Courts and law reviews are now citing Wikipedia!
Court opinions and law review articles are now not only citing blogs, but they are also citing Wikipedia! A January 29 New York Times article reports,
Also, the "Law Blog Metrics" blog has several articles concerning citation of Wikipedia by both the courts and law review articles. It seems that the issue of citation of blogs and Wikipedia by the courts and law reviews should be a pretty hot topic right now but in the past two months the Law Blog Metrics blog has received only one significant comment -- from me (shown at the bottom of this post -- there are two other comments on the blog but they are just well-wishing comments). I think a lot of people are burying their heads in the sand in regard to this issue.
A previous post on this blog shows that Wikipedia has serious reliability and fairness problems because of bias, censorship, and the ignorance of editors. Also, Wikipedia articles are even more unstable than blogs because Wikipedia articles are subject to editing by outsiders. IMO Wikipedia articles cited by courts and law reviews should be archived by major law publishers (e.g., Westlaw and LexisNexis) in the exact forms in which the articles were cited. It may be a good idea to also archive external websites linked to by the cited Wikipedia article. Wikipedia does save all previous editions of articles but it would be hard for people to locate these previous editions. IMO blog articles cited by courts and law reviews, along with the blog articles' comment threads and maybe also associated URL links, should be similarly archived for future reference. Actually, I am tempted to archive some of the news articles that I link to on this blog but I am afraid that such archiving might be a copyright violation.
IMO the way to resolve many of the disputes over Wikipedia entries is simply to post the entries along with (1) notes that the entries are disputed and (2) links to external websites where the disputes are discussed or debated. The mere existence of these discussions and debates on external websites is sufficient to show that the entry is in fact disputed. I proposed this compromise in the case of the dispute over whether the book "Of Pandas and People" should be listed in the Wikipedia list of banned books, but predictably this sensible proposal was turned down by the insiders who tyrannize Wikipedia.
A big problem I have in fighting arbitrary Internet censorship is that many of the bloggers who would normally be on my side practice arbitrary censorship themselves (but at least their blogs are not likely to be quoted, cited, or listed in court opinions, law review articles, scholarly databases, etc.). So for the time being, I must be content to be just a voice in the wilderness (the real voice in the wilderness, not the fake voice in the wilderness who often posts his garbage here).
.
More than 100 judicial rulings have relied on Wikipedia, beginning in 2004, including 13 from circuit courts of appeal, one step below the Supreme Court. (The Supreme Court thus far has never cited Wikipedia.)
Also, the "Law Blog Metrics" blog has several articles concerning citation of Wikipedia by both the courts and law review articles. It seems that the issue of citation of blogs and Wikipedia by the courts and law reviews should be a pretty hot topic right now but in the past two months the Law Blog Metrics blog has received only one significant comment -- from me (shown at the bottom of this post -- there are two other comments on the blog but they are just well-wishing comments). I think a lot of people are burying their heads in the sand in regard to this issue.
A previous post on this blog shows that Wikipedia has serious reliability and fairness problems because of bias, censorship, and the ignorance of editors. Also, Wikipedia articles are even more unstable than blogs because Wikipedia articles are subject to editing by outsiders. IMO Wikipedia articles cited by courts and law reviews should be archived by major law publishers (e.g., Westlaw and LexisNexis) in the exact forms in which the articles were cited. It may be a good idea to also archive external websites linked to by the cited Wikipedia article. Wikipedia does save all previous editions of articles but it would be hard for people to locate these previous editions. IMO blog articles cited by courts and law reviews, along with the blog articles' comment threads and maybe also associated URL links, should be similarly archived for future reference. Actually, I am tempted to archive some of the news articles that I link to on this blog but I am afraid that such archiving might be a copyright violation.
IMO the way to resolve many of the disputes over Wikipedia entries is simply to post the entries along with (1) notes that the entries are disputed and (2) links to external websites where the disputes are discussed or debated. The mere existence of these discussions and debates on external websites is sufficient to show that the entry is in fact disputed. I proposed this compromise in the case of the dispute over whether the book "Of Pandas and People" should be listed in the Wikipedia list of banned books, but predictably this sensible proposal was turned down by the insiders who tyrannize Wikipedia.
A big problem I have in fighting arbitrary Internet censorship is that many of the bloggers who would normally be on my side practice arbitrary censorship themselves (but at least their blogs are not likely to be quoted, cited, or listed in court opinions, law review articles, scholarly databases, etc.). So for the time being, I must be content to be just a voice in the wilderness (the real voice in the wilderness, not the fake voice in the wilderness who often posts his garbage here).
.
Labels: Internet censorship (1 of 2), Wikipedia
posted by Larry Fafarman | 4/11/2007 05:26:00 PM
30 Comments:
On many subjects Wikipedia seems to be far more accurate than other sources. They have had attempts by irresponsible sources, such as Larry Fafarman's disinformation campaign (editing war), to place inaccurate information on Wikipedia for their own purposes.
