Skeptic magazine to spread Fatheaded Ed's lies and exaggerations
BVD-clad blogger Fatheaded Ed Brayton reported in his article titled "Dishonest Producers of ID Persecution Film,"
Ed's "detailed and thorough debunking" is too detailed and thorough to be credible. Ed just appears to pull his "facts" out of thin air. A lot of his "facts" are not substantiated by references or personal interviews of the parties involved. I know for a fact that he was talking through his hat when he claimed that everybody agreed that the Dover school board could not avoid paying an attorney fee award to the plaintiffs by repealing the ID policy prior to release of the decision.
. . . .yes, we are already preparing to counter the lies and exaggerations in the film ["Expelled"]. My detailed and thorough debunking of the Souder report will be published in Skeptic magazine at the same time the film comes out in February.
Ed's "detailed and thorough debunking" is too detailed and thorough to be credible. Ed just appears to pull his "facts" out of thin air. A lot of his "facts" are not substantiated by references or personal interviews of the parties involved. I know for a fact that he was talking through his hat when he claimed that everybody agreed that the Dover school board could not avoid paying an attorney fee award to the plaintiffs by repealing the ID policy prior to release of the decision.
Labels: Ed Brayton (1 of 2)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 8/24/2007 04:55:00 PM
30 Comments:
The facts that you claim are pulled out of thin air come directly from the appendix to the Souder report, just like he claimed. In fact, I verified each one at the time. Stop talking through your hat, Larry. Oh, right, I forgot. You've had to eat your hat so many times that it's become permanently lodged in your larynx.
W. Kevin Vicklund driveled,
>>>>> The facts that you claim are pulled out of thin air come directly from the appendix to the Souder report, <<<<<<
Ed said that the appendix consists mostly of emails and letters, but his findings are not supported by specific references. Also, why would a report have an appendix which blatantly contradicts the report's findings? Anyway, I was unable to access either the body of the report or the appendix.
>>>Ed said that the appendix consists mostly of emails and letters, but his findings are not supported by specific references.<<<
What the fuck are you talking about? His findings are supported by tons of specific references, including direct quotes and page numbers. Stop lying, Larry.
>>>Also, why would a report have an appendix which blatantly contradicts the report's findings?<<<
Probably for the same reason that you linked to an article that contradicts your claims on that article. Liar lie, and most people ignore the supplemental information.
>>>Anyway, I was unable to access either the body of the report or the appendix.<<<
Yes, a couple of months after Ed wrote the article, the Souder report was removed from the web. I think a copy now resides over at UD - this is pretty old news. It was, however, available at the time Ed wrote his critique, and I read the entire appendix. I personally verified that Ed's claims about the contents of the appendix are accurate.
>>>>>What the fuck are you talking about? His findings are supported by tons of specific references, including direct quotes and page numbers. <<<<<<
Not tons, dunghill. There are some direct quotes and page numbers, but a lot of Ed's statements of fact are unsubstantiated. This is typical of Ed. This is how his blog can contain such an astonishing amount of material.
>>>>>>Also, why would a report have an appendix which blatantly contradicts the report's findings?
Probably for the same reason that you linked to an article that contradicts your claims on that article. <<<<<<
And what article is that?
>>>>>>Anyway, I was unable to access either the body of the report or the appendix.
Yes, a couple of months after Ed wrote the article, the Souder report was removed from the web. I think a copy now resides over at UD - this is pretty old news. <<<<<<
If Ed cannot provide references to back up his report, then IMO it would be wise of Skeptic magazine to not publish it.
Yo, Larry. Please provide an example in Brayton's article on the Souder report where he "lies and exaggerates"
Or are you just talking through your hat?
Anonymous driveled,
>>>>>>Please provide an example in Brayton's article on the Souder report where he "lies and exaggerates" <<<<<<<
If you can't see all the unsubstantiated statements yourself, then you are too dumb to understand an answer to your question.
"If you can't see all the unsubstantiated statements yourself, then you are too dumb to understand an answer to your question."
I see you making unsubstantiated statements. I asked you to substantiate them. Or are you just talking through your hat?
>> Or are you just talking through your hat? <<
"... permanently lodged ..." etc. (Gargle!)
