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.

Monday, December 18, 2006

Judge Jones falsely denies speaking publicly about Dover case specifics

An article in World Magazine says,

Liz O'Donnell, a courtroom deputy for Jones, told WORLD the judge may continue making public appearances but will make no comments on the Discovery Institute report. O'Donnell said Jones has always avoided speaking about the case directly , using his sudden celebrity to argue for judicial independence. But in an interview with Pennsylvania public radio following his Dover decision, Jones said that ID "simply doesn't fit within any accepted definition of science" and that "even if you cast it as science, I didn't particularly think it was good science." Such original analysis might have done wonders for his ruling. (emphasis added)

I presume that Judge Jones approves the above statements of his courtroom deputy. As the World Magazine article shows, O'Donnell's assertion that Jones has "always avoided speaking about the case directly" is simply untrue. In his commencement speech at Dickinson College, he spoke about his interpretation of the establishment clause, which was the federal constitutional basis of his decision, and he specifically mentioned the Dover case in connection with that interpretation. It is not possible to get any more specific about the case than that. It was a blatant attempt to defend his Dover decision. He also spoke about the case in his speech to the Anti-Defamation League, but I won't count that because he did not talk about the specifics of the case itself but only talked about his thoughts and feelings about all the publicity and the importance of the case.

The World Magazine article also says,

For the past year, Judge John E. Jones III has ridden a wave of celebrity. From radio talk shows to speech engagements to the cover of Time, the U.S. District Court jurist has used myriad public outlets to trumpet the reasoning behind his December 2005 ruling that intelligent design does not belong in public-school science classrooms.

Regarding the statement that Jones "has used myriad public outlets to trumpet the reasoning behind his December 2005 ruling": I don't know whether or not that statement is an exaggeration. I have complete copies of only two of his speeches -- his ADL speech and his Dickinson College commencement speech. Other than his Dickinson College speech, I am not aware of any speech where he discussed specifics about the case.

Of course, Ed "It's my way or the highway" Brayton again shows his ignorance or dishonesty here. He wrote about Jones,

He has talked in general terms about the high profile nature of the case, and he has used the media attention to educate people on the nature of his job such as the need to follow higher court precedent, but he has said nothing at all to defend the substance of his decision.

Labels:

27 Comments:

Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>It is not possible to get any more specific about the case than that.<<<

Still spouting this blatant lie, eh, Larry?

Jones couldn't be any less specific about his ruling unless he didn't mention it at all.

Monday, December 18, 2006 1:56:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Kevin Vicklund wheezes,
>>>>>Jones couldn't be any less specific about his ruling unless he didn't mention it at all. <<<<<

Here is another example of where Judge Jones discussed specifics about the case, an article ironically titled, "Verbatim Verbatim: 'The opinion speaks for itself." The article is an interview of Jones. He said,

The controversial part of the ruling was whether intelligent design is in fact science. Lost in the post-decision debate was that both sides, plaintiffs and defense, asked me to rule on that issue. . . .

This is a detail about the case that most people are not aware of, and Jones is trying here to defend his decision to rule on the scientific merits or ID.

Jones also said,
There was something I said in the opinion that was grossly misunderstood... . I said that on the issue of whether intelligent design was science, that there wasn't a judge in the United States in a better position to decide that than I was. [Commentator Phyllis] Schlafly interpreted that as my saying that I am so brilliant and erudite that I could decide that better than anyone else could. What I meant was that no one else had sat through an intensive six weeks of largely scientific testimony, and in addition to the task at hand, which was to decide the case, I wanted the opinion to stand as a primer for people across the country... . To my mind... it would be a dreadful waste of judicial resources, legal resources, taxpayer money... to replicate this trial someplace else. That's not to say it won't be, but I suspect it may not be... . And I purposefully allowed the trial to extend and a record to be made...

This statement is another effort to defend his decision to rule on the scientific merits of ID.

Exactly what is your idea of "details" or "specifics" of the case, Kevin? How much detail can Jones go into in a short speech or interview?

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 3:35:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> The controversial part of the ruling was whether intelligent design is in fact science. Lost in the post-decision debate was that both sides, plaintiffs and defense, asked me to rule on that issue. . . . <

It's hopeless, Kevin. Now the idiotic troll has redefined the term "specifics of the case". No rational mind would find the above to be "specifics of the case". The pathetic thing is that he has redefined words and terms to the point that he doesn't even realize he is full of crap!

