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.

Monday, January 14, 2008

More censored comments from Wikipedia's Discovery Institute discussion page

My previous post has some of my censored comments that were posted on Wikipedia's Discovery Institute discussion page. Below are some more -- these comments are about Ding Elsberry's phony text comparison program that was used in a silly attempt to determine the extent to which the Dover opinion ID-as-science section had the same ideas as the ACLU's opening post-trial brief. The contexts of these comments are shown in this archived copy of the "text comparison" section of the discussion page. The arbitrariness, capriciousness, and irrelevancies of the Wikipedian control freaks' arguments are again apparent. Again, I get strong support from another commenter, Veritasjohn. The corresponding archived Discovery Institute article is here. The words in question are: "approved for use and considered authoritative in Federal court," from the following sentence in the "'Study' criticizing Judge Jones" section of the article:

A subsequent study performed by Wesley Elsberry, author of a text comparison program approved for use and considered authoritative in Federal court, on the section of the plaintiffs proposed findings of fact regarding whether ID is science with the section of the ruling on the same subject indicated that Judge Jones actually only incorporated 35% of the complete findings of fact and conclusions of law that the plaintiffs proposed that he incorporate, and only 66% of the section the DI criticized in particular, not the 90.9% the Discovery Institute claimed was copied in that section. (emphasis added)

The current version of the preceding section says,

A subsequent study was performed by Wesley Elsberry, author of the text comparison program that was partly responsible for the decision in the case and thus accepted in Federal court, on the section of the plaintiffs proposed findings of fact regarding whether ID is science compared to the section of the ruling on the same subject. This study indicated that only 38% of the complete ruling by Judge Jones actually incorporated the findings of fact and conclusions of law that the plaintiffs proposed that he incorporate, and only 66% of the section (on whether ID was science) incorporated the proposals, not the 90.9% the Discovery Institute claimed was copied in that section. Significantly, Judge Jones adopted only 48% of the plaintiffs’s proposed findings of fact for that section, and rejected 52%, clearly showing that he did not accept the section verbatim. (emphasis added)

Of course, there is no practical difference here between "approved for use and considered authoritative in Federal court" and "accepted in Federal court."

Here are the censored comments:

The text comparison cited in the court opinion required only a simple word-finding function, which even the simplest word-processing programs possess (i.e., the program counted the number of times "creation" or "creationism" appeared and the number of times that "intelligent design" was substituted). A simple word-finding function is trivial in comparison to your program's attempt to compare ideas of the opinion's ID-as-science section and the ACLU's "proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law " brief (a discussion of Elsberry's computerized comparison of the opinion and the ACLU brief is here). Using a computer program to compare ideas in two different texts is unreliable -- particularly when the program shows a low correlation -- because ideas can remain unchanged while substituting synonyms, inserting or deleting superfluous or non-essential words, paraphrasing text, and scrambling sentences and paragraphs. The only reliable way to compare the ideas in two different texts is by a side-by-side visual comparison of the two texts, and the Discovery Institute's report showed the two texts side by side for a visual comparison. The similarity of ideas in the opinion and the ACLU brief is readily apparent in this side-by-side comparison. BTW, I don't accept the DI's 90.9% text correlation figure either.

Your statement here that your program is "approved for use and considered authoritative in Federal court" is a gross misrepresentation. You failed to show that even a single judge ever accepted the results of your program for the purpose that you claimed here: a comparison of the ideas in two different texts as opposed to mere word-finding, which virtually any word-processing program can do. Furthermore, your statement "approved for use and considered authoritative in Federal court" implies approval by the entire federal court system whereas you have not shown approval by even a single federal judge. Also, your claims about federal Court approval of your own computer program represent a conflict of interest and self-promotion (WP:COI). No reliable neutral authority has verified your claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.117 (talk) 11:03, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

