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.

Saturday, July 14, 2007

"Taxpayer test" for establishment clause cases

The courts use different judicial tests for deciding establishment clause cases -- e.g., the Lemon test, endorsement test, coercion test, and neutrality test. I suddenly just realized that there is also an unnamed "taxpayer test." Unlike the other tests, this is a test of standing to sue rather than a test of the constitutionality of the alleged violation of the establishment clause. Here are the different possibilities under a proposed "taxpayer test":
.
Proposed "Taxpayer Test"

(1) Alleged establishment clause violation does not involve significant tax money:
The taxpayer test does not apply. Examples are "under god" in the Pledge and government approval of the placement of a privately-funded religious symbol on public property.

(2) Alleged establishment clause violation involves Congressional allocation of tax money:
Taxpayers have standing to sue pursuant to Flast v. Cohen, which was not overturned by Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation so far as Congressional allocation of tax money is concerned.

(3) Alleged establishment clause violation involves federal executive branch allocation of tax money:
Pursuant to Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, there is no taxpayer standing. A three-justice plurality held that Congressional allocation and federal executive branch allocation should be treated differently and two other judges concurred in the judgment, making a majority. However, there could be standing on other grounds. For example, presumably there would still be standing to sue for removal of a religious symbol from public property even if that symbol was funded by the federal executive branch, because since the presence of the symbol on public property is the issue, it should not matter how the symbol got there -- indeed, it would be the height of irony if standing to sue were denied on the basis that the symbol was paid for by the federal executive branch instead of a private donor! However, if the alleged establishment clause violation is federal executive branch funding of, say, a religious organization, there would probably not be an alternative basis for standing to sue.

(4) Alleged establishment clause violation involves spending of state or local tax funds:
I have no idea.

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

The Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land. Allowing a possible constitutional violation in order to follow a "standing to sue" rule appears to be straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. It might be argued that "standing to sue" here is itself a constitutional requirement that there must be "injury in fact," but that requirement is based on an arbitrary interpretation of the "cases and controversies" clause of Article III of the Constitution. Then there is also the question of why this "injury in fact" requirement -- even if valid -- should have priority over other constitutional requirements. Furthermore, there is no agreement on what constitutes "injury in fact" in a lawsuit charging that tax money is being spent for an unconstitutional purpose -- as Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, said in Hein,

The Court's taxpayer standing cases involving Establishment Clause challenges to government expenditures are notoriously inconsistent because they have inconsistently described the relevant "injury in fact" that Article III requires. Some cases have focused on the financial effect on the taxpayer's wallet, whereas Flast and the cases that follow its teaching have emphasized the mental displeasure the taxpayer suffers when his funds are extracted and spent in aid of religion. There are only two logical routes available with respect to taxpayer standing. If the mental displeasure created by Establishment Clause violations is concrete and particularized enough to constitute an Article III "injury in fact," then Flast should be applied to (at a minimum) all challenges to government expenditures allegedly violating constitutional provisions that specifically limit the taxing and spending power; if not, Flast should be overturned. (pages 4-5 of syllabus)

Also, why should "mental displeasure" be sufficient to grant standing to sue when there is no tax money expenditure but insufficient to grant standing to sue when there is a tax money expenditure? That's not consistent.

Also, the "injury in fact" requirement is not always enforced. Environmental laws have "citizen suit" provisions giving citizens the right to sue for enforcement of the laws without any allegation that there is any actual or potential injury to anyone or anything, let alone actual or potential injury to the plaintiff(s). Yet the federal courts have not struck down the "citizen suit" provisions as violations of the alleged constitutional requirement that there must be "injury in fact" to the plaintiff(s).
.

Labels:

27 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

A few days ago Larry convinced the remaining doubters that he was indeed insane. Today he give convincing proof as to why he has lost all of his legal cases.

Larry is a recognized retard when it comes to law!

Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:23:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

You stupid ignorami have done everything but even attempt to counter any of my legal arguments.

Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> You stupid ignorami have done everything but even attempt to counter any of my legal arguments. <

You pathetic delusional moron, logical well written counters to your mindles attempts at legal arguments are all over your blog. It's a shame you have such poor reading comprehension.

Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:59:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> . . . logical well written counters to your mindles attempts at legal arguments are all over your blog. <<<<<<

Let's see one here. Put up or shut up, dunghill.

Saturday, July 14, 2007 2:02:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Why don't you jerks go to the blog of idiot-savant Eugene Volokh or some other law blog and post the same kind of drivel that you are posting here and see how far you get.

Saturday, July 14, 2007 2:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal today about extending "reporter's privilege" to bloggers.

The mindless cretin thinks that there is some relation between a reporters privilege and a requirement that every blog allow the bleating and braying of every clown who comes down the pike.

Incidentally, how is the Association of Censoring Blowhards going?

Saturday, July 14, 2007 2:04:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal today about extending "reporter's privilege" to bloggers. <<<<<<

So why don't you give us a link to that article? Or is that beyond your Internet skills? I checked the online edition of the WSJ and all I could find was a general article about blogs.