Sheeesh -- Ed made all sorts of unsubstantiated statements like the following --
Sternberg was moved twice. First, as a part of the larger reorganization that involved a couple dozen people. In fact, they remodeled a room just to make sure he and another RA still had offices and workspace. Sternberg knew about and agreed to that move in July of 04, before the paper was even published, so there is simply no way to pretend that it was done in retaliation for anything. The second move, from invertebrate zoology to vertebrate zoology, was at Sternberg's request and he remains there to this day. As far as the keys are concerned, Sternberg had a master key, which would have gotten him into anything, including private offices. As part of a larger crackdown on lax security, master keys were restricted to those who really should have them, and RAs certainly did not qualify. But Sternberg still has access to everything he ever needed access to for his research, which was never limited in any way . . . .
. . . Update: Let me add one more thing. It seems to me that it's awfully difficult for a guy who showed up in the place every few months after hours when everyone was gone, and who was so disconnected from the others at the museum that he didn't even know who his supervisor was, to claim a "hostile working environment."
Fatheaded Ed is the fastest talking yarn-spinner I have ever seen.
Ed has no credibility at all. Not only does he concoct tall stories but he arbitrarily censors commenters who disagree with him. He kicked me off his blog permanently because he disagreed with my literal interpretation of a federal court rule. I made the perfectly reasonable claim that when a plaintiff refuses to accept an out-of-court settlement offer that would provide relief equal to or greater than the maximum relief that could possibly be provided by the court, the judge may dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds of "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted," FRCP Rule 12(b)(6). It is obvious that the court cannot grant any relief if all the relief that the court could grant has already been offered! Duh. Also, under FRCP Rule 12(h)(2), Rule 12(b)(6) may be invoked at any time during a trial even if there was originally a claim upon which relief could be granted.
In another case, Ed condemned StoptheACLU's Glib Fortuna for making a particular criticism of the ACLU and later praised a Wall Street Journal article for making the same criticism. Ed's explanation of the difference: Glib's criticism was "batshit wingnuttery."
This blog has nearly forty articles that criticize Ed -- they may be found under the post labels in the sidebar.
Sometime after Ed wrote his article, the file tree on the server was pruned. The appendix to the Souder report can be found at http://www.souder.house.gov/_files/AppendixtoReportIntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf
It is likely that the actual report underwent a similar evolution.
"Sternberg was moved twice."
FACT
"First, as a part of the larger reorganization that involved a couple dozen people."
FACT
"In fact, they remodeled a room just to make sure he and another RA still had offices and workspace."
FACT
"Sternberg knew about and agreed to that move in July of 04, before the paper was even published, so there is simply no way to pretend that it was done in retaliation for anything."
FACT
"The second move, from invertebrate zoology to vertebrate zoology, was at Sternberg's request and he remains there to this day."
FACT
"As far as the keys are concerned, Sternberg had a master key, which would have gotten him into anything, including private offices."
FACT
"As part of a larger crackdown on lax security, master keys were restricted to those who really should have them, and RAs certainly did not qualify."
FACT
"But Sternberg still has access to everything he ever needed access to for his research, which was never limited in any way . . . ."
FACT
". . . Update: Let me add one more thing. It seems to me that it's awfully difficult for a guy"
statement of opinion
"who showed up in the place every few months after hours when everyone was gone,"
FACT
"and who was so disconnected from the others at the museum that he didn't even know who his supervisor was,"
FACT
"to claim a "hostile working environment." "
completion of statement of opinion
Come on, Larry, you claimed that Ed was lying and exaggerating. Back up your claim.
Anonymous,
I was finally able to review the appendix because of the link that Kevin provided -- Ed failed to give an up-do-date link along with his new reference to his old article. It is 74 pages of mostly fine print -- how am I supposed to find all these "FACTS" when Ed does not give the page numbers? Could you provide the page numbers? And I still want to know why the appendix of a report would blatantly contradict the findings in the report.
I'm probably the only person pedantic enough to go through with this, but here goes:
"Sternberg was moved twice."
21-26,36
"First, as a part of the larger reorganization that involved a couple dozen people."
18,27-28,36-49,51-58
"In fact, they remodeled a room just to make sure he and another RA still had offices and workspace."