Larry(?) you idiot. See if you can find a single case where Jones has discussed the specifics of the case.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 7:38:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a detail about the case that most people are not aware of, and Jones is trying here to defend his decision to rule on the scientific merits or ID.

I love how you breathlessly imply that Judge Jones revealed some kind of state secret hitherto unknown to the public -- or at least to those who, like yourself, didn't want to know it, admit it, or talk about it.

You're getting sillier with every post. Go back to bed.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 8:20:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

VIW said,

>>>>>>(Jones said) The controversial part of the ruling was whether intelligent design is in fact science. Lost in the post-decision debate was that both sides, plaintiffs and defense, asked me to rule on that issue. . . . <

Now the idiotic troll has redefined the term "specifics of the case". No rational mind would find the above to be "specifics of the case". <<<<<<

You stupid, fatheaded nincompoop, nothing could be more case-specific than Jones' above statement. A major controversy in the case was whether Jones should rule on the scientific merits of ID. 85 scientists submitted an amicus brief asking him not to do it. On this blog I have cited two expert legal scholars -- one of them definitely ant-ID -- who said that he should not have done it. Jones is here making a lame defense of his decision to do it.

In the case of the ADL speech, I gave Jones a break because he did not talk about the issues in the case itself but only talked about his thoughts and feelings about all the publicity and the importance of the case.

Anonymous said...

>>>>>>This is a detail about the case that most people are not aware of, and Jones is trying here to defend his decision to rule on the scientific merits or ID.

I love how you breathlessly imply that Judge Jones revealed some kind of state secret hitherto unknown to the public <<<<<<<

The case consisted of hundreds of pages of documents and hundreds of hours of testimony. Even outsiders who followed and studied the case very closely might have missed this point that both sides asked Jones to rule on the scientific merits of ID. And anyway, the issue here is whether he talked publicly about the case's specifics at all.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 9:11:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> You stupid, fatheaded nincompoop, nothing could be more case-specific than Jones' above statement. <

I see that you always resort to name calling when you are losing an argument. Jones discussed the issues that were under his review. He did not cite specific evidence or arguments.

> Even outsiders who followed and studied the case very closely might have missed this point that both sides asked Jones to rule on the scientific merits of ID. <

It appears impossible that any rational person following the case could have missed that.

> And anyway, the issue here is whether he talked publicly about the case's specifics at all. <

Which, of course, he did not.

Incidentally, once you have begun the insults I may be excused for pointing out an obvious fact. You are a pathetic unspeakable imbecile.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 1:10:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

Breaking off-topic news: Cobb County just settled with the plaintiffs, conceding on all points. Don't know if there will be any attorney fees.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 1:24:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

From the district's press release:

In a separate agreement, the District has agreed to pay $166,659, which represents a portion of the plaintiff’s legal fees.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 1:53:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

VIW wheezed,
>>>>>I see that you always resort to name calling when you are losing an argument. <<<<<

You started the name-calling, you stupid, profoundly retarded birdbrain, so what does that say about you?

>>>> Jones discussed the issues that were under his review. He did not cite specific evidence or arguments. <<<<<

In a brief speech or interview, there is not enough time to go very far into evidence or arguments.

>>>>>> Even outsiders who followed and studied the case very closely might have missed this point that both sides asked Jones to rule on the scientific merits of ID. <

It appears impossible that any rational person following the case could have missed that. <<<<<

The issue here is not who knew what, but whether Jones talked publicly about specifics of the case. He said that both sides asked him to rule on the scientific merits of ID. That is talking about specifics of the case. Furthermore, he pointed that out in an effort to defend his decision to rule on the scientific merits of ID.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 2:29:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>>> Breaking off-topic news: Cobb County just settled with the plaintiffs, conceding on all points. <<<<<

No, Kevin, you're lying again. The Cobb County board of education did not concede on the most important point -- the board's claim that the stickers are constitutional. Here is what the board's press release said:

“We are very pleased to reach this agreement and end the lawsuit,” said Cobb County Board of Education Chair Dr. Teresa Plenge. “After the 11th Circuit Court vacated the decision, we faced the distraction and expense of starting all over with more legal actions and another trial. . . "

“Appealing the lower court ruling was the right decision by the school board because that ruling was incorrect,” said Dr. Plenge. “The Board maintains that the stickers were constitutional, but, at the same time, the Board clearly sees the need to put this divisive issue behind us."


I think that the board acted very foolishly and irresponsibly by settling the case, because the board had a lot going for it. I think that there was little chance that the missing evidence would be found (since it is has not been found yet), and in oral hearings the appeals judges seemed to indicate that they might reverse the decision even if the missing evidence is found.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 2:56:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

Sorry, I read more into a different press release than it appears was warranted.