>>>>>> The mindless cretin thinks that there is some relation between a reporters privilege and a requirement that every blog allow the bleating and braying of every clown who comes down the pike. <<<<<<

You still don't get it, you stupid fatheaded beetlebrain. The point is that BVD-clad bloggers are asking for special privileges without responsibilities. They want the reporter's privilege that would allow them to hide the identities of their confidential sources but they don't want a fairness doctrine that would prohibit them from arbitrarily censoring visitors' comments. The official news media's increasing reliance on blogs is a reason for giving them the reporter's privilege but is also a reason for having a fairness doctrine to help assure that the blogs are fair and are as accurate and reliable as possible.

>>>>> Incidentally, how is the Association of Censoring Blowhards going? <<<<<<

You mean the association that the Wickedpedian control freaks belong to? Just wait and see what I am going to do to those scumbags.

Saturday, July 14, 2007 2:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> So why don't you give us a link to that article? Or is that beyond your Internet skills? <

Possibly, you mindless cretin, because I don't know how to link to a printed newspaper?

> I checked the online edition of the WSJ and all I could find was a general article about blogs. <

I would suspect that you are lying, as usual, because the online edition requires a subscription and you, as an unemployed bum, couldn't afford to pay for a subscription.

> You still don't get it, you stupid fatheaded beetlebrain. The point is that BVD-clad bloggers are asking for special privileges without responsibilities. <

You still don't get it, you pathetic cretin. Nobody has a responsibility to carry mindless rantings on their blog. Fairness has nothing to do with this.

> They want the reporter's privilege that would allow them to hide the identities of their confidential sources but they don't want a fairness doctrine that would prohibit them from arbitrarily censoring visitors' comments. <

You still don't get it, you pathetic cretin. There is no connection between these things. Besides, you have failed to give an example of arbitrary censorship. You have always been banned for obvious and well known causes.

> to help assure that the blogs are fair and are as accurate and reliable as possible. <

Eliminating mindless braying does not recuce fairness, accuracy, or reliability.

> Just wait and see what I am going to do to those scumbags.<

I am sure that they are shivering in their boots, if they can stop laughing.

Keep it up, Larry. This is great entertainment.

Saturday, July 14, 2007 5:13:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> So why don't you give us a link to that article? Or is that beyond your Internet skills? <

Possibly, you mindless cretin, because I don't know how to link to a printed newspaper? <<<<<<

You dunghill, there is an online edition of the Wall Street Journal that has some free articles. There was a big free article about blogs -- I thought that was the article that you were talking about -- but it had nothing about the reporter's privilege. Also, nothing in the subscribers-only section had anything to do with giving the reporter's privilege to bloggers.

>>>>>> I checked the online edition of the WSJ and all I could find was a general article about blogs. <

I would suspect that you are lying, as usual, because the online edition requires a subscription and you, as an unemployed bum, couldn't afford to pay for a subscription. <<<<<<<

Is that your idea of a "clever" retort? What a stupid fathead.

>>>>> You still don't get it, you pathetic cretin. There is no connection between these things. <<<<<<

Even professional reporters are sometimes denied the reporter's privilege, e.g., the reporters in Plamegate, yet BVD-clad bloggers want to be given the privilege just because they blog. BVD-clad bloggers do not need the privilege as part of their jobs. Giving them the privilege will create all kinds of problems -- for example, bloggers will misuse the privilege solely for the purpose of shielding themselves and/or their cohorts from prosecution. So if the government ought to be so generous as to grant bloggers the reporter's privilege, then why shouldn't the government also impose a fairness doctrine upon them?

>>>>> Besides, you have failed to give an example of arbitrary censorship. <<<<<<

There are several Darwinist blogs where I am completely banned, dunghill. That means that I cannot post any comments there under my own name. None of my comments are considered for posting, regardless of how on-topic, polite, or serious they might be. That is arbitrary censorship by any standard.

>>>>>> Just wait and see what I am going to do to those scumbags. <

I am sure that they are shivering in their boots, if they can stop laughing. <<<<<<

When the IRS pulls their nonprofit 501(c)(3) status because of political campaigning, then they will stop laughing.

Sunday, July 15, 2007 1:45:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> there is an online edition of the Wall Street Journal that has some free articles. <

Some, but even the paid version does not contain all of the articles in the printed version and often has articles that don't appear in the printed version. What is your point? I referred to an article in the printed version and you don't even know if it appeared in the online version or not. Get your head out of your ass.

> There was a big free article about blogs -- I thought that was the article that you were talking about -- but it had nothing about the reporter's privilege. <

There was also an article about outsourcing by Indian companies. It shared one thing with the article that you found - It had nothing to do with the article I was talking about. Why not go to the library (If you know where there is one) and read the article, rather than further making a fool of yourself?

> Also, nothing in the subscribers-only section had anything to do with giving the reporter's privilege to bloggers. <

1. Do you have access to the subscribers-only section or did you just read the limited TOC in the free section?

2. What difference does it make? Since the article appeared in the printed paper, why not just read the printed paper rather than claim that the Earth is flat?

>>>>>>> I would suspect that you are lying, as usual, because the online edition requires a subscription and you, as an unemployed bum, couldn't afford to pay for a subscription. <<<<<<<

> Is that your idea of a "clever" retort? <

No. That is a statement of the truth. What a pathetic dimwit!

>>>>> You still don't get it, you pathetic cretin. There is no connection between these things. <<<<<<

> Even professional reporters are sometimes denied the reporter's privilege <

Irrelevant.