Anything posted on Wikipedia is subject to immediate review by the users themselves. In contrast, due to a perceived need for conformity with their published products, errors in Brittanica may remain for decades.
>>>>>On many subjects Wikipedia seems to be far more accurate than other sources. <<<<<
Wikipedia was never found to be far more accurate, but was only found to be surprisingly accurate. However, Wikipedia has been found to have serious flaws. The history department of Middlebury College said that students may no longer cite Wikipedia as an authoritative source.
>>>>>>They have had attempts by irresponsible sources, such as Larry Fafarman's disinformation campaign (editing war), to place inaccurate information on Wikipedia for their own purposes. <<<<<<
You lousy dunghill, I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. Because of jerks like you, I have to keep repeating things over and over again instead of spending more of my time posting new material. Here again are the facts about the attempt to enter the book "Of Pandas and People" in Wikipedia's list of banned books:
(1) The old list included books that the American Library Association listed as "banned books."
(2) The ALA list of banned books includes books that were only "challenged" as well as books that were banned. The list includes books that were challenged or banned in school curricula.
(3) The Dover complaint asked a court to remove the book from classrooms. This counts as a "challenge" to using a book in a curriculum.
(4) Judge Jones banned an official curricular statement that informed students that the book was in the school library. The Dover opinion referred to this curricular statement as a "curriculum change" dozens of times.
(5) The ALA's own records showed that the book was "challenged" in 1993.
(6) Despite all this, the ALA refused to list the book in its list of banned books.
(7) Insiders who control Wikipedia refused to list the book because the ALA did not list it.
(8) As a compromise, I proposed that the book be listed along with (1) a note that the listing was disputed and (2) links to external websites where the dispute was discussed or debated. My proposal was turned down.
(9) The jerks over at Wikipedia completely rewrote the list of banned books rather than concede that the Pandas book qualified under the old criteria.
>>>>> Anything posted on Wikipedia is subject to immediate review by the users themselves. <<<<<<
Wrong. A group of insiders tyrannizes Wikipedia, posting what they want and deciding what may not be posted.
Now just shut up about this, damn you, because I don't want to hear any more. Just shut up.
> Because of jerks like you, I have to keep repeating things over <
You seem to believe that repeating something that was false will make it true.
> Here again are the facts about the attempt to enter the book "Of Pandas and People" in Wikipedia's list of banned books: <
Bottom line is that you attempted to add a book that was not banned to a list of banned books. Banned means banned. It does not mean not purchased at taxpayer's expense to further the lost cause of a few nuts.
> (6) Despite all this, the ALA refused to list the book in its list of banned books. <
You gave support to the idea that it was challenged. You gave no basis to include it as banned. It was not banned.
> (7) Insiders who control Wikipedia refused to list the book because the ALA did not list it. <
They refused to list it as banned since it was not banned.
> (8) As a compromise <
Saying that two plus two is three could be a compromise between enlightened people who believe that the sum is two and old sticks in the mud who demand that four be taught as the correct answer.
> Now just shut up about this, damn you, because I don't want to hear any more. Just shut up. <
You remind me of a young baby who closes his eyes to make something he doesn't like go away. Sorry, Larry, you can censor the truth but you cannot make your lies true.
ViW wheezed,
>>>>>> (6) Despite all this, the ALA refused to list the book in its list of banned books. <
You gave support to the idea that it was challenged. You gave no basis to include it as banned. It was not banned. <<<<<<
Look, you stupid piece of shit, I said that I did not want to go through this again. You are kicking a dead horse.
I said that the ALA's banned book list included books that were only challenged, and any book on the ALA list was considered to be eligible for listing on the Wikipedia list. The ALA arbitrarily refused to put the book on the ALA list even though the ALA's own records showed that the book was challenged in 1993. The jerks controlling Wikipedia completely rewrote the banned book list rather than concede that the book was eligible for the original list.
And BTW, the book was in fact banned. B-A-N-N-E-D. Judge Jones banned the statement that mentioned the book. The book itself was central to the Dover case.
>>>>> You remind me of a young baby who closes his eyes to make something he doesn't like go away. <<<<<
And you remind me of an ostrich which buries its head in the sand.
Now get lost, damn you.
> I said that I did not want to go through this again. You are kicking a dead horse. <
O.K. Since you admit that your claim is a dead horse, I will drop it.
> I said that the ALA's banned book list included books that were only challenged, and any book on the ALA list was considered to be eligible for listing on the Wikipedia list. <
They are considered to be eligible for the Wikipedia list if they are also banned. You mentioned one that had not been banned.
> The jerks controlling Wikipedia completely rewrote the banned book list rather than concede that the book was eligible for the original list. <
Why concede a falsehood? The issue is whether or not it is a banned book, not whether or not it appeared on a list of books that may or may not have been banned.