By the way, the legal team from Dover was going to represent plaintiffs in the retrial, and they were going to bring in expert witnesses. The district was wise not to try to go up against them, it would have been Dover all over again.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 3:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>>>>>>No, Kevin, you're lying again. The Cobb County board of education did not concede on the most important point -- the board's claim that the stickers are constitutional

Actually Larry, they did without saying so. They did say (from the article and the link posted above):

>>>>>Under the agreement, the District will not attempt to place the same, or similar, stickers in textbooks again.

What does this say about the case?

>>>>>In return, plaintiffs have agreed to end all legal action against the school district. In a separate agreement, the District has agreed to pay $166,659, which represents a portion of the plaintiff’s legal fees.

We did nothing wrong, but we won't do it again, and we'll give you money for your trouble. Hmmmmmmmm. Smells like we know a losing case when we see one.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 4:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> ou started the name-calling, you stupid, profoundly retarded birdbrain, so what does that say about you? <

You will have to excuse me. I didn't realize the when you called me "You stupid, fatheaded nincompoop" that acutally it was meant as a term of endearment.

>>>> Jones discussed the issues that were under his review. He did not cite specific evidence or arguments. <<<<<

> In a brief speech or interview, there is not enough time to go very far into evidence or arguments. <

So you admit that he did not go into case-specific material?

> He said that both sides asked him to rule on the scientific merits of ID. That is talking about specifics of the case. <

That clearly is not talking about specifics of the case. As Abraham Lincoln observed "Calling a tail a leg will not make it one."

Perhaps your therapist can explain this term to you. You seem to be getting most of your support from your fellow inmates.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 7:02:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous wheezes --

>>>>>>>No, Kevin, you're lying again. The Cobb County board of education did not concede on the most important point -- the board's claim that the stickers are constitutional

Actually Larry, they did without saying so. <<<<<<

What in the hell are you talking about? The board chairperson said, "The Board maintains that the stickers were constitutional."

VIW wheezes --

>>>>>> He said that both sides asked him to rule on the scientific merits of ID. That is talking about specifics of the case. <

That clearly is not talking about specifics of the case. <<<<<<

You stupid, fatheaded simpleton, here again is what Jones' mouthpiece said --

O'Donnell said Jones has always avoided speaking about the case directly, using his sudden celebrity to argue for judicial independence.

She only spoke of speaking about the case directly. She didn't say anything about evidence and arguments, and there is much more to the case than just evidence and arguments. In an effort to defend his controversial decision to rule on the scientific merits of ID, Jones said that both sides asked him to do it. That is speaking about the case directly. Besides, he was supposed to be talking about judicial independence, and here he was talking about kowtowing to two parties who asked him to rule on a particular issue.

Even Kevin Vicklund, who will pester me endlessly about any nitpicking issue he can think of, has given up on this one.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 8:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> She only spoke of speaking about the case directly. She didn't say anything about evidence and arguments <

You gave no evidence of him speaking about the specifics of the case.

> and there is much more to the case than just evidence and arguments. <

None of which he spoke about. He only spoke about the non-controversial fact of what he was asked to rule on.

> In an effort to defend his controversial decision to rule on the scientific merits of ID, Jones said that both sides asked him to do it. <

It was not an effort to defend anything. It was a statement of fact.

> That is speaking about the case directly. <

You are trying to weasel again. Your topic is "Judge Jones falsely denies speaking publicly about Dover case specifics". You realize that your first statement is totally false and now you are trying to change the question to the point that naming the petitioners or the date of the trial would be case-specific. What a clown!

> and here he was talking about kowtowing to two parties who asked him to rule on a particular issue. <

That is what a judge doing his job is? "kowtowing to two parties who asked him to rule on a particular issue" What color is the sky on your planet?

> Even Kevin Vicklund, who will pester me endlessly about any nitpicking issue he can think of, has given up on this one. <

It looks like Kevin is tired of your pettifogging and realizes that you are too dense to follow what he posts.

Wednesday, December 20, 2006 7:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Bill Carter said...

Larry(?),

When you are in a hole, stop digging!

Wednesday, December 20, 2006 7:41:00 AM  
Anonymous sherry d said...

Larry,

Your friend Bill Carter is right. It looks like you have walked out on a limb and are sawing it off behind you.

Try to get your thoughts together before you post again.