> So if the government ought to be so generous as to grant bloggers the reporter's privilege, then why shouldn't the government also impose a fairness doctrine upon them? <

Because there is no connection between these things. Besides you don't seem to understand what a fairness doctrine is. It is not a requirement that they include in a debate the local screwball who is carrying a sign saying "The end of the world is near."

>>>>> Besides, you have failed to give an example of arbitrary censorship. <<<<<<

> There are several Darwinist blogs where I am completely banned, dunghill. <

You were not banned arbitrarily, cretin.

> None of my comments are considered for posting, regardless of how on-topic, polite, or serious they might be. <

Because you abused the posting privilege in the past.

> That is arbitrary censorship by any standard. <

That is not arbitrary by any standard. You went out of your way to be banned with your repetition, threats, and insults.

> When the IRS pulls their nonprofit 501(c)(3) status because of political campaigning, then they will stop laughing. <

It is more likely that your activities will only cause the IRS to start laughing with the rest of us, you mindless cretin.

Sunday, July 15, 2007 9:16:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> there is an online edition of the Wall Street Journal that has some free articles. <

Some, but even the paid version does not contain all of the articles in the printed version and often has articles that don't appear in the printed version. What is your point? I referred to an article in the printed version and you don't even know if it appeared in the online version or not. <<<<<<

Your article was not even in the subscribers-only section of the online WSJ, so the article could not have been that important.

>>>>> No. That is a statement of the truth. <<<<<<

As I have pointed out umpteen times already, dunghill, the question of truth or falsehood has nothing to do with whether or not something is gossip. This is gossip.

>>>>>> Even professional reporters are sometimes denied the reporter's privilege <

Irrelevant. <<<<<<<

It is not irrelevant. Why should BVD-clad bloggers be granted the reporter's privilege when even reporters themselves are sometimes denied the privilege?

>>>>>> So if the government ought to be so generous as to grant bloggers the reporter's privilege, then why shouldn't the government also impose a fairness doctrine upon them? <

Because there is no connection between these things <<<<<<<

I have already pointed out the connection, dunghill, but instead of answering my reply, you just keep repeating over and over again like a broken phonograph record, "there is no connection." Here is the connection that I gave:

The official news media's increasing reliance on blogs is a reason for giving them the reporter's privilege but is also a reason for having a fairness doctrine to help assure that the blogs are fair and are as accurate and reliable as possible.

>>>>>> None of my comments are considered for posting, regardless of how on-topic, polite, or serious they might be. <

Because you abused the posting privilege in the past. <<<<<<<

To hell with the "past." All new comments should be independently evaluated as to relevancy, politeness, and seriousness. You don' t have a leg to stand on, dunghill.

>>>>>> It is more likely that your activities will only cause the IRS to start laughing with the rest of us <<<<<<

It has been my experience that crooked public officials laugh only when they think no one is looking -- the Yecke case is too big for the sleazebags to hide from.

Folks, ViW is for real -- I am not practicing Charlie McCarthyism.

Sunday, July 15, 2007 10:16:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Postscript --

>>>>>> 1. Do you have access to the subscribers-only section or did you just read the limited TOC in the free section? <<<<<<

I have access to the list of articles of the subscribers-only section of the online edition.

>>>>>> 2. What difference does it make? Since the article appeared in the printed paper, why not just read the printed paper rather than claim that the Earth is flat? <<<<<<

Why make a special trip to the library just to see something not considered important enough to put in the online edition?

Sunday, July 15, 2007 10:31:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> Your article was not even in the subscribers-only section of the online WSJ <

How would you know? You can't afford a subscription.

> so the article could not have been that important. <

What a great leap of illogic! The online and printed versions of WSJ are pointed at different markets. There are no doubt all sorts of articles in each that some would find important and others wouldn't. I have a clue for you. Few find reporter's privilege as important as you seem to but since you are covering the subject, I thought I might point it out. You reacted like the priests who refused to look through Galileo's telescope out of fear of what they might see. Either read the article (the whole article. It is not that long.) or stop displaying your ignorance by pretending that it doesn't exist.

>>>>> No. That is a statement of the truth. <<<<<<

> As I have pointed out umpteen times already <

Another example of where you show your ignorant concept that repeating a lie will make it true!

> the question of truth or falsehood has nothing to do with whether or not something is gossip. This is gossip. <

It is relevant. You are claiming that you have access to a paid subscription. Since you are unemployed and unemployable it adds to the doubt that you actually have a subscription. Of course the fact that you said something lends a certain amount of credibility to the belief that it is false. You seem unable to tell the truth. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. You fail to match even that.

> Even professional reporters are sometimes denied the reporter's privilege <

Irrelevant. <<<<<<<

> It is not irrelevant. <

It is irrelevant. The reporter's privilege has no relation to a fairness doctrine and a fairness doctrine has no relation to a requirement that someone allow any sort of blather on their blog even after their previous generosity has been abused.

> I have already pointed out the connection <

You have stated that there is a connection. You have given no reasons at all for it, dunghill. You just keep repeating over and over again like a broken phonograph record, "there is a connection."

