Banning banned ID book from lists of banned books
Not happy that the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, the publisher of the banned ID book Of People and Pandas, got shafted in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, the Darwinists are now trying to have this banned book banned from lists of banned books.
Some background information is provided in my previous post on this subject: "Unnoticed victory in Dover case: ID book not banned from school library".
There is now an editing war going on over the issue of whether to include the book in Wikipedia's "List of banned books". The book has been removed at least twice from the list.
What I say here should end the argument as to whether the book belongs in Wikipedia's list.
The American Library Association's Banned Books Week list includes "challenged" books as well as books that were actually banned. Challenges and bans against books in curricula as well as books in libraries are included. The books that appear in the ALA's 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990–2000 list are specially denoted in Wikipedia's"List of banned books."
The ALA says,
Since 419 is supposed to be the number of challenges of a specific type in the period 1990 to 2000, I don't know what is meant by "up 22 since 1999."
Anyway, it is probable that at least some of those 419 challenges were establishment clause challenges.
So, was Pandas "challenged"? Here is what the official complaint in the Dover lawsuit said --
So there it is from the horse's mouth.
As for the nitpicking argument that the ID policy was never really part of the curriculum because the court outlawed it before it could be implemented, the Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion notes that the ID statement was read to Dover science classes on two occasions. This argument is not worthy of consideration, but I have an answer for it.
As for the nitpicking argument that the book should not be in the list because mentioning the book is not taboo in the Dover science classrooms, that is not worthy of consideration either.
The Pandas book has met all of the ALA's requirements for classification as a banned book, and then some. The book was banned from being an official part of the curriculum (it was not required reading but was recommended or suggested reading).
The book was BANNED. B-A-N-N-E-D. Try as hard as they might, the Darwinists cannot weasel out of this one.
This issue is also discussed here, here, and here.
==================================================
If Peter Piper banned a bunch of batches of banned books, how many bunches of batches of banned books did Peter Piper ban?
Some background information is provided in my previous post on this subject: "Unnoticed victory in Dover case: ID book not banned from school library".
There is now an editing war going on over the issue of whether to include the book in Wikipedia's "List of banned books". The book has been removed at least twice from the list.
What I say here should end the argument as to whether the book belongs in Wikipedia's list.
The American Library Association's Banned Books Week list includes "challenged" books as well as books that were actually banned. Challenges and bans against books in curricula as well as books in libraries are included. The books that appear in the ALA's 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990–2000 list are specially denoted in Wikipedia's"List of banned books."
The ALA says,
BACKGROUND INFORMATION -- 1990-2000
Between 1990 and 2000, of the 6,364 challenges reported to or recorded by the Office for Intellectual Freedom --
- - - - - - - -
419 [were challenges to] material “promoting a religious viewpoint.” (up 22 since 1999)
- - - - - - - -
Seventy-one percent of the challenges were to material in schools or school libraries.(2) Another twenty-four percent were to material in public libraries (down two percent since 1999). Sixty percent of the challenges were brought by parents, fifteen percent by patrons, and nine percent by administrators, both down one percent since 1999).
2. Sometimes works are challenged in a school and school library.
Since 419 is supposed to be the number of challenges of a specific type in the period 1990 to 2000, I don't know what is meant by "up 22 since 1999."
Anyway, it is probable that at least some of those 419 challenges were establishment clause challenges.
So, was Pandas "challenged"? Here is what the official complaint in the Dover lawsuit said --
b. an injunction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 prohibiting the defendants from implementing their intelligent design policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, and requiring the removal of Of Pandas and People from the School District’s science classrooms;(emphasis added)
So there it is from the horse's mouth.
As for the nitpicking argument that the ID policy was never really part of the curriculum because the court outlawed it before it could be implemented, the Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion notes that the ID statement was read to Dover science classes on two occasions. This argument is not worthy of consideration, but I have an answer for it.
As for the nitpicking argument that the book should not be in the list because mentioning the book is not taboo in the Dover science classrooms, that is not worthy of consideration either.
The Pandas book has met all of the ALA's requirements for classification as a banned book, and then some. The book was banned from being an official part of the curriculum (it was not required reading but was recommended or suggested reading).
The book was BANNED. B-A-N-N-E-D. Try as hard as they might, the Darwinists cannot weasel out of this one.
This issue is also discussed here, here, and here.