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

The present wording in the Wikipedia article, "author of the text comparison program that was partly responsible for the decision in the case and thus accepted in Federal court," is unacceptable. In the Kitzmiller case, Elsberry's program was used only for simple word finding and counting and was not used for the highly questionable purpose of comparing the ideas in two different texts as Elsberry did in comparing the opinion and the ACLU brief. Even the bare-bones Notepad program can find words (but can't count them). And there is no evidence that Judge Jones was even aware that Elsberry's program was used instead of a standard commercial word-processing program. There is no evidence that Jones formally "accepted" Elsberry's program for any purpose, let alone the purpose of comparing ideas in two different texts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.117 (talk) 18:40, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

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

It does not matter what the alleged capabilities of Elsberry's program are -- what matters is how the results of the program were used in the Kitzmiller decision, and even that does not matter if Jones assumed that some standard commercial word-processing program was used. The only results that were used were the word finding/counting results -- "cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID" (see above quote by Elsberry). Identical results could be obtained with the bare-bones Notepad program, except that the word counting would have to be done by hand. The exact word counts are not important -- the important thing is that words like "creationism" were completely replaced by "intelligent design." There is no evidence that Jones even implicitly accepted or approved Elsberry's program for any purpose whatsoever. It is ridiculous that these points even need to be argued -- they are self-evident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.68.248.69 (talk) 20:04, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

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

Elsberry said,
Since I never described my own work with the words in question, I fail to see how this discussion violates WP:COI. [Wikipedia's "Conflict of Interest" rule]

You never denied the program's description that was given in the Wikipedia article -- that you are the author and that the program "is approved for use and considered authoritative in Federal Court."
"author of the text comparison program used to determine the content and extent of copying between drafts of the 'intelligent design' textbook Of Pandas and People for the Kitzmiller v. DASD case" would be acceptable to most.

This new wording is not completely acceptable to me because the statement "determine . . . the extent of copying" is overhype -- all the program did in the case was just find words and count them. Even the bare-bones Notepad program has a word-finding function (though Notepad doesn't count words, a simple matter). There is no indication here that Judge Jones was even aware that Elsberry's program was used instead of a standard commercial word-processing program. However, I will drop the matter.

BTW, it is noteworthy that many of the DI study's critics who were cited in this Wikipedia article do not dispute the DI's claim of copying but only argue that the copying was not improper.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.117 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 29 August 2007

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

Veritasjohn said,
Perhaps Elsberry can provide some source that could be used to verify how the program was used?

It is already clear how the program was used in the Kitzmiller case -- it was used for the purpose of word finding and counting. As Elsberry quoted above, the Dover opinion said, "cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID."

Word finding and counting are such common features of word-processing programs that there is a very good chance that Judge Jones was unaware that the plaintiffs were using Elsberry's program instead of a standard commercial word-processing program (I am taking Elsberry's word for it that the plaintiffs used his program). One thing is certain -- Jones did not accept or approve Elsberry's program for the purpose of comparing ideas in two different texts as Elsberry did in comparing the Kitzmiller opinion and the ACLU's "proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law" brief. So we can forget about that idea right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.117 (talk) 00:13, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

.

Labels:

26 Comments:

Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

Since we have demonstrated that Wesley's program was not used in the way you claimed it was used, and that it can and did do the things you claimed it couldn't do, why are you reminding us of your false claims?

Larry lies thusly:

>>>Elsberry's program was used only for simple word finding and counting and was not used for the highly questionable purpose of comparing the ideas in two different texts as Elsberry did in comparing the opinion and the ACLU brief.<<<

This is in fact opposite of how the program was used. Wesley's program was not used for simple word finding and counting (a word processor was used instead), but rather for the purpose of comparing the ideas in several different texts. Specifically, it demonstrated that the definition of creationism in pre-Edwards drafts was the same as the definition of intelligent design in post-Edwards drafts. His program was able to show that the content "remain[ed] unchanged while substituting synonyms, inserting or deleting superfluous or non-essential words, paraphrasing text, and scrambling sentences and paragraphs."

Jones said that this "compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiff's assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled."