Your statement "She only spoke of speaking about the case directly. She didn't say anything about evidence and arguments" sounds too much like Kevin's classic example of your thinking: "Nobody told me the key wouldn't open the front door."

Wednesday, December 20, 2006 8:58:00 AM  
Blogger Dave Fafarman said...

< kowtowing to two parties >

Careful not to dislocate something!

Wednesday, December 20, 2006 9:38:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice in the Wilderness whined,
>>>>>> and there is much more to the case than just evidence and arguments. <

None of which he spoke about. . He only spoke about the non-controversial fact of what he was asked to rule on.

> In an effort to defend his controversial decision to rule on the scientific merits of ID, Jones said that both sides asked him to do it. <

It was not an effort to defend anything. It was a statement of fact. <<<<<<<

I would very much like to delete the above comments because of their obvious frivolity, but I cannot do so because of my no-deletions pledge.

I could put up with this crap myself, but it is an imposition on readers who come here looking for serious discussion. I therefore recommend to such readers that they skip comments posted under the following names of commenters who rarely or never post anything worthwhile on this blog :

Voice in the Wilderness

Voice in the Urbanness

Sherry D.

Bill Carter

Wednesday, December 20, 2006 4:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> I would very much like to delete the above comments because of their obvious frivolity, but I cannot do so because of my no-deletions pledge. <

You would like to delete the above comments because you have no answer to their points.

> I could put up with this crap myself, but it is an imposition on readers who come here looking for serious discussion. <

Your lead articles are the crap. The really interesting material comes from the responses. It is a shame that you are unable to answer their points. You are not fooling anyone.

Wednesday, December 20, 2006 7:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> I therefore recommend to such readers that they skip comments posted under the following names of commenters who rarely or never post anything worthwhile on this blog :

Voice in the Wilderness

Voice in the Urbanness

Sherry D.

Bill Carter <

Surely you jest! These four (if they are really four), along with Kevin and your brother Dave post the most interesting material on this site. Without them this blog would be left with only your mindless rants.

Wednesday, December 20, 2006 8:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey! I just noticed. Someone is impersonating me on this blog. At least he or she agrees with me.

Wednesday, December 20, 2006 8:18:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous moans --
>>>>> You would like to delete the above comments because you have no answer to their points. <<<<<

So you lousy trolls can make any stupid comment you want and then when I don't bother to answer you can say that the reason is that I can't answer. LOL ROFLMAO

Anonymous, I am adding you to the list of commenters who should be ignored by readers who are looking for serious discussions --

Voice in the Wilderness

Voice in the Urbanness

Sherry D.

Bill Carter

Anonymous

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

Who's next?

Wednesday, December 20, 2006 11:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> So you lousy trolls can make any stupid comment you want and then when I don't bother to answer you can say that the reason is that I can't answer. <

I haven't seen any trolls except Larry(?) posting on the board but it is clear that you can't answer our sensible and quite pointed questions. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.

For those readers who are looking for serious discussions, I would recommend:

Voice in the Wilderness

Voice in the Urbanness

Sherry D.

Bill Carter

Anonymous

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

> Who's next? <

I would imagine W. Kevin Vicklund and your brother Dave. You have been unable to come up with intelligent answers to their posts either.

Thursday, December 21, 2006 7:11:00 AM  
Anonymous sherry d said...

Larry,

I can see no reason for your hostility towards me. I have said nothing hostile towards you and don't even try to argue with you. I have only tried to show you that you seriously need help.

Whether or not you continue to stick to your original promise not to censor (I doubt if you will stick to it. Paranoia is common to people with your apparent problems and you will find a way to justify breaking all of your original rules.) I would still like to offer my help. Please seek professional help. You have serious perceptual and mental problems. I am not trying to heckle you. I am quite sincere about this.

You may have noticed that Ed Brayton has stopped posting. He explained his reason on his own blog. He did not believe that it was good to mess with the clinically insane. Your problem is obvious to everyone but yourself.

Thursday, December 21, 2006 9:09:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

You and the others are the insane ones, Sherry D.. Any sane person can see that Jones commented directly about the Dover case.

Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:41:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> Any sane person can see that Jones commented directly about the Dover case. <

No. A sane person can easily see that you are trying to change your title "... Dover case specifics" into merely mentioning publicly known facts such as who filed what.

Perhaps your fellow inmates and the frog in your pocket will buy this but the sane will not.

I forgot to wish you a happy Chanukah. I am several days late.

Thursday, December 21, 2006 3:32:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home