36,38-40,44-49,54-58
"Sternberg knew about and agreed to that move in July of 04, before the paper was even published, so there is simply no way to pretend that it was done in retaliation for anything."
36,48-49
"The second move, from invertebrate zoology to vertebrate zoology, was at Sternberg's request and he remains there to this day."
18,21-26,36,48-49,65,68-69
"As far as the keys are concerned, Sternberg had a master key, which would have gotten him into anything, including private offices."
10-12,16,23,37,42-43,48-49,54-55,68-69
"As part of a larger crackdown on lax security, master keys were restricted to those who really should have them, and RAs certainly did not qualify."
10-12,42-23,48-49,54-55
"But Sternberg still has access to everything he ever needed access to for his research, which was never limited in any way . . . ."
7-8,10-12,18,21-24,26,36,38-40,44-45,47-49,51-58,63-65,68-71
...
"who showed up in the place every few months after hours when everyone was gone,"
7-8,10-12,16-17,27-28,36,42-43,47,50,54-58,68-69
"and who was so disconnected from the others at the museum that he didn't even know who his supervisor was,"
10-12,51-53
...
There you go, Larry:
your hat, served on a silver platter, with a salt cellar and a garnish of crow. Bon appetit!
So why couldn't Fatheaded Ed have provided those reference page numbers? Where a reference is short, it is not necessary to give page numbers, but this reference is 74 pages of mostly fine print.
And you still haven't answered the question of why a report would have an appendix which so blatantly contradicts the findings of the report.
Skeptic magazine is going to look very foolish if it publishes Ed's article.
>>>So why couldn't Fatheaded Ed have provided those reference page numbers? Where a reference is short, it is not necessary to give page numbers, but this reference is 74 pages of mostly fine print.<<<
Because it is considered bad form to list so many pages. In that case, you do exactly what Ed did, mention that it occurs in multiple places (the rationale being that it breaks up the flow of text too much and isn't really necessary if it is so pervasive). By the way, almost all of those claims I looked up could be found in emails Ed had previously cited. And very little of that is fine print. If you think that standard print is fine print, that may explain why you appear to have less visual acuity than a blind mole rat.
>>>And you still haven't answered the question of why a report would have an appendix which so blatantly contradicts the findings of the report.<<<
Yes I did, you lying jackass. "Liar[s] lie, and most people ignore the supplemental information." Why do people quote mine and then cite or link to their sources? You've been caught doing that numerous times. Why do people claim in court under oath that they never talked about creationism, despite news reports, television interviews, and witnesses that all claim otherwise? Why would a school board pass around a letter from their solicitor that told them they would likely face and lose a lawsuit and claim that it said that they couldn't be sued, to the point of bringing it up in court on their own cognizance (thus losing any hope of maintaining privilege)?
In fact, isn't that exactly what you are accusing Ed of doing?
The answer, of course, is that they either don't understand the contents or they don't care about the truth. They just want to put spin out that supports their position, and the portion of the populace this report is directed at will never read the appendix or any of the criticisms of the report - in fact, they'll never even read the report, relying on the talking heads to tell them what to believe about the incident. This is the modus operandi of politicians everywhere - though the current batch of federal-level Republicans seem to have taken it to a new art form (not that the Democrats are much better, mind you).
>>>Skeptic magazine is going to look very foolish if it publishes Ed's article.<<<
Apparently Larry believes that printing a well-sourced, factual article will make magazines look foolish. The only one looking foolish is you, Larry.
> He (Ed) kicked me off his blog permanently because he disagreed with my literal interpretation of a federal court rule. <
That is just another repeated lie added onto the rapidly growing pile that manage to make it through the hat which is permanently lodged in your throat. We all know why you were banned by Ed as well as a great number of others.
Why did you ban VIW? Kevin is a far more more formidable opponent and you have kept him?
I can only conclude from the posts here that Larry wants to have his ass kicked by repeating his mindless and continuously disproven drivel. He also wants to be shown to be a liar, which happens consistently. Why this self-distructive behaviour? Isn't it obvious? Larry is a creation of the Evolution supporters made to discredit the opposition.
What other conclusion could there be?