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 6:26:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> Of course, there is no practical difference here between "approved for use and considered authoritative in Federal court" and "accepted in Federal court." <

Of course there is you mindless cretin. If there weren't, you wouldn't be braying about it.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:26:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Kevin, you lousy dunghill, I am tired of going over this over and over. Here is what the Dover opinion says (pages 32-33):

As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards , which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science . By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE's argument that by merely disregarding the words "creation" and "creationism," FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas. In early pre-Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term "creation" was defined as "various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc," the very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions.

Judge Jones is dumb, but he's not dumb enough to use a text comparison computer program to compare the definitions of "creationism" and "intelligent design" in two different texts -- he made a visual comparison, as shown above. Also, the opinion does not say what program was used to find and count the occurrences of the phrase "intelligent design" and the cognates of the word "creation," and it does not matter anyway because nearly any word-processing program can do it (even the comparatively primitive Wordpad and Notepad programs).
We don't even know if a computer program was used, because the task is so simple that you don't even need a computer program to do it. In fact, if the texts are only on paper copies, using a computer program actually makes the job harder because the texts must first be scanned into a computer.

As for Jones' statement "without corresponding change in content," the Dover opinion does not say how he determined that there was no corresponding change in content. It would have been very foolish of him to depend on an unknown computer program to determine that.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 11:01:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Larry's constant crowing about "censorship" is a red herring. According to Wikipedia's Banning policy banned editors are not allowed to comment or in any way participate on article talk pages, and those who evade their ban are to have their comments deleted, thereby removing the incentive to evade the ban.

The "censored" comments Larry's on about here were made by User:63.215.27.117 who it turns out is Larry using a sock puppet to avoid his ban.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 11:13:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> Larry's constant crowing about "censorship" is a red herring. According to Wikipedia's Banning policy banned editors are not allowed to comment or in any way participate on article talk pages, and those who evade their ban are to have their comments deleted, thereby removing the incentive to evade the ban. <<<<<

That is censorship, you worthless sack of shit!

Also, idiot, the IP address is never a reliable way of identifying the individual who posted something.

Why should I give a shit about Wickedpedia's bans? I could announce a policy that any comment here that I do not agree with is going to be deleted.

Anyway, I've exposed the shenanigans of the Wickedpedian control freaks, and that is what counts.

I think that maybe I am going to introduce a new policy of temporary deletions -- I will just remove offensive comments for a few days or weeks to give you lousy jerks a taste of what it feels like. Since I would eventually be restoring the comments, that wouldn't really be censorship, would it?

May terrible hell make war on your spotted soul.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 11:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> Kevin, you lousy dunghill, I am tired of going over this over and over. <

Yes, Kevin. Isn't is obvious by now that it is over Larry's head? (Most things are.)

> That is censorship, you worthless sack of shit! <

See. He doesn't even know what censorship is although he practices it while pretending to rail against it. It all depends on whose ox is gored.

> Also, idiot, the IP address is never a reliable way of identifying the individual who posted something. <

No, cretin. You are always identified by your charactaristic mindless ranting. You can not get rid of your smell.

> Why should I give a shit about Wickedpedia's bans? <

Yes. Why do you?

> I could announce a policy that any comment here that I do not agree with is going to be deleted. <

Yet you only delete a small minority, otherwise there would not be anything left on the blog.

> Anyway, I've exposed the shenanigans of the Wickedpedian control freaks, and that is what counts. <

No. You have just made a fool of yourself, as usual.

> I think that maybe I am going to introduce a new policy of temporary deletions -- I will just remove offensive comments for a few days or weeks to give you lousy jerks a taste of what it feels like. <

You are already doing this. What happened to ViW?

> Since I would eventually be restoring the comments, that wouldn't really be censorship, would it? <

Yes. It would. I suggest that you find a dictionary at your local library and look up censorship. You can use Mapquest to find one. Just put in Library and give your zip code of 90016 (Oh! I forgot. I don't know you.)

> May terrible hell make war on your spotted soul. <

He is definitely getting worse.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 2:41:00 PM  
Blogger Olorin said...