> And BTW, the book was in fact banned. B-A-N-N-E-D. <
Repeating a lie will not make it true. The book was not B-A-N-N-E-D.
> Judge Jones banned the statement that mentioned the book. <
He did not ban the statement. He banned the manditory placing it in public school books, where it did not belong. You are quite free to make that statement yourself. It is not banned.
> The book itself was central to the Dover case. <
Quite irrelevant.
> And you remind me of an ostrich which buries its head in the sand. <
I am not the one avoiding reality here.
> Now get lost, damn you. <
So you can put your head back into the sand?
Bottom line, Larry. You have lost this one bigtime. How can you win when you try to prove the false to be true?
ViW driveled,
>>>>> O.K. Since you admit that your claim is a dead horse, I will drop it. <<<<<<
But you are not dropping it -- you are continuing to argue about it here.
>>>>>> They are considered to be eligible for the Wikipedia list if they are also banned. <<<<<<
I was talking about the old Wikipedia banned book list, dunderhead. I said umpteen times already that any book that was on the American Library Association's banned book list was considered eligible to be on the Wikipedia banned book list, and the ALA list includes books that have only been challenged.
>>>>> Why concede a falsehood? The issue is whether or not it is a banned book, not whether or not it appeared on a list of books that may or may not have been banned <<<<<<
You stupid, profoundly retarded nincompoop, as I said a zillion times already, the ALA list included books that were only challenged, and any ALA-listed book was eligible for the Wikipedia list. That is why the shitheads at Wikipedia completely rewrote the Wikipedia banned book list from top to bottom. And furthermore, the ALA list does not distinguish between books that were banned and books that were only challenged, so the shitheads at Wikipedia could not select from the ALA list the books that were actually banned, and the ALA list was a major source of books for the Wikipedia list. If the shitheads at Wikipedia were that concerned about having a simon-pure title, then the smart thing to do would have been just to change the title of the list to "banned and challenged books." But the shitheads at Wikipedia are not smart.
>>>>> He did not ban the statement. <<<<<<
He expressly banned the statement in the final order of the opinion. The board's requirement that the statement be read was called the "ID policy." The final order said,
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District.
>>>>> He banned the manditory placing it in public school books <<<<<<
You are thinking of the Selman v. Cobb County textbook sticker case. The Dover statement was an oral statement.
And you should go back to school to learn how to spell "mandatory."
>>>>>> You are quite free to make that statement yourself. <<<<<
That was not the issue that was before the court.
>>>>>> The book itself was central to the Dover case. <
Quite irrelevant. <<<<<<
Wrong. The name of the book probably would not have appeared 75 times in the opinion if Jones did not intend to ban the book.
Go bother someone else for a while, ViW.
>>>>> O.K. Since you admit that your claim is a dead horse, I will drop it. <<<<<<
> But you are not dropping it -- you are continuing to argue about it here. <
But you are not admitting that it is a dead horse.
>>>>>> They are considered to be eligible for the Wikipedia list if they are also banned. <<<<<<
> I was talking about the old Wikipedia banned book list...<
You pathetic asshole. The point is that the Wikipedia banned book list is supposed to consist of a list of banned books, BANNED BOOKS,
BANNED BOOKS. Arguing that some of them may come from a list of books, some of which may have been banned, only shows the lack of rationality that has caused you to be the laughing stock of the blog world.
> as I said a zillion times already, the ALA list included books that were only challenged <
Please find a dictionary somewhere. I would doubt if you have actually seen one but they have them at your local library. Leave the comic books alone and look up "banned" and "challenged". If you have a problem with the definitions, the library will help you.
> the ALA list does not distinguish between books that were banned and books that were only challenged <
So the responsible authors at Wikipedia decided to correct their previous error in using the ALA list.
> the smart thing to do would have been just to change the title of the list to "banned and challenged books." <
Perhaps you think that the section on "apples" should be retitled "Apples and Oranges".
>>>>> He did not ban the statement. <<<<<<
> He expressly banned the statement... <
Again you show that you don't understand the word "Banned". His order does not ban the statement. It bans requiring teachers to peddle the false propaganda promoted by a few kooks.
>>>>>> You are quite free to make that statement yourself. <<<<<
> That was not the issue that was before the court. <
We are talking about banning (apples), not the issue before the court (oranges).
> And you should go back to school to learn how to spell "mandatory." <
You childish moron. In the past myself and others have pointed out your typos. I find your material too boring to go back through to find your "mistreaks".
>>>>>> The book itself was central to the Dover case. <
Quite irrelevant. <<<<<<
> Wrong. The name of the book probably would not have appeared 75 times in the opinion if Jones did not intend to ban the book.<
Now you are trying to say what Judge Jones intended to do. If he intended to ban the book, why did he then not do so?
Larry, you pathetic fool, If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!
ViW wheezed,
>>>>> But you are not admitting that it is a dead horse. <<<<<
I am admitting it is a dead horse -- I would stop kicking it if you would stop.