==================================================
If Peter Piper banned a bunch of batches of banned books, how many bunches of batches of banned books did Peter Piper ban?
Labels: Kitzmiller v. Dover (2 of 2)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 9/28/2006 06:28:00 PM
22 Comments:
> What I say here should end the argument as to whether the book belongs in Wikipedia's list. <
Delusions of grandeur again.
> The American Library Association's Banned Books Week list includes <
Irrelevant. The issue (your own issue) is whether it should be on Wikipedia's list.
> As for the nitpicking argument <
Many of your arguments are nitpicking. It is a little late to argue about someone else using your tactic.
> that is not worthy of consideration either. <
You believe that everything that refutes your nonsense is "not worthy of consideration". Translation: You have no answer.
> The book was BANNED. B-A-N-N-E-D. Try as hard as they might, the Darwinists cannot weasel out of this one. <
The book was not banned. Bleat as much as you want and it will not change the facts.
> (I) was blocked by Wikipedia because I have the same IP address as someone who was banned there. <
Your evil twin?
> IP banning sucks -- that is how I was initially banned at Panda's Thumb. I shared the same IP address of someone suspected of posting under multiple names on PT <
Yes. The person who posted under multiple names on PT was you. You have even admitted it at times.
> I tried to defeat Wikipedia's ban by using anonymous proxies <
Since fake names would not work in this case.
> but the four-option anonymous proxies were also blocked by Wikipedia <
Do you wonder why?
Well another rambling post proving nothing. Try again Larry(?). It is good to see you back though. We thought that you were lost in your cave.
Thank you for warning us. I have notified Wikipedia of your efforts to improperly place this book in a list of books that actually had been banned.
Why do you believe that misrepresentation helps your cause?
VIW said --
>>>>>> The American Library Association's Banned Books Week list includes <
Irrelevant. The issue (your own issue) is whether it should be on Wikipedia's list. <<<<<
My opening post noted that Wikipedia accepts the ALA listings and specially denotes ALA listings that are in the top 100.
Anonymous said...
>>>>> Thank you for warning us. I have notified Wikipedia of your efforts to improperly place this book in a list of books that actually had been banned. <<<<<
You notified Wikipedia? LOL I am the least of their worries -- there are some very nasty hackers out there.
I found that the ban on my IP address was lifted (I don't know why), and now I am able to make normal editing changes (I did find a way to do it by anonymous proxies). I am now engaged in an edit war on Wikipedia -- I must have replaced the book's name in the list at least five times. If the edit war results in the webpage being locked up, that is fine with me.
> If the edit war results in the webpage being locked up, that is fine with me. <
Before you only showed yourself to be stupid and insane. Now you have proven yourself to be contemptable as well.
Your buffoonery has been exposed. I did put in a good word for you. Your writings are held up as a great example of someone who is suffering from delusions. It is also a good example of how the truth means nothing to creationists.
I have to agree with the others. You have really dug deep this time. The book clearly had not been banned. Your title is absurd. This thread has discredited you far more than the previous ones.
Attempting to vandalize Wikipedia because wiser heads have prevailed is childish. Your actions certainly put the lie to your claims about why you were banned from PT.
You have shown yourself to be delusional, illogical, and childish, but this is the first time that antisocial behaviour of this type has occurred. Your actions are disgusting.
The poverty of your position is shown here. You have to claim false injuries to support your claim.
The Wikipedia List of Banned Books is supposed to be a list of banned books. No matter how many times you try to edit the list, it won't make a non-banned book a banned book.
You can hold your breath until you turn blue and it still won't change the facts.
You outdid yourself on this one.
Not to pile on, but I have to agree. I used to see you as a tragic figure. Now I see you as just another jerk.
Wikipedia is a very useful research tool. It is dependant on the good faith and honesty of the users. It only takes a few liars with an agenda to mess it up. You owe us all an apology.
In case anyone is wondering about the deleted commment in this thread:
Reminder -- Impersonations are not protected by the no-deletions policy.
Sherry D. said --
>>>>>You owe us all an apology. <<<<<<
Sherry D., you can take three running leaps and go straight to hell, damn you, and take the other trolls with you. I will apologize after you lousy trolls apologize for messing up this blog with your blog spam (which means when hell freezes over).
Here is what Wikipedia says about its official NPOV (neutral point of view) policy:
The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.