Larry F's contentions are irrelevant in any event. If Judge Jones felt that 95.6% the plaintiffs proposed facts were proved, and conclusions of law are correct, then he will use 95.6% of them. If he felt that 11.9% were shown then he'd use 11.9%.

Too bad Wesley didn't analyze the defendants' proposed facts and conclusions. I'd be fairly certain that that percentage would hover around 0.0%.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 4:56:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Olorin said,
>>>>> Larry F's contentions are irrelevant in any event. <<<<<<

No, they are not irrelevant. The issues I was debating above are (1) whether Ding Elsberry's program or any computer program can reliably determine the extent to which two different texts have the same ideas and (2) whether Judge Jones or any federal judge ever officially accepted Ding Elsberry's program for the purpose of making that kind of determination. Whether or not it was proper of Judge Jones to nearly entirely copy the Dover opinion's ID-as-science section from the ACLU's opening post-trial brief is another matter entirely.

>>>>> If Judge Jones felt that 95.6% the plaintiffs proposed facts were proved, and conclusions of law are correct, then he will use 95.6% of them. If he felt that 11.9% were shown then he'd use 11.9%. <<<<<<

I didn't discuss that issue in the above post, but I will discuss it here.

Both the plaintiffs and defendants submitted opening post-trial briefs and answering post-trial briefs. The ideas in the Dover opinion's ID-as-science section were virtually entirely copied from just the plaintiffs' first opening post-trial brief (the plantiffs' opening post-trial brief was actually in two parts -- the first part was what Jones copied from) while ignoring the other post-trial briefs. There was no evidence that Jones even read any post-trial brief other than the one that he copied from. If the defendants' arguments were really bad, all the more reason to address them in order to refute them. Jones did not even need to do any independent thinking in countering the defendants' arguments -- he could have copied the counterarguments in the plaintiffs' answering post-trial brief.

Actually, on this issue of copying, I have been more generous towards Jones than the Discovery Institute was. Unlike me, the Discovery Institute appeared to fault Jones for not doing any independent thinking in the ID-as-science section. I have expressly said that doing nothing but copying is OK with me so long as it is even-handed.

The Discovery Institute at least deserves a lot of credit for discovering and documenting Jones' one-sided copying.

Probably the reason for Jones one-sided copying was that he knew -- because of the changeover in the school board -- that the case would probably not be appealed, so he knew that arguments in the defendants' post-trial briefs would probably not be raised in an appeal.

>>>>> Too bad Wesley didn't analyze the defendants' proposed facts and conclusions. I'd be fairly certain that that percentage would hover around 0.0%. <<<<<<

Right -- and therein lies the problem.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 5:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> I have expressly said that doing nothing but copying is OK with me so long as it is even-handed.<

You want the losing side to be given equal time with the winning side in the written decision?

What a dunghill.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 7:15:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

I said "even-handed," not "equal time," you stupid fathead.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 7:47:00 PM  
Blogger Olorin said...

First, your "post-trial briefs" are actually called "proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law." If the plaintiffs had proved every fact in their proposed findings, then the judge could copy the whole thing, and that would be almost his entire decision. Same for the defendants. Proposed findings are designed to be cut and pasted. In Kitzmiller, the defs actually went a little farther, using phrases such as "This court finds that ... blah blah blah," so the judge could use items without even grammatical changes. But he didn't, did he?

The only thing copying a point from one of them means is that the judge agrees with that point. You can bet your bottom ribosome that the Dishonesty Institute would crow to high heaven if Jones had copied any of their proposed findings.

But he didn't. If you read the transcripts of the testimony, you'll see why. The defendants did not successfully controvert any of the plaintiffs' witnesses' points---nothing at all. On the other hand, plaintiffs not only demolished defendants' witnesses, but demonstrated that a number of them were lying, misleading, or trying to avoid the question. Thus Jones' comment that some of their testimony was "disingenuous at best."