>>>>>> the ALA list does not distinguish between books that were banned and books that were only challenged <
So the responsible authors at Wikipedia decided to correct their previous error in using the ALA list. <<<<<<
"Responsible authors"? They are neither "responsible" nor "authors" -- they are just ordinary users who have somehow become insiders at Wikipedia.
The ALA list was one of Wikipedia's best sources, if not the best source. And you are saying that a book that was challenged once and banned once in some hole-in-the-wall library in some hicktown should be on the Wikpedia list, whereas a book that was challenged in court a thousand times around the country but never banned should not be in the list.
On the old list, books that were only challenged but not banned could have been labeled as such. If there was a big dispute over whether a book should have been on the list, the book could have been listed along with links to external websites where the dispute was debated or discussed -- that's what links are for. Welcome to the 21st century.
>>>>>> He expressly banned the statement... <
Again you show that you don't understand the word "Banned". His order does not ban the statement. It bans requiring teachers to peddle the false propaganda promoted by a few kooks. <<<<<<
Look, you stupid fathead, you are just playing with words here and you know that you are just playing with words. You know that on practically any other blog on the planet, your whole comment would be deleted because of that asinine statement. He BANNED the ID statement. Requiring that the ID statement be read to the students was the ID policy, and the final order of the opinion banned the ID policy and therefore banned the statement. Are you trying to say that the teachers were then free to read the statement on their own?
>>>>>> Perhaps you think that the section on "apples" should be retitled "Apples and Oranges". <<<<<<
If some apples cannot be distinguished from oranges and vice-versa, then yes, I think that the section should be retitled "Apples and Oranges." And some of the oranges here may have more reason to be on the list than some of the apples.
BTW, the Wikipedia page listing banned books has an obscure link to another webpage titled "List of most commonly challenged books in the U.S.," which mostly lists books that are on the ALA list. But undoubtedly many of the books on the ALA list have actually been banned, so here is a Wikipedia list that lists both challenged books and banned books. So who is mixing apples and oranges? Also, probably some of the ALA books that belong in the Wikipedia banned book list are not there because Wikipedia has not verified that they have actually been banned. It would make much more sense to have one list for both challenged and banned books and just mention that the ALA-listed books could either be just challenged or both challenged and banned, unless otherwise noted. I explained all this to the fatheads who tyrannize Wikipedia but they wouldn't listen.
All Wikipedia had to do was change the article title to "banned and challenged books" and add the Pandas book to the list along with a note that the listing was disputed, along with external links to discussions or debates of the dispute, and no Wikipedia rules would have been broken. This reminds of that famous movie scene where Jack Nicholson is trying to order toast in a restaurant and the waitress tells him that it is against the rules. So he asks her to bring him a chicken salad sandwich on toast and to hold the chicken salad and just bring him a check for the whole thing, and told her that she would not be breaking any rules.
>>>>> Now you are trying to say what Judge Jones intended to do. If he intended to ban the book, why did he then not do so? <<<<<<
For the last time, the book "Of Pandas and People" was banned. Judge Jones banned the statement that mentioned the book. That statement was an official part of the curriculum -- the Dover opinion itself called it a "curriculum change" many times. He banned the whole statement, not just part of it. Saying that he didn't actually ban the book but only "removed" it from the curriculum because he thought that it did not belong there is blatantly self-contradictory. You lousy Darwinists want to have your cake and eat it too -- you want the book to be censored but do not want to take the blame for its censorship because censorship is very un-PC.
Under the Darwin-inspired eugenics laws that you are so fond of, you would have been sterilized -- if not euthanized -- for being such a stupid, profoundly retarded nitwit. You have no ability to reason. You have great difficulty in understanding the simplest English sentences. I wonder if you even have the ability to take care of your basic needs.
VIW noted:
>>>>> But you are not admitting that it is a dead horse. <<<<<
To which Larry bleated
> I am admitting it is a dead horse -- I would stop kicking it if you would stop. <
After this, Larry continues to kick a dead horse. Certainly VIW has made the case that Wikipedia was using a reasonable standard and Larry wanted them to be unreasonable. Now let's go on.
> And you are saying that a book that was challenged once and banned once in some hole-in-the-wall library in some hicktown should be on the Wikpedia list, whereas a book that was challenged in court a thousand times around the country but never banned should not be in the list. <
Yes. I am assuming that VIW continues to be rational as you continue to be irrational. You say yourself that it has never been banned. It should not therefore be on a list of banned books.
> On the old list, books that were only challenged but not banned could have been labeled as such. <
So the old list was defective and they cured that defect. What is your beef?
> Look, you stupid fathead <
At this point Larry shows that he has been beaten. He has no answer so he resorts to insults.
> you are just playing with words here and you know that you are just playing with words. <
VIW is using words properly. You are demanding that they be redefined in order to make your falsehoods true.