> Here is the connection that I gave <

You just stated your position, not a reason. Reliance on blogs by anyone is more a reason for the bloggers to eliminate mindless drivel. These blogs don't claim to be debating sites. They are sources of information. You can post your disagreement of them on your own blog and hope that it will be cited as well. Of newspapers and others are not citing your blog, it is because of its low quality and credibility.

> To hell with the "past." All new comments should be independently evaluated as to relevancy, politeness, and seriousness. <

So someone who has lied in the past and has given endless misinterpretations should be given the same credibility as an honest person who has given reasoned arguments? You don' t have a leg to stand on, dunghill.

> It has been my experience that crooked public officials laugh only when they think no one is looking -- the Yecke case is too big for the sleazebags to hide from. <

We are not talking about crooked public officials here. We are talking about people who need a laugh. No doubt your efforts with the IRS will give them those laughs.

Folks, Larry is for real -- I know that a lot of people think that he is a straw man created by Ed Brayton to discredit the opposition.

Sunday, July 15, 2007 10:50:00 AM  
Anonymous Bill Carter said...

>>>>>> 1. Do you have access to the subscribers-only section or did you just read the limited TOC in the free section? <<<<<<

> I have access to the list of articles of the subscribers-only section of the online edition. <

In other words you just read the limited TOC in the free section. Now did that hurt?

Earth to Larry, the TOC in the free section to which you provided a link is not complete. That seems quite irrelevant anyway. I am a subscriber and can tell you that the article was in the online edition on Thursday but not all articles are archived. ViW is right. The article appeared in the printed version on Thursday which is all he said. You are the one throwing in the red herring about the online edition.

In your rush to disagree with anything ViW said, you have made a fool of yourself again.

If you think your complaints over Wikipedia's non-profit status will come to anything, you are even more delusional than you first appear. When your efforts fall flat, please don't bother to claim that everyone is corrupt or unreasonable. You are unreasonable.

Sunday, July 15, 2007 3:29:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

ViW driveled (July 15, 2007 10:50:00 AM ) --
>>>>>> Your article was not even in the subscribers-only section of the online WSJ <

How would you know? <<<<<<

I know, dunghill, because the articles in the subscriber-only section of the online edition are listed in the free online edition.

>>>>>> so the article could not have been that important. <

What a great leap of illogic! The online and printed versions of WSJ are pointed at different markets. There are no doubt all sorts of articles in each that some would find important and others wouldn't. <<<<<<

Really? If WSJ has the printed articles, why wouldn't WSJ give those articles to the online subscribers too? And if anything, the online subscribers should be even more interested than the offline subscribers in the proposal to give bloggers the reporter's privilege because the online subscribers are more likely to be bloggers themselves. Your logic is atrocious.

>>>>>> Few find reporter's privilege as important as you seem to but since you are covering the subject, I thought I might point it out. <<<<<<

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is really pushing the idea of giving the reporter's privilege to BVD-clad bloggers. Also, this blog has articles about a book and a law journal article that are in favor of giving the reporter's privilege to BVD-clad bloggers.

BVD-clad bloggers' need for the reporter's privilege is highly questionable. The big purpose of the reporter's privilege is to give professional reporters the ability to offer their sources credible promises of confidentiality. BVD-clad bloggers have no press credentials and so are not in a position to promise confidentiality to anyone. This whole idea of giving the reporter's privilege to BVD-clad bloggers is just plain stupid.

> the question of truth or falsehood has nothing to do with whether or not something is gossip. This is gossip. <

>>>>> It is relevant. You are claiming that you have access to a paid subscription. <<<<<<

Sheeesh. I never said that I have access to a paid subscription -- I only said that the titles of the articles in the subscriber-only section are posted on the free edition. And what in the hell does this have to do with gossip?

>>>>>> You just stated your position, not a reason. <<<<<<

My position is a reason, you stupid fathead.

>>>>>> These blogs don't claim to be debating sites. They are sources of information. You can post your disagreement of them on your own blog and hope that it will be cited as well. <<<<<<<

I always have to explain things in disgusting detail because ViW is incapable of the simplest logical reasoning. Under the social principles of the Darwinism that he loves so much, he would be among the first candidates for sterilization -- or even euthanasia -- for the purpose of dramatically improving the human race.

OK, here is the story, stupid. One of the biggest reasons why blogs have become popular as sources is that they are perceived as being fair and having high reliability because they are open -- or should be open -- to comments from large numbers of people. However, a censored comment could contain a valid dissenting opinion or a correction of a factual error. If the blog where that comment was censored is cited, merely having that censored comment on another blog would not do any good unless that other blog were cited as well. Duh-duh-duh.

One more thing -- let's stop talking about me, me, me, and more me. I am talking in general terms, so your worthless opinion of me would have no relevance even if it were worth anything.

>>>>> Of newspapers and others are not citing your blog, it is because of its low quality and credibility. <<<<<

There are millions of blogs out there and the chances of any particular blog -- even one that gets thousands of visits per day -- being cited by a newspaper are very small. Probably the biggest reason why I have not been favorably cited by other websites is that I am a holocaust revisionist and lots of people do not want to be associated with me. Someone on a big website said that he and his colleagues wanted to cite this blog but were afraid to do so because I am a holocaust revisionist.

Folks, ViW is trying to give the false impression that I am practicing Charlie McCarthyism; he figures that no one would believe that anyone could be as dumb as he is or as dumb as pretends to be.

