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.
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.
Labels: Judge Jones (1 of 2)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 12/12/2006 03:09:00 PM
11 Comments:
I think you missed something here. Your usual practice is to show links that can be clicked to. These require cutting and pasting in the browser.
You give the impression that the general media is supporting the phony plagaiarism charge. They are only reporting that a loser has reported being robbed.
"But legal experts say it is common for judges in civil cases to rely heavily on findings proposed by lawyers when they write their opinions, and there is nothing wrong with copying those findings if the legal briefs have been well-prepared."
>>>>>I think you missed something here. Your usual practice is to show links that can be clicked to. These require cutting and pasting in the browser. <<<<<
I was trying to save time. Embedded links take longer to write and then have to be tested to make sure that they work.
Everything is fixed now.
Money quote:
An ACLU official calls the Institute's report a stunt.
"They're getting no traction in the scientific world so they're trying to do something ... as a PR stunt to get attention," said Witold Walczak, legal director for the ACLU of Pennsylvania and the ACLU's lead attorney on the case.
"That's not how scientists work," he said. "Discovery Institute is trying to litigate a year-old case in the media."
Walczak said the Discovery Institute staff is not, as it claims, interested in finding scientific truths; it is more interested in a "cultural war," pushing for intelligent design and publicly criticizing a judge.
"Why don't these guys go back to their 'labs,' and do something meaningful?" Walczak asked. "Oh, wait. They don't have labs. Silly me."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Holy crap that's funny.
JanieBelle said,
>>>>> Holy crap that's funny. <<<<<<
Holy crap that's stupid. Instead of directly addressing the Discovery Institute's charges of "plagiarism" against Judge Jones, Walczak is just playing the "sore loser" card.
>>>>> "That's not how scientists work," he said. "Discovery Institute is trying to litigate a year-old case in the media." <<<<<
This is not about science -- it is about the law. As for litigating a year-old case in the media, decades-old cases are being litigated in the media. Has Walczak ever heard of Roe v. Wade?
"They don't have labs," Witold, old boy?
Even the most uninformed Darwinist can easily discover that Michael Behe has been listed in American Men and Women of Science for 12 years: since the edition published in 1994.
That's the century-old biographical directory of "leaders" in American science, who are noted for their "outstanding" scientific research. Listing is based upon evaluations by leading scientists in each scientific field.
Behe is cited in AMWS for his research on the structure of DNA,among other things. He was first listed at the relatively young age of 42.
But what about Darwinist biologist Jerry Coyne, who attacked Behe in The New Republic as somehow "a third-rate biologist?"
Jerry has never been listed in AMWS. Even though he and Behe both published their doctoral theses in 1978. So they've been on the job equally long.
P.Z.Myers hasn't made it into AMWS either. Neither has any guy at Panda's Thumb that I've checked so far.
Witold Walczak is a lawyer. Probably enough said.
But I have to admire Witold's powers as a propagandist. The guy could sell Darwinism to a -- to a -- judge who knows nothing about science, but is good at copying briefs.
> Instead of directly addressing the Discovery Institute's charges of "plagiarism" against Judge Jones, Walczak is just playing the "sore loser" card. <
All you do is play "cards". You never answer questions, you just insult those who made them. Walczak has no need to answer the ridiculous charges. Why do you believe that he should. You don't feel compeled to answer anything.
> This is not about science -- it is about the law. <
The Discovery Institute claims to be a scientific organization, not a legal one.
>>>Instead of directly addressing the Discovery Institute's charges of "plagiarism" against Judge Jones, Walczak is just playing the "sore loser" card.<<<
But if we look at the next four paragraphs, we find that Walczak does address the "plagiarism" charges:
Walczak said Jones was not a judge who "slept" through the trial and then blindly accepted the ACLU's positions.
"You could not have had a more engaged judge," he said.
Walczak said it's standard procedure for attorneys to submit proposed findings of fact. Dover's attorneys also submitted their own proposed findings to the judge. Had the judge agreed with their arguments, he would have cited their proposed findings of fact.
"This is something lawyers do routinely, precisely so judges can use them," Walczak said.
"They don't have labs," Witold, old boy?
Even the most uninformed Darwinist can easily discover that Michael Behe has been listed in American Men and Women of Science for 12 years: since the edition published in 1994.
Is AMWS a lab?
Post a Comment
<< Home