Another glib Brayton article about Sternberg report
Ed's URL links to the Sternberg report and the report's separate appendix don't work, so I had to get the links from an Evolution News & Views article -- the Sternberg report is here and the report's separate appendix is here.
One thing that surprised me about the Sternberg report is the many references to emails. I wonder why people would save potentially incriminating emails.
Considering that Brayton was not a direct participant in the events described in the report and the appendix, how was he able to give such an amazingly detailed answer to Cashill's article within hours after that article appeared? Does Brayton go around constantly with all of that information at the top of his head? Cashill's article was posted at 1 AM EST on Feb.15 and Brayton's response appeared at 10:43 AM EST (I am assuming that Brayton's blog is on CST) on the next day. Also, Brayton was working on other stuff at the same time and so was not able to devote his full time to writing the response to Cashill. Brayton didn't specifically reference his sources, if he even had them -- there are no quotations, document names, page numbers, etc. (the appendix is 74 pages long and it is very difficult to find something in it without a page number or a description of a letter, email, or other document). How do we know that he was not just spinning another yarn like he did when he falsely claimed that (1) particular people had advised the newly elected Dover school board to not repeal the ID policy prior to release of Judge Jones' final decision and that (2) the board got no expert legal advice to the contrary?
Brayton has claimed that the Sternberg report is not an official House subcommittee report:
Though the DI says that "The House Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources has issued its official report" on the matter, this does not appear to be an official report of that committee. Rather, it appears to be a report from the staff of the committee to Rep. Mark Souder only. The report is hosted on Souder's website, not the committee website, and there is nothing to indicate that it is an official committee report.
However, Ed has never identified any member(s) of the subcommittee who disagreed with the report.
I find it interesting that no one has ever responded to my several thorough and detailed refutations of this report. No one from the DI[Discovery Institute], or from UD[Uncommon Descent] or any other ID source, nor Sternberg himself, has ever even attempted to refute it. They've responded to many other things I've written, so they obviously read the page; the lack of response speaks volumes, I think.
You shouldn't flatter yourself, Ed. You may be the only one who has done a detailed independent study of the Sternberg affair and you are not considered to be important enough to be worth responding to. I think that my blog has some good arguments that apparently no one has responded to outside my blog, e.g., my ugly charge that Judge Jones showed hostility towards organized religions by essentially saying in his Dickinson College commencement speech that organized religions are not "true" religions and that this hostility likely prejudiced him against the defendants in Kitzmiller v. Dover. If you feel that your arguments on your blog are being ignored, welcome to the club.
Ed Brayton is what is called a "fast talker." Here is a good description of the term "fast talker":
The fast talker controls the conversation by ploughing over all obstacles. Other people's thoughts are shoved aside before the onslaught. The fast talker is always on the edge of going out of control, of spiraling off into incoherence or circuity. But the talent of the fast talker lies in staying just below that threshold, and generating a pulsing stream of discourse at the threshold of listeners' comprehension.