>>>>>> Perhaps you think that the section on "apples" should be retitled "Apples and Oranges". <<<<<<
> If some apples cannot be distinguished from oranges and vice-versa, then yes,<
But apples (banned books) can easily be distinguished from oranges (challenged books) by any sane adult. I am sorry if you do not fit into this category.
> I explained all this to the fatheads who tyrannize Wikipedia but they wouldn't listen. <
They probably aren't buying into your flat earth theory either.
> All Wikipedia had to do was change the article title to <
"Apples and Oranges" and then add the oranges. What a jackass!
> This reminds of that famous movie scene where Jack Nicholson is trying to order toast in a restaurant <
That scene fits this completely. You are trying to sell the toast with the chicken salad sandwich while Wikipedia only wants the toast. It is good that you can laugh at yourself. There may be hope for you yet.
> For the last time, the book "Of Pandas and People" was banned. <
I am glad that will be the last time. I think most of us are getting tired of that lie.
> Saying that he didn't actually ban the book but only "removed" it from the curriculum because he thought that it did not belong there is blatantly self-contradictory. <
Can you find a sane person to agree with you on that? Have you discussed this with your therapist?
> Under the Darwin-inspired eugenics laws that you are so fond of, you would have been sterilized <
Sterilization is not necessary in your case. You cannot have offspring without having sex. As long as you remain a virgin we will not have to operate on you.
Anonymous drivels,
>>>>> You say yourself that it has never been banned <<<<<
I NEVER said that.
>>>>>> On the old list, books that were only challenged but not banned could have been labeled as such. <
So the old list was defective and they cured that defect. What is your beef? <<<<<<
No, they only created a new defect -- a new Wikipedia article titled "List of most commonly challenged books in the U.S." presumably has both banned books and books that have only been challenged. The article lists mostly the ALA-listed books and the ALA list does not distinguish between banned books and books that have only been challenged. I already went over this and more.
>>>>>> Look, you stupid fathead <
At this point Larry shows that he has been beaten. He has no answer so he resorts to insults. <<<<<<
No -- I am just pissed that I have to refute the same points over and over again.
>>>>>But apples (banned books) can easily be distinguished from oranges (challenged books) by any sane adult. <<<<<
Wrong. The ALA list does not distinguish between banned books and challenged books. And a lot of bans -- as well as challenges -- go unreported. I pointed all this out to the self-appointed czars at Wikipedia but they wouldn't listen.
>>>>>> This reminds of that famous movie scene where Jack Nicholson is trying to order toast in a restaurant <
That scene fits this completely. You are trying to sell the toast with the chicken salad sandwich while Wikipedia only wants the toast. <<<<<<
The ALA has already made the chicken salad sandwich by combining the banned books and challenged books together in one list. What Wikipedia did was scrape off the chicken salad and serve the toast to a customer who wants only toast.
>>>>> For the last time, the book "Of Pandas and People" was banned. <
I am glad that will be the last time. I think most of us are getting tired of that lie. <<<<<<
And you think that I am not getting tired of your crap? The book was as banned as a book could be. It was banned by a federal judge and not by some two-bit librarian in some hole-in-the-wall library in some hicktown. And the mere mention of the book was banned.
>>>>>> Sterilization is not necessary in your case. <<<<<<
But euthanasia is necessary in yours.
Anonymous wisely observes...
>>>>> You say yourself that it has never been banned <<<<<
To which Larry croaks...
> I NEVER said that. <
In a previous post Larry groans...
> whereas a book that was challenged in court a thousand times around the country but never banned should not be in the list.<
To what were you referring?
> a new Wikipedia article titled "List of most commonly challenged books in the U.S." presumably has both banned books and books that have only been challenged. <
Now you are changing the subject. We were talking about banned books. A challenged book would fit on the above list (Challenged books). A book only challenged but not banned would not.
> I already went over this and more. <
And your arguments were shot full of holes.
> I am just pissed that I have to refute the same points over and over again. <
If you could come up with rational support for your position it would not be necessary to repeat it. It is the mindless drivel that you feel you need to repeat. Don't bother. You are not fooling anyone.
> The ALA list does not distinguish between banned books and challenged books. <
Which is the reason that it can't be taken to be an accurate list of banned books.
> The ALA has already made the chicken salad sandwich by combining the banned books and challenged books together in one list. <
And you are in favor of chicken salad.
> What Wikipedia did was scrape off the chicken salad and serve the toast to a customer who wants only toast. <
But you insist that they have the chicken salad anyway.
> The book was as banned as a book could be. <
Yet it is still readily available.
> It was banned by a federal judge <
It was not banned by a federal judge.
You remind me of the Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland.
"Then you should say what you mean,' the March Hare went on.
`I do,' Alice hastily replied; `at least--at least I mean what I say--that's the same thing, you know.'
`Not the same thing a bit!' said the Hatter. `You might just as well say that "I see what I eat" is the same thing as "I eat what I see"!'