As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints .....
Wikipedia says, "All Wikipedia articles and other user-facing content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias."
Support for designating Pandas as a "banned book" has been published by the Discovery Institute and Uncommon Descent. The controversy has produced three articles in Panda's Thumb and has been discussed and debated in other blogs. Support for the "banned book" designation is not an insignificant point of view.
My most recent entry to the Wikipedia "List of banned books" -- as follows -- has a link to a debate on whether the book should be in the list:
Of Pandas and People by Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon (some claim that this is not really a "banned book" [blog article] )
That is an NPOV.
The "blog article" (designated by a link number in Wikipedia) itself opposes listing the book. Anyone who is not satisfied with the link that I provided is free to add one or more other links.
I have also noted an almost complete absence of direct responses to the specific points I made in my opening post. I would be ashamed to post such empty comments as I have seen here.
> I will apologize after you lousy trolls apologize for messing up this blog with your blog spam <
The comments posted by the people you call "trolls" are the only intelligent statements to be found on this blog.
> The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. <
This does not extend to the point of giving equal weight to the views of the Flat Earth Society nor those that think the Moon is comprised of dairy products.
> Support for designating Pandas as a "banned book" has been published by the Discovery Institute and Uncommon Descent. <
A great deal of material has also come out of the Flat Earth Society. Their claims have far more scientific backing than do any of the claims of the creationists.
> Support for the "banned book" designation is not an insignificant point of view. <
There are many millions of people who believe that the Earth is carried on the backs of four elephants who, in turn, stand on the back of a giant tortoise. That is not an insignificant point of view. When it comes to reality, it is no more valid than the claim that a non-banned book should be on a list of banned books.
> The "blog article" (designated by a link number in Wikipedia) itself opposes listing the book. <
There are links in Wikipedia to all sorts of nonsense. Often the point is to point out the lunacy of these sites.
> I have also noted an almost complete absence of direct responses to the specific points I made in my opening post. <
Your failure to note these shows only your lack of cognizance of what is actually there. Responses been made to nearly all of your bleatings. In many cases they ask very direct questions which you nearly always duck.
> I would be ashamed to post such empty comments as I have seen here. <
You should be ashamed. Why then do you continue to post them?
the defendants from implementing their intelligent design policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, and requiring the removal of Of Pandas and People from the School District’s science classrooms;
Removal for the science classsrooms is not banning. It's still in the library. moron.
Voice In The Wilderness said --
>>>>>>> The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly.
This does not extend to the point of giving equal weight to the views of the Flat Earth Society nor those that think the Moon is comprised of dairy products. <<<<<<
Fortunately, VIW, you do not make the rules for Wikipedia. Wikipedia's NPOV requirement that all significant viewpoints be presented does not make an exception for viewpoints that some people consider to be unarguable.
You have the same misconception about the Wikipedia NPOV rules that you have about the American Library Association's rules for "banned books." There are certain rigid rules that must always be followed. If Wikipedia and the ALA make exceptions for people opposed to the listing of Pandas, then where will it end?
BTW, in regard to the notion that the book wasn't banned because it wasn't required reading --
Suppose a literature course requires students to read one or more books that the students choose from a list. Suppose a judge then comes along and orders that one of the books on the list be removed. Was that book "banned"? Nope -- it wasn't banned because it was not required reading! LOL I can think of no better illustration of the breathtaking inanity of that line of reasoning.
> Wikipedia's NPOV requirement that all significant viewpoints be presented <
But your viewpoint in this case is not significant. It is just breathtakingly inane.
> Suppose a literature course requires students to read one or more books that the students choose from a list. Suppose a judge then comes along and orders that one of the books on the list be removed. <
You are straying quite a bit here as literature includes fiction, such as Pandas.
When you consider a slippery slope, think if what would happen if Wikipedia put in every nut-case idea that came up. It would soon be useless. There is a big difference between controversies that arise over sincere differences of opinion that have some basis in fact and one which wants to claim something that is demonstrably not true. Even you don't really believe that Pandas has been banned. You are just crying for attention.
Anonymous said...
>>>>> Removal for the science classsrooms is not banning. It's still in the library. moron. <<<<<
You stupid fatheaded nincompoop, the ALA website says that banning can consist of just removal from the curriculum.