Get over it.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 8:02:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> First, your "post-trial briefs" are actually called "proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law." <<<<<<

They are called all kinds of things, e.g., Defendants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Defendants' Proposed Rebuttal Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, etc.. So for simplicity and brevity, I just call them all "the plaintiffs' and defendants' opening and answering post-trial briefs."

>>>>>> If the plaintiffs had proved every fact in their proposed findings, then the judge could copy the whole thing, and that would be almost his entire decision. Same for the defendants. <<<<<<

Wrong. The judge must show that the plaintiffs or defendants proved every fact or enough facts. Judges are not supposed to get any credit for things they don't write.

>>>>>> Proposed findings are designed to be cut and pasted. <<<<<<

So what?

>>>>>In Kitzmiller, the defs actually went a little farther, <<<<<<

Who are the "defs"?

>>>>> using phrases such as "This court finds that ... blah blah blah," so the judge could use items without even grammatical changes. But he didn't, did he? <<<<<<

He did copy some sentences verbatim, but as I said, I don't hold the copying -- per se -- against him. What I hold against him is the one-sidedness of the copying. I have made all of this very clear, and I am getting tired of repeating myself.

>>>>> The only thing copying a point from one of them means is that the judge agrees with that point. <<<<<<

Not necessarily. A judge could copy a point for the purpose of rebutting it.

>>>>>> You can bet your bottom ribosome that the Dishonesty Institute would crow to high heaven if Jones had copied any of their proposed findings. <<<<<<<

The "Dishonesty Institute" was not the legal representative of the defendants -- the Thomas More Law Center was. All the Discovery Institute did was submit an amicus brief (actually two, if the 85-scientists' amicus brief co-authored by a DI fellow is counted) and provide some expert witnesses for the defendants.

>>>>>> But he didn't. If you read the transcripts of the testimony, you'll see why. The defendants did not successfully controvert any of the plaintiffs' witnesses' points---nothing at all. <<<<<<

As I said, judges don't get any credit for things they don't say in their written opinions. Furthermore, post-trial briefs do not have to rely exclusively on the courtroom testimony.

>>>>> Get over it. <<<<<<

When are you Darwinists going to get over the following facts, just for starters:

(1) The Dover opinion's ID-as-science section was ghostwritten by the ACLU and ghostwriting of an opinion by one side in a court case is frowned upon by the courts.

(2) Judge Jones showed extreme hostility towards the Dover defendants by saying in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his Dover decision was based on his notion that the Founders based the establishment clause on a belief that organized religions are not "true" religions.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 10:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> Judges are not supposed to get any credit for things they don't write. <

It isn't a matter of credit, cretin. The judge followed normal judicial practice, something of which you are totally ignorant.

>>>>>> Proposed findings are designed to be cut and pasted. <<<<<<

> So what? <

So they can be cut and pasted, dunghill.

>>>>>In Kitzmiller, the defs actually went a little farther, <<<<<<

> Who are the "defs"? <

Hello! Is anybody in there?

> I don't hold the copying -- per se -- against him. What I hold against him is the one-sidedness of the copying. <

If the defs had proved any of their points, he might have copied some of their material. They didn't.

> I have made all of this very clear <

Repetition of failed arguments does not make anything clear.

> and I am getting tired of repeating myself. <

Then stop. You are only making an ass of yourself.

> A judge could copy a point for the purpose of rebutting it. <

There is no point in bringing up a failed point.

> ghostwriting of an opinion by one side in a court case is frowned upon by the courts. <

False. Using proposed findings of the winning side is common court procedure, something you know no more of than other points of the law.

> Judge Jones showed extreme hostility towards the Dover defendants by saying ... <

Stating something relevant to why a side lost does not show "extreme hostility". Besides, we have made it quite clear that you are misinterpreting that statement. How many times does it have to be repeated?

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 2:39:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

As the saying goes, don't feed the trolls.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 2:50:00 AM  
Blogger Olorin said...

Larry said (January 15, 2008 10:07:00 PM): "I don't hold the copying -- per se -- against him. What I hold against him is the one-sidedness of the copying. I have made all of this very clear, and I am getting tired