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.'
>>>You know that on practically any other blog on the planet, your whole comment would be deleted because of that asinine statement.<<<
Hey, Larry, you've already arbitrarily banned Kevin today, so what's holding you back from arbitrarily censoring voice's comment? You clearly are no longer fit to be a member of the Association of Non-Censoring Bloggers.
ViW, you are just arguing in circles and I am not going to play this game any longer. Any reader who wants to can go back through my comments in this thread and see that I have thoroughly refuted all of your arguments (sometimes several times over) and there is not a darn thing that you can do about it.
I have already shown a tremendous amount of patience in answering your comments. In contrast, Fatheaded Ed Brayton permanently kicked me off his blog immediately after I literally interpreted FRCP Rule 12 as authorizing judges to dismiss cases where the plaintiffs refuse to accept out-of-court settlement offers that would provide relief equal to or greater than the maximum relief that could be provided by the court.
Finis.
Anonymous said...
>>>>> Hey, Larry, you've already arbitrarily banned Kevin today, so what's holding you back from arbitrarily censoring voice's comment? <<<<<<
Wrong. I did not ban Kevin -- I only told him that he is not welcome here.
My resistance of the temptation to delete Kevin Vicklund's and ViW's comments shows the strength of my commitment to my no-deletions policy.
> My resistance of the temptation to delete Kevin Vicklund's and ViW's comments shows the strength of my commitment to my no-deletions policy. <
I suppose it is difficult when you are losing your arguments to want to censor those who are beating you.
I have also seen messages "disappear". I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that this is a technical problem. It seems that the messages that "disappear" invariably disagree with you but statistically that should come as no surprise.
I meant difficult not to want to censor.
Bill Carter said,
>>>>>I suppose it is difficult when you are losing your arguments to (not to) want to censor those who are beating you. <<<<<
And I suppose it is also difficult when you are losing your arguments to not want to charge that the one who is beating you is censoring your comments.
>>>>>I have also seen messages "disappear". I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that this is a technical problem. <<<<<<
I have not deleted any comments in quite a while. Some time ago, I deleted some comments for the following reasons: (1) the comments gossiped about my private life, and (2) the comments impersonated me and misrepresented my views.
If a comment accidentally disappears, then just re-post it. Instead of just re-posting the comments, all you do is complain about the comments disappearing.
> And I suppose it is also difficult when you are losing your arguments to not want to charge that the one who is beating you is censoring your comments. <
Why bring up a hypothetical issue? The reality of the situation is that they are beating you and comments are disappearing. I haven't seen a great deal of it but it definitely has happened.
> I deleted some comments for the following reasons: (1) the comments gossiped about my private life <
I think that what you do in a public court and bring up yourself could not be considered gossip in any way.
> (2) the comments impersonated me and misrepresented my views. <
I would consider it fair to drop comments that impersonated you. You must remember that you once impersonated me on this blog and have impersonated Dave on this and other blogs several times. Why would that be fair?
> Instead of just re-posting the comments, all you do is complain about the comments disappearing. <
I haven't posted anything on any blog for many months. What are you babbling about?
Larry, I think that in the past people have been piling on but with your latest claim that non-censored books belong on a list of censored ones, or alternatively that the name of the list should be changed in order to fit them is quite absurd. Like VIW reommended: Stop digging!
Bill Carter driveled,
>>>>> The reality of the situation is that they are beating you and comments are disappearing. <<<<<
Beating me, shit. They are just beating off.
Where are these "disappeared" comments? Why haven't they been re-posted? Is this something you jerks are making up to try to discredit me?
>>>>> I think that what you do in a public court and bring up yourself could not be considered gossip in any way. <<<<<
It was gossip because it was not related to the point I was trying to make, and that point was that you do not always have to be a bigshot legal professional to come up with a good legal argument.
What point are you lousy jerks trying to make here? You have not even attempted to counter that point that I made in federal court.
>>>>> You must remember that you once impersonated me on this blog and have impersonated Dave on this and other blogs several times. <<<<<<
I never impersonated you or Dave.
>>>>>> I haven't posted anything on any blog for many months. What are you babbling about? <<<<<
My comment was also directed at others who have complained about their comments disappearing here. Sorry that I didn't make that clear.
>>>>> I think that in the past people have been piling on but with your latest claim that non-censored books belong on a list of censored ones, or alternatively that the name of the list should be changed in order to fit them is quite absurd. <<<<<<
And as I have already pointed out a googolplex number of times, the American Library Association's "banned books" list, which is one of the best sources -- if not the best source -- of the names of books that have been challenged and/or banned in the USA -- does not distinguish between banned books and books that have only been challenged. Some bans are not reported to the ALA, so the ALA does not even know in some cases whether a challenged book was banned or not. Wikipedia's current page that lists mostly the ALA books contains both banned books and books that were only challenged, so we are now back to mixing apples and oranges without even noting that we are mixing apples and oranges (this page is titled, "List of most commonly challenged books in the U.S."). Also, a large number of serious challenges is arguably much more significant than a single challenge resulting in a single minor ban. The smart thing to do was to change the title of the banned books article to "banned and challenged books" and note that the ALA-listed books in the list could either be banned or challenged only, with those known to be banned noted as such. I went through all of this stuff with those jerks over at Wikipedia and I should not have to go through it over and over again.