> the ALA website says that banning can consist of just removal from the curriculum. <
There you go again, dimwit. Using a secret code instead of English.
Anonymous said...
>>>>> By the idiot's way of thinking, if one textbook is replaced by another one, the previous book has been banned. <<<<<
You profoundly retarded numbskull, that is just a school or school board exercising its discretion. By your line of reasoning, no book removed from a curriculum by order of a court or an administrative agency could be considered to be banned.
Voice In The Wilderness said...
>>>>>>There you go again, dimwit. Using a secret code instead of English. <<<<
For someone who can't even spell, you shouldn't criticize the English of others.
> By your line of reasoning, no book removed from a curriculum by order of a court or an administrative agency could be considered to be banned. <
No. By any line of reasoning, (something quite different from the mental processes going on in what is left of your brain) removing a book from a curriculum by any manner does not constitute banning. A book removed from a curriculum in this manner may or may not be banned. It may or may not have a green cover. It may or may not be printed on sulfur free paper. It may or may not be printed in Boston. None of these things implies any of the others.
>>>>>>There you go again, dimwit. Using a secret code instead of English. <<<<
> For someone who can't even spell, you shouldn't criticize the English of others. <
No, cretin, you miss the point (as usual). The fact that both of us occasionally misspell is not the issue. What a sane person would get out of that statement is a reference to your tendency to try to redefine words instead of using the definitions known to the sane.
Incidentally I looked up "Banning". It is a city of approximately 14,000 in Los Angeles County. That definition makes at least as much sense in this context as whatever definition you are trying to give it.
Larry displays an odd type of illogic. If someone says that a football game was played between two teams, that means that no basketball game could have been played between other teams. If it is not mentioned what color jerseys either team wore, that could be taken to mean, or alternatively disprove, that either wore red.
Larry, if you sincerely believe that you have ever gotten the upper hand in any discussion on this blog, you really are in need of help. You seem to be living in a world of your own construction.
Your claim that repeated failure is a clear sign of expertise should be enough to let anyone know your true mental state.
I think I will borrow that line from that TV ad about Gov. Schwarzenegger:
"I'm always kicking their butts -- that's why they don't like me!"
> It is a fascinating sort of dysfunction. Has anyone heard of this sort of problem before? <
Perhaps a lobotomy would help him? Now if we can just find a proctologist to do the operation.
> "I'm always kicking their butts -- that's why they don't like me!" <
Delusional as always, Larry(?). Actually we like you. I hope you are not offended that we are always kicking your butt?
I can't come up with a name for the clown's problems but perhaps it will help if we summarize them:
He has little or no understanding of the material he reads. This applies both to our posts and the material that he cites.
He has expressed exaggerated opinions of his own abilities. He claims to believe that he knows more about law than does the average mollusk. He claims to believe that he has prevailed in most of the debates on this blog where it doesn't appear that he has ever done so. This could just be blowing smoke. He may actually be painfully aware of his incompetence.
He deals with direct criticisms of his theories by pretending that they were not made. He rarely answers questions, obviously out of an inability to do so. When treed (something that happens almost daily) he invariably answers with personal attacks while accusing others of doing the same.
He seems to be quite insecure. One example of this is his need to attack Israel and question the holocaust while he is ethnically, if not religiously, a Jew.
This insecurity complex could be based on several things. Perhaps the first was his failure in his chosen occupation. Despite his credentials, he seems to have never been able to hold a job for long and those jobs he has had involved dull repetitive work with no need for innovation or creativity. After being laid off from his last job at a time that the same company was hiring new people in his field, he has given up trying to find work and is dependant on the support of his aging parents.
To give himself some purpose in life he seems to have taken up windmill jousting. These causes are harmless. At worst he has wasted many people's time. At best he has provided a source of entertainment.
I would imagine that his total failure in personal relationships has contributed to this insecurity. Having no girlfriends in six decades of life must make him feel quite lonely. The attention that he receives from this blog may be all that he gets. He does seem starved for attention. If things seem to settle down he will begin an even more preposterous thread, apparently for the sole purpose of drawing that needed attention.
I sometimes feel guilty pointing out the absurdity of his arguments. It is like torturing helpless animals. While I would never do that, I still can't resist the temptation of kicking his ass when he walks around with a sign on his back begging people to do so. How can one resist throwing a pie in his face when he has supplied the pie?
Post a Comment
<< Home