts. The funniest were your pathetic attempts to impersonate your brother, the real Dave. Does anyone else have any favorites?

Meanwhile we get yet another example of your cowardice, you pathetic jackass.

Thursday, July 06, 2006 11:10:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home