Anyway, so far as the book "Of People and Pandas" is concerned, the distinction between challenged books and banned books is irrelevant because this book was BANNED. It was banned by a federal judge. He banned the statement that mentioned the book. He banned the whole statement, not just part of it. It is absolutely ridiculous that it needs to be explained to some thick-headed people that the book was BANNED.
>>>>> Like VIW recommended: Stop digging! <<<<<<
I have already dug my way to China and emerged victorious.
> It was gossip because it was not related to the point I was trying to make, and that point was that you do not always have to be a bigshot legal professional to come up with a good legal argument. <
It was directly related to the point. You have been a total failure in your interactions with the legal system. If that doesn't directly apply to refuting your argument, I don't know what would.
> You have not even attempted to counter that point that I made in federal court. <
I haven't. I didn't try. Kevin and the others have and their answer are still on your blog.
>I never impersonated you or Dave.<
It has long been proven that you impersonated Dave. Someone impersonated me on this blog and it had your characteristic childishness.
> And as I have already pointed out a googolplex number of times <
Which doesn't make it any the less ridiculous. Banned books are banned books, Challenged books are challenged books. Wikipedia is under no obligation to follow the American Library Association's errors.
> (this page is titled, "List of most commonly challenged books in the U.S.") <
Which could rightly include challenged books. A list of banned books should not.
> The smart thing to do was to change the title of the banned books article to "banned and challenged books" <
Should their article on dogs include cats?
> I went through all of this stuff with those jerks over at Wikipedia <
And they did not buy your pointless argument.
> and I should not have to go through it over and over again. <
Then don't. It won't make any more sense if you repeat it another googolplex of times.
> this book was BANNED. <
You make this false statement and then try to justify it by claiming that he banned a statement.
> It is absolutely ridiculous that it needs to be explained to some thick-headed people that the book was BANNED. <
It is even more ridiculous that you repeat this.
>>>>> Like VIW recommended: Stop digging! <<<<<<
> I have already dug my way to China and emerged victorious. <
And you are the Emperor of France.
Bill Carter drools,
>>>>>> You have not even attempted to counter that point that I made in federal court. <
I haven't. I didn't try. Kevin and the others have and their answer are still on your blog. <<<<<<
You didn't try because you can't do it, dunghill. You can't even do it by repeating their arguments because they failed utterly to refute my point. And whether my point can be refuted is of no consequence because neither the state of California nor Judge TJ "Mad" Hatter even tried to refute my point.
By your line of reasoning, Darwinism must be wrong because you Darwinists utterly failed to refute that point that I made in court.
>>>>>> Banned books are banned books, Challenged books are challenged books. Wikipedia is under no obligation to follow the American Library Association's errors. <<<<<<
You stupid, profoundly retarded nincompoop, Wikipedia was under obligation to follow the ALA's errors because the ALA banned books list is a major source of the names of banned and/or challenged books and does not distinguish between banned and challenged-only books. In many cases the ALA does not even know which challenged books have actually been banned.
And if Wikipedia is not obligated to follow the ALA's errors, then why in the hell did Wikipedia insist on following the ALA's "error" of refusing to classify the Pandas book as a challenged book even though the ALA's own records showed that the book was challenged in 1993? Answer that, you stupid, fatheaded moron.
>>>>>> (this page is titled, "List of most commonly challenged books in the U.S.") <
Which could rightly include challenged books. <<<<<<
I pointed out that this list also includes banned books, which according to you should be listed separately from challenged-only books. This Wikipedia list consists mostly of books on the ALA list, which as I said includes banned books and challenged-only books. I have explained this many times.
>>>>>> A list of banned books should not. <<<<<<
But a list of "banned and challenged books" should. And books in the list can have notes as to whether they are banned, challenged-only, banned in the past but not banned now, etc., and disputed books can have notes that they are disputed and links to discussions or debates about the dispute. I have explained these things many times.
The ALA, which was touted as the supreme authority as to whether the Pandas book was banned, challenged-only, or neither, is according to your standards too dumb to be an authority on anything because its list that is officially titled "banned books" includes books that were only challenged. That dumb ALA does not even concede that the book was challenged, even though the ALA's own records show that the book was challenged in 1993!
Anyway, putting banned books and challenged-only books in the same list was a smart move by the ALA because the ALA often does not know whether a challenged book has actually been banned or whether it is still banned if it has been banned. And BTW, should currently banned books and books that were banned in the past but are not banned now be on the same list? Do you see the problem of being too nitpicking?