I assure you, despite what it may look like, I am not engaging in Charlie McCarthyism. Larry is a real person, folks, and he really is as stupid as he sounds.
As far as VIW goes, I think he's on vacation.
Kevin Vicklund driveled,
>>>>> Because it is considered bad form to list so many pages. <<<<<<
"Bad form"? Who says? If Ed thought it was bad form, he could have listed just one or two.
>>>>>> By the way, almost all of those claims I looked up could be found in emails Ed had previously cited. And very little of that is fine print. <<<<<<
Wrong. A lot of Fatheaded Ed's claims were not in the emails that he cited.
>>>>>> Why do people quote mine and then cite or link to their sources? <<<<<<<
-- because of the expectation that most people will not bother to check hard-to-find sources, dunghill. But in the case of the Souder report, the sources are easy to find because they are attached directly to the report in the appendix.
>>>>>> You've been caught doing that numerous times. <<<<<<
Cite one example of where I have quote mined.
>>>>>> Why would a school board pass around a letter from their solicitor that told them they would likely face and lose a lawsuit and claim that it said that they couldn't be sued, to the point of bringing it up in court on their own cognizance (thus losing any hope of maintaining privilege)? <<<<<<
We never did find out exactly how that letter from the board's solicitor was leaked.
Anonymous driveled,
>>>>>> He (Ed) kicked me off his blog permanently because he disagreed with my literal interpretation of a federal court rule. <
That is just another repeated lie <<<<<<<
Wrong, dunghill. I have documented the exact place where Fatheaded Ed kicked me off his blog.
> Wrong, dunghill. I have documented the exact place where Fatheaded Ed kicked me off his blog. <
Wrong. The link does not show anything of the kind. Did you think nobody would check?
>>>Cite one example of where I have quote mined.<<<
Blum v. Stenson is the first instance I can think of, though it's probable there were others before then.
You also did it (or something very similar) on this very thread.
You cited the following passage from Ed's article as proof that Ed made unsubstantiated claims (though you were supposed to be pointing out where Ed was lying or exaggerating, which you have been desperately trying to evade):
"Sternberg was moved twice. First, as a part of the larger reorganization that involved a couple dozen people. In fact, they remodeled a room just to make sure he and another RA still had offices and workspace. Sternberg knew about and agreed to that move in July of 04, before the paper was even published, so there is simply no way to pretend that it was done in retaliation for anything. The second move, from invertebrate zoology to vertebrate zoology, was at Sternberg's request and he remains there to this day. As far as the keys are concerned, Sternberg had a master key, which would have gotten him into anything, including private offices. As part of a larger crackdown on lax security, master keys were restricted to those who really should have them, and RAs certainly did not qualify. But Sternberg still has access to everything he ever needed access to for his research, which was never limited in any way."
It was pointed out that those claims were factual (and you continued to dodge the question of where Ed lied and exaggerated) and you demanded a list of pages the claims appeared on, which I provided. The following exchange took place between the two of us:
>>>>>>>>>So why couldn't Fatheaded Ed have provided those reference page numbers?<<<<<<<<<
>>>>>>By the way, almost all of those claims I looked up could be found in emails Ed had previously cited.<<<<<<
>>>Wrong. A lot of Fatheaded Ed's claims were not in the emails that he cited.<<<
This is, in fact, a lie. In fact, look at the breakdown of the claims I provided. You will notice that every claim in the paragraph I quoted near the beginning of this comment can be found on page 36. Ed does, in fact, specifically cite page 36. And this is where we come full circle to the quote mine.
You see, you failed to quote the last sentence of the preceding paragraph. Unfortunately for you, this completely negates the claim you made about the paragraph you did quote. Here's the sentence:
"In an email in July of 2004 (p. 36), Sternberg is informed, along with several others, about this reorganization and told that they would have to move offices."
This, my mendacious moron, is what's known as a transition sentence. It ties two paragraphs together, appears at the end of the first paragraph, and applies to the second paragraph. I deliberately included a working example earlier in this post with my "full circle" sentence.