Sunday, July 15, 2007 3:58:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Bill Carter driveled,
>>>>> TOC in the free section to which you provided a link is not complete. <<<<<

Well, that sounds dumb -- it seems that if they wanted more subscribers, they would post complete TOC's for the subscribers-only section.

>>>>>> ViW is right. The article appeared in the printed version on Thursday which is all he said. <<<<<<

Wrong. ViW said nothing about Thursday. Anonymous said (July 14, 2007 2:04:00 PM) -- "There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal today about extending 'reporter's privilege' to bloggers." So I looked at yesterday's online edition -- which is the same as today's (the Weekend edition) -- and didn't find it. Also, I suspect that Anonymous and ViW are one and the same, because ViW answered a question that I directed solely at Anonymous. Anyway, can anyone summarize what was in the article?

Personally, I think that giving the reporter's privilege to BVD-clad bloggers would be dumb -- what is so special about blogging, anyway? They don't need the reporter's privilege -- they have no press credentials and can't make a credible promise of confidentiality to anyone. And why should BVD-clad bloggers get the privilege if, say, a publisher of a small printed newsletter can't get it? And why in the hell should they get the privilege if they won't agree to a fairness doctrine to help assure that their blogs are fair and as accurate and reliable as possible? These lousy BVD-clad bloggers are just talking through their hats. And since anyone can blog, crooks are going to start blogging to help themselves and others avoid prosecution. Crooks won't have to testify against others in court anymore because they can claim the reporter's privilege.

>>>>>> In your rush to disagree with anything ViW said, you have made a fool of yourself again. <<<<<

And you have made a fool of yourself by rushing to call me a fool before I got a chance to answer.


>>>>>> If you think your complaints over Wikipedia's non-profit status will come to anything, you are even more delusional than you first appear <<<<<<

You are just a big bag of gobar gas, dunghill (gobar is the Hindi word for cow dung). You have not even attempted to show that the IRS 501(c)(3) rules don't apply here. The Wickedpedian control freaks would not even allow a rebuttal of the political attacks in Sheri Yecke's bio. Also, ReputationDefender is involved, and they have shown that they have access to very important media outlets, e.g., the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post.

Sunday, July 15, 2007 5:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> I know, dunghill, because the articles in the subscriber-only section of the online edition are listed in the free online edition.<

Some but not all, cretin. WSJ doesn't pretend or claim that that list is complete. In this case it obviously isn't. I haven't checked the online edition but Bill Carter obviously has and he says the article was there. Now I haven't seen him to lie, while you rarely do anything else.

> Really? If WSJ has the printed articles, why wouldn't WSJ give those articles to the online subscribers too? <

If you had a brain you might realize that they probably do make all of them available to them but since the printed WSJ has considerably more in it than the online version, they have to pick and choose. In this case they did chose to include it despite not finding it important enough to include in the free TOC.

> Your And if anything, the online subscribers should be even more interested than the offline subscribers in the proposal to give bloggers the reporter's privilege <

Perhaps that is why they carried it?

> BVD-clad bloggers have no press credentials and so are not in a position to promise confidentiality to anyone. <

If they were given reporter's privilege, they would be. Why don't you drop the childish expressions like "BVD-clad"? They just make you look like a childish asshole. Then again, keep it up and let people see what you are really like.

> Sheeesh. I never said that I have access to a paid subscription <

You said "I checked the online edition of the WSJ and all I could find was a general article about blogs." Like much of what you say, it was a lie. You only checked the limited TOC on the free page, a list that WSJ says is not totally inclusive.

> I only said that the titles of the articles in the subscriber-only section are posted on the free edition. <

1. It is a lie as cited above. That is not what you said first.

2. Not all articles are listed.

Since the article did appear, why do you keep braying about this? You are arguing about why the sun doesn't rise in the East. It does, you know?

> And what in the hell does this have to do with gossip? <

Pointing out that you were unemployed and therefore couldn't afford the subscription was not gossip. It was quite relevant. You then tried to dance around on the head of a pin to imply that you did have access to the subscription site. Finally you claimed, in opposition to WSJ, that the list on the free site was all inclusive. The fact that you are unemployed (and unemployable) led directly to uncovering the lie about your access to WSJ Online, therefore it was not gossip.

>>>>>> You just stated your position, not a reason. <<<<<<

> My position is a reason, you stupid fathead. <

Just stating your position is not, nor has it ever been a reason, you mindless delusional cretin.

> I always have to explain things in disgusting detail <

But you never explain things, you just restate your illogical position: "My position is a reason, you stupid fathead."

> One of the biggest reasons why blogs have become popular as sources is that they are perceived as being fair and having high reliability because they are open -- or should be open -- to comments from large numbers of people. <

Those blogs that have reliably presented positions and backed them with logic have gained a reputation for being reliable. Those that just name call and repeat mindless crap without support are ignored, like yours is.

> However, a censored comment could contain a valid dissenting opinion or a correction of a factual error. <

Yes, even a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn, but the blogs that are cited will be those that have a preponderance of acorns and a minimum of pig shit.

> If the blog where that comment was censored is cited, merely having that censored comment on another blog would not do any good unless that other blog were cited as well. <

If the other blog were worth reading, they would find it and cite it. If the other blog only contained dung, and childish squabbling, they would not. Duh-duh-duh.