>>>>>> this book was BANNED. <
You make this false statement and then try to justify it by claiming that he banned a statement. <<<<<
As I told ViW: Under the Darwin-inspired eugenics programs that you love so much, you would have been sterilized or even euthanized because of your total inabilities to do simple reasoning and understand the simplest words.
I have already wasted far too much time answering the breathtakingly inane comments of you stupid jerks.
> You can't even do it by repeating their arguments because they failed utterly to refute my point. <
They refuted it very well in the eyes of rational people. They were unable to get through your neutron star skull and convince an irrational person.
> neither the state of California nor Judge TJ "Mad" Hatter even tried to refute my point. <
Nor did they discuss flat earth theories. There was no need.
> you Darwinists utterly failed to refute that point that I made in court. <
Again repeating a lie in the hopes that it will make it true. One definition of insanity was doing the same thing and expecting different results.
> You stupid, profoundly retarded nincompoop <
So you are admitting that you lost your argument with Bill Carter too.
> Wikipedia was under obligation to follow the ALA's errors <
So you finally admit that they were errors. Perhaps progress can be made.
> In many cases ALA doesn't even know which challenged books have actually been banned. <
You have made a point on the side of the sane. A good reason why the ALA list should not be used by Wikipedia!
> why in the hell did Wikipedia insist on following the ALA's "error" of refusing to classify the Pandas book as a challenged book <
They also have been committing the error of refusing to include popcorn among major food groups.
Sit back and read your pathetic arguments, Larry. Discuss them with your therapist. I can't believe that even you believe them. You just refuse to admit you were wrong. Close your eyes Larry. The world will go away.
> Answer that <
I have, Kevin has, VIW has Bill Carter has, you pathetic clown.
> This Wikipedia list consists mostly of books on the ALA list, which as I said includes banned books and challenged-only books. <
Wikipedia includes many types of apples which also appear on lists of apples and oranges. That is not a reason to add oranges to the apples list, nor is it a justification for changing the list to "apples and oranges".
Everyone has explained this many times.
>>>>>> A list of banned books should not. <<<<<<
> But a list of "banned and challenged books" should. <
Which this is not.
> And books in the list can have notes .... <
Oranges on the list of apples can have notes indicating that they are oranges.
> I have explained these things many times. <
But your explanations are not rational.
> Do you see the problem of being too nitpicking? <
I don't see any downside in leaving oranges off a list of apples.
I am profoundly relieved that you have not, nor will you, reproduce.
Anonymous, you are just arguing in circles. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. You have forced me to argue in circles too in answering you, but at least I introduce new points now and then -- you and your pals do not. Sensible readers here long ago rejected the breathtakingly inane arguments of you and your pals. So you and your pals are free to continue to post your garbage here but I won't be responding. As much as I would like to delete your garbage, my no-censorship policy prevents me from doing so.
> Anonymous, you are just arguing in circles. <
You are projecting. Ask your therapist what that means.
> You have forced me to argue in circles too in answering you <
You are arguing in circles because you are just plain wrong.
> but at least I introduce new points now and then <
When has this happened?
> Sensible readers here <
We are the sensible readers here.
> I won't be responding. <
There is no need for you to do so. You have demonstrated that you are incapable of supporting your position other than just by restating it.
The reason why I continued to answer the absurd arguments of these jerks was that I thought that some readers might have thought that these arguments were new whereas they were old arguments that I already refuted. I won't fall into that trap again. Next time I will just refer readers back to my previous refutations of the arguments of these jerks.
"And as I have already pointed out a googolplex number of times ..."
A googolplex? Are you sure?
Googolplex = 10^googol = 10^(10^100) -- a rather large number. A googol alone is more than the total number of raindrops plus snowflakes that have fallen since the Earth was formed.
Perhaps you exaggerate?
> I thought that some readers might have thought that these arguments were new <
We don't need new arguments. The old ones have very successfully blown you out of the water.
> they were old arguments that I already refuted. <
Attempted to refute unsuccessfully.
> I won't fall into that trap again. <
You will just repeat yourself ad infinitim.
Why not save time by numbering your fantsies?
1. Oranges belong on the Apples List.
2. The list should be renamed Apples and Oranges with notes that the oranges are not apples.
3. You believe that you are a legal genius.
4. The holocaust/moon landings/circumnavigation of the globe never occurred.
5. Meteors come from inside the atmosphere.
6. The Los Angeles Times is published and distributed with the aid of supernatural forces.
7. VIW, Kevin, Anonymous, Bill Carter, Dave Fafarman and Barney the purple dinosaur are all actually Ed Brayton.
You may add more to the list.
Now you no longer have to waste time repeating yourself. You can just post the appropriate number.
> my articles and comments here do not depend on my credibility -- they depend on my sound reasoning and excellent documentation.<
Then you are in trouble because you have neither.
Post a Comment
<< Home