Not only did Ed provide a page citation to at least one of the emails for the claims in that paragraph, the citation Ed provided was specifically intende for that paragraph. Oh it doesn't stop there - one of the two claims in Ed's update which Larry also quoted can be found on page 36, another page (27) that some of the claims can be found in is cited earlier on, and a direct quote which is found on pages 48-49 (which supports most of the claims) is included - but it is sufficient to demonstrate that Larry's specific claims are indeed false.
Is Larry ever going to answer the question:
Where, specifically, did Ed lie or exaggerate in his Souder report?
append " article" to my last sentence
Kevin Vicklund driveled,
>>>>>> Blum v. Stenson is the first instance I can think of, though it's probable there were others before then. <<<<<
Dunghill, what I showed in Blum v. Stenson was that the decision was based not on what the Senate report itself said but on what was said in court decisions that were cited by the report! You call that "quote mining"?
>>>>>> This is, in fact, a lie. In fact, look at the breakdown of the claims I provided. You will notice that every claim in the paragraph I quoted near the beginning of this comment can be found on page 36. Ed does, in fact, specifically cite page 36. <<<<<<
That page number citation was in another paragraph. That was one of the few places that Ed gave a page number for something other than a direct quotation. Reading Ed's article should not be a guessing game. Because his source covers 74 pages, he should frequently cite page numbers.
You still haven't adequately explained why a report would have an appendix with references that contradict the findings in the report. There is no point in putting such references where they are so easy to find.
You cited Blum V. Stenson to the effect that there couldn't be different lawyer fee rates based on experience. Blum v. Stenson clearly indicates there can be multiple rates based on experience.
>>>That page number citation was in another paragraph.<<<
Ever heard of a transition sentence?
>>>You still haven't adequately explained why a report would have an appendix with references that contradict the findings in the report. There is no point in putting such references where they are so easy to find.<<<
The fact that you refuse to accept my explanation does not mean I have failed to adequately explain a fact. When government reports cite references, they must include any unpublished references in an attached Appendix. This is just like the old 9th Circuit Court Rule that required briefs that cited unpublished opinions to include the full opinion in an appendix.
If the question instead is "Why write a report where the appendix contradicts the report?" the classic courtroom drama response is "Objection. Asked and answered."
And I note that you still haven't supported the claim you made in the title of this post.
Where did Ed lie or exaggerate?
BTW,
>>>We never did find out exactly how that letter from the board's solicitor was leaked.<<<
What's this "we," Kemo Sabe?
Larry, have you ever considered maintaining a veneer of civility? Might even be good for the soul.
Question: Where does the Lone Ranger take his garbage?
Answer: To the dump, to the dump, to the dump-dump-dump!
Kevin Vicklund said,
>>>>> Ever heard of a transition sentence? <<<<<<
So the example I chose was not the best one -- there are many examples of inadequate or nonexistent referencing in Ed's article.
>>>>>> When government reports cite references, they must include any unpublished references in an attached Appendix. <<<<<<
That still does not excuse Ed's failure to give more citations of pages.
>>>>>> Where did Ed lie or exaggerate? <<<<<<
I borrowed the words "lie" and "exaggerate" from Ed's own post: ...." yes, we are already preparing to counter the lies and exaggerations in the film ["Expelled"]." And yes, Fatheaded Ed does lie and exaggerate quite often. This blog has dozens of posts describing his lies and exaggerations.
>>>>>>We never did find out exactly how that letter from the board's solicitor was leaked.
What's this "we," Kemo Sabe? <<<<<<
In this case, we are surrounded not by hostile Indians but by black-hatted baddies.
We never got the whole story about the solicitor's memo. Was it leaked directly to the public or the media? Was it leaked during a deposition? Why did the defense apparently give it to the plaintiffs? Why didn't the defense try to have the memo's attorney-client privilege restored? Why didn't Judge Jones explain how he got the memo? We never did get satisfactory answers to these questions.
> Fatheaded Ed does lie and exaggerate quite often. <
You seem to be the leader in lies and exaggeration.
> This blog has dozens of posts describing his lies and exaggerations. <
A more accurate statment is that this blog has dozens of articles with lies and exaggerations.
> We never did get satisfactory answers to these questions. <
Your inability to understand answers does not mean that they are not satisfactory to other more reasonable people.
Post a Comment
<< Home