> One more thing -- let's stop talking about me, me, me, and more me. <

I only brought out a probable cause to believe that you were lying, which it turned out you are. If you don't want people to talk about you, try talking about the issues yourself.

> your worthless opinion of me <

You are not worthless. You are a source of endless entertainment. Of course as a source of useful information, your blog is worthless. That is why nobody cites it.

> There are millions of blogs out there and the chances of any particular blog -- even one that gets thousands of visits per day -- being cited by a newspaper are very small. <

If it is relevant and well written, it will be found.

> Probably the biggest reason why I have not been favorably cited by other websites is that I am a holocaust revisionist and lots of people do not want to be associated with me. <

Well it does seem to show your irrationality. If you were involved in a logical debate, would you like to be joined by someone in a clown suit, shouting obscenities and throwing mud pies, even if he were on your side?

Folks, Larry is not my creation or that of the brilliant Ed Brayton or PZ Myers. He actually believes the crap that he spouts. He actually is as dumb as he appears to be.

Sunday, July 15, 2007 5:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Bill Carter said...

> I have access to the list of articles of the subscribers-only section of the online edition. <

It appears that you don't. You only have the partial list that appears on the free site.

> Why make a special trip to the library just to see something not considered important enough to put in the online edition? <

An argument from a false premise. It was considered important enough to be put in the online edition and it indeed was put in the online edition.

> it seems that if they wanted more subscribers, they would post complete TOC's for the subscribers-only section. <

That sounds dumb even for you. Do most book reviews post the entire contents of the book?

> Wrong. ViW said nothing about Thursday. Anonymous said (July 14, 2007 2:04:00 PM) -- "There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal today about extending 'reporter's privilege' to bloggers." <

The article appeared on Thursday. Perhaps Anonymous had the previous days paper? What is the point?

> So I looked at yesterday's online edition <

No you didn't. You have already admitted that you don't have access to it.

> Also, I suspect that Anonymous and ViW are one and the same <

Perhaps they are. Who cares? You complained about people talking about "me, me, me". Why don't you try discussing the issue?

> Anyway, can anyone summarize what was in the article? <

Yes, I can. If you read it, you could too.

> they have no press credentials and can't make a credible promise of confidentiality to anyone. <

ViW answered this brilliantly.

> And why in the hell should they get the privilege if they won't agree to a fairness doctrine <

As others have tried to tell you, these two things are not related in any way.

> And you have made a fool of yourself by rushing to call me a fool before I got a chance to answer. <

Your original post showed you to be making a fool of yourself. It was not necessary to wait until later replies for your to confirm your foolishness.

> (gobar is the Hindi word for cow dung). <

As you know, I worked in India so I know what gobar is and your blog is full of it.

> You have not even attempted to show that the IRS 501(c)(3) rules don't apply here. <

Nor have I tried to prove that the Sun rises in the East. Then again you have done nothing to show that the rules do apply here other than to restate your position that they do.

Sunday, July 15, 2007 6:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>Sheri Yecke's bio<

Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a bio for Sheri Yecke.

Sunday, July 15, 2007 6:20:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a bio for Sheri Yecke. <<<<<

Sorry, I misspelled her name. That's Cheri Yecke.

Sunday, July 15, 2007 6:48:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

ViW wheezed,
>>>>>If you had a brain you might realize that they probably do make all of them available to them but since the printed WSJ has considerably more in it than the online version, they have to pick and choose. <<<<<

You're hopeless -- here you contradict yourself in the same sentence. First you say that they make all of them available, then you say that they have to pick and choose. Sheeesh.

>>>>>> BVD-clad bloggers have no press credentials and so are not in a position to promise confidentiality to anyone. <

If they were given reporter's privilege, they would be. <<<<<

Even if they had the reporter's privilege, would you trust a BVD-clad blogger's promise of confidentiality? If yes, then you are a stupid fool.

>>>>> Why don't you drop the childish expressions like "BVD-clad"? <<<<<<

It's not childish, it's brilliant -- it's one better than "pajama-clad." Hugh Hefner considers pajamas to be formal wear.

>>>>>> You said "I checked the online edition of the WSJ and all I could find was a general article about blogs." Like much of what you say, it was a lie. You only checked the limited TOC on the free page, a list that WSJ says is not totally inclusive. <<<<<

There are two TOC's on the free page -- one for the free articles and one for the subscribers-only articles. Your article was in neither TOC.

>>>>> Since the article did appear, why do you keep braying about this? <<<<<

The article that you were referring to -- the article about giving the reporter's privllege to BVD-clad bloggers -- did not appear -- not even the title appeared.

>>>>>> You then tried to dance around on the head of a pin to imply that you did have access to the subscription site. <<<<<<

You dingaling, I never claimed to have access to the subscription site -- there might not even be a separate main page for the subscription site. Subscription-only articles are listed on the free site.

>>>>> Those blogs that have reliably presented positions and backed them with logic have gained a reputation for being reliable. <<<<<<

You can talk big here because your own reputation and credibility are not dependent on blogs that you cite. If you were, say, a judge, a professional journalist, or an author of a scholarly article, would you want to risk citing a blog where visitors' comments are arbitrarily censored? Would you even want other to know that you cited such a blog? I wouldn't.

>>>>>> Yes, even a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn, but the blogs that are cited will be those that have a preponderance of acorns and a minimum of pig shit. <<<<<<

Missing one important acorn can destroy a reputation. It has happened.

Here is an example. On the Panda's Thumb blog, Ding Elsberry falsely implied that the No Child Left Behind Act requires or authorizes the withholding of federal funds from states and school districts that require, allow, or do not prohibit teaching criticisms of Darwinism. An anonymous commenter posted a comment correcting him but that comment was censored.

>>>>>> If the other blog were worth reading, they would find it and cite it. <<<<<

You are so full of living crap that it is coming out your ears, dunghill. You showed from the beginning that you are too dumb to post comments on this blog.

>>>>> I only brought out a probable cause to believe that you were lying, which it turned out you are <<<<<

Wrong, dunghill -- you are always talking about me, even on things that have nothing at all to do with me.

>>>>> If it is relevant and well written, it will be found. <<<<<<

You think that Fatheaded Ed Brayton's blog has ever been in the major media? I doubt it.

>>>>>> Well it does seem to show your irrationality. <<<<<

We've been over this before. Where it is not necessary to take a person's word for anything, it doesn't matter whether or not a person's has a history of rationality and honesty (and I have excellent histories of rationality and honesty anyway).

What a jerk.

Sunday, July 15, 2007 10:00:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Bill Carter wheezed,
>>>>>> An argument from a false premise. It was considered important enough to be put in the online edition and it indeed was put in the online edition <<<<<<

But you say it was not important enough to archive.

>>>>> That sounds dumb even for you. Do most book reviews post the entire contents of the book? <<<<<<<

If they post the table of contents, usually they post the entire table of contents.

>>>>> The article appeared on Thursday. Perhaps Anonymous had the previous days paper? <<<<<

Anonymous said "today." In this context, "today" means precisely "today."

>>>>>> So I looked at yesterday's online edition <

No you didn't. You have already admitted that you don't have access to it. <<<<<<

What? I of course have access to the free edition, which has TOC's for both the free articles and subscription-only articles.

>>>>>> Also, I suspect that Anonymous and ViW are one and the same <

Perhaps they are. Who cares? <<<<<<

People are always charging me with using multiple names -- but I didn't start using multiple names until after I was banned on Panda's Thumb. What is Anon/ViW's excuse?

>>>>> You complained about people talking about "me, me, me". Why don't you try discussing the issue? <<<<<<

I do, but you jerks keep changing the subject.

>>>>>> Anyway, can anyone summarize what was in the article? <

Yes, I can. If you read it, you could too. <<<<<<<

I can't read it because I don't have access to it, dingaling.

>>>>>> they have no press credentials and can't make a credible promise of confidentiality to anyone. <

ViW answered this brilliantly. <<<<<<<

He gave no answer at all.

>>>>> As others have tried to tell you, these two things are not related in any way. <<<<<<

I showed several times how they are related, dunghill. Both the reporter's privilege and a fairness doctrine would enhance blogs' value as a news source. The latter is actually far more important than the former. The latter, unlike the former, improves blogs' credibility and has no disadvantages. The reporter's privilege actually hurts blogs' credibility because the bloggers don't have to show that they have credible sources!

>>>>>> As you know, I worked in India so I know what gobar is and your blog is full of it. <<<<<<

No, I don't know.

>>>>>> Then again you have done nothing to show that the rules do apply here other than to restate your position that they do. <<<<<<

The rules are clear. They say no political campaigning, direct or indirect.

Sunday, July 15, 2007 10:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> You're hopeless -- here you contradict yourself in the same sentence. First you say that they make all of them available, then you say that they have to pick and choose. Sheeesh. <

There is no contradiction here. If all of the articles from the printed version are available to the editors of the online version that does not mean, or imply, that they include all of them. Sheeesh!

> Even if they had the reporter's privilege, would you trust a BVD-clad blogger's promise of confidentiality? <

It depends on who the blogger was. If it was a stupid fool, such as yourself, I would not.

> It's not childish, it's brilliant <

You have yet to say anything brilliant.

> There are two TOC's on the free page -- one for the free articles and one for the subscribers-only articles. <

The one for the subscribers-only articles is not totally inclusive. Come on Larry. You can't be that thick.

>>>>> Since the article did appear, why do you keep braying about this? <<<<<

> The article that you were referring to -- the article about giving the reporter's privllege to BVD-clad bloggers -- did not appear -- not even the title appeared. <

I read it. Others say they have read it. I still have the paper, as does your local library. You are lying as usual.

> You dingaling, I never claimed to have access to the subscription site <

"I checked the online edition of the WSJ and all I could find was a general article about blogs."

Here is Larry caught in yet another lie!

> there might not even be a separate main page for the subscription site. <

This is really Larry! I'm not making this up.

> Subscription-only articles are listed on the free site. <

Some of them are.

> If you were, say, a judge, a professional journalist, or an author of a scholarly article, would you want to risk citing a blog where visitors' comments are arbitrarily censored? <

The accuracy of the blog would not depend on whether or not they ban people who have abused the blog.

> Missing one important acorn can destroy a reputation. <

Missing pig shit can't.

> Here is an example. <

Bad example. Elsberry still has an excellent reputation. On the other hand, your arbitrary censorship has not affected your reputation. You had the reputation as a nut and it is unchanged.

> An anonymous commenter <

You mean a banned commenter?

> We've been over this before. <

Yes. Another example of where you believe that repeating something false often enough will make it true.

> (and I have excellent histories of rationality and honesty anyway). <

Where? Certainly not here where you are known as an irrational ranting liar.

Monday, July 16, 2007 3:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

I will answer for Bill Carter as he is likely not awake at this time in the morning and the answers are so obvious to any sane person (sorry if you don't fit in that category.)

>>>>>> An argument from a false premise. It was considered important enough to be put in the online edition and it indeed was put in the online edition <<<<<<

> But you say it was not important enough to archive. <

There is no inconsistency here. What is the issue?

> If they post the table of contents, usually they post the entire table of contents. <

They don't there. According to WSJ it is a partial TOC.

> Anonymous said "today." In this context, "today" means precisely "today." <

Who cares. The article was in Thursday's paper for anyone to see and yet you are still arguing against its existence.

> I of course have access to the free edition, which has TOC's for both the free articles and subscription-only articles. <

A partial TOC. The fact that the article was printed and you couldn't find it shows that it is not a complete TOC, just as WSJ says it isn't. I will tell you where WSJ states that after you stop quibbling and read the "non existent" article.

> People are always charging me with using multiple names -- but I didn't start using multiple names until after I was banned on Panda's Thumb. <

You posted as your brother Dave on "Dispatches" before you were banned.

> What is Anon/ViW's excuse? <

You are presuming facts not in evidence.

> I can't read it because I don't have access to it, dingaling. <

You don't have access to a library? There are several libraries within a mile of your condo.

>>>>>>> ViW answered this brilliantly. <<<<<<<

> He gave no answer at all. <

It is still there for anyone to read. You are like the little child who covers his eyes and then believes that nobody can see him.

> I showed several times how they are related <

You failed to show in several repetitions of nonsense how they are related.

> Both the reporter's privilege and a fairness doctrine would enhance blogs' value as a news source. <

Not at all. Adding pig shit to the acorns does not make it better.

> has no disadvantages. <

It wastes the readers time.

>>>>>> As you know, I worked in India so I know what gobar is and your blog is full of it. <<<<<<

> No, I don't know. <

Bill Carter has proven that you knew him very well. He has also proven to be at least fairly honest while you have proven yourself to be a pathological liar. I would bet that you know what Bill Carter has or hasn't done.

> The rules are clear. They say no political campaigning, direct or indirect. <

Telling what someone is doing or has done is not political campaigning. That is why you will lose. You always lose.

Monday, July 16, 2007 4:22:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> You're hopeless -- here you contradict yourself in the same sentence. First you say that they make all of them available, then you say that they have to pick and choose. Sheeesh. <

There is no contradiction here. If all of the articles from the printed version are available to the editors of the online version that does not mean, or imply, that they include all of them. <<<<<<<<

Of course "all of the articles from the printed version are available to the editors of the online version" -- it's the same goldurn publisher! Duh! So I naturally thought that you meant that all of the printed articles are available to the online readers.

>>>>>> Missing one important acorn can destroy a reputation. <

Missing pig shit can't. <<<<<<

First you say that even a blind pig sometimes finds an acorn, now you contradict it. You have no credibility. Give it up already -- you're just making yourself look sillier and sillier (BTW, pigs hunt truffles by smell and the same might be true of acorns, so blindness might not be a factor).

>>>>>your arbitrary censorship. <<<<<<<

Accuse me once more of arbitrary censorship, you worthless sack of shit, and you may very well find yourself censored -- and the censorship certainly won't be arbitrary. I have bent over backwards by even allowing gossip about me to stay. As I said, you are a worthless hypocrite who takes advantage of my no-censorship policy while ridiculing my fight against Internet censorship.

Monday, July 16, 2007 4:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> Of course "all of the articles from the printed version are available to the editors of the online version" <

We can't assume that you can see the obvious. You rarely do.

> So I naturally thought that you meant that all of the printed articles are available to the online readers. <

If I had meant that, I would have said that. Perhaps this is part of your reading comprehension problem. You try to read things into what people write rather than take what they actually do wright. No wonder you misinterpret nearly everything.

> First you say that even a blind pig sometimes finds an acorn, now you contradict it. <

I didn't contradict it. You really have a serious reading comprehension problem. You should discuss it with your therapist.

> Accuse me once more of arbitrary censorship, you worthless sack of shit, and you may very well find yourself censored <

Great logic. The censor is threatening censorship. You have no credibility.

Readers can take my disappearance as proof of what I have been saying. It is also proof that Larry is incapable of winning any argument (as if any further proof is needed).

Monday, July 16, 2007 7:55:00 AM  
Anonymous Bill Carter said...

ViW said...

> I will answer for Bill Carter as he is likely not awake at this time in the morning <

Thank you, ViW. You took the words right out of my mouth.

Larry, you are just making yourself look foolish by arguing the non-existence of something that is available to everyone. I also agree with ViW in that you don't seem to be reading posts before reacting to them. Read what is said, don't try to interpret it. You are too bad at that.

If you have made a mistake, don't continue to advertize it.

Monday, July 16, 2007 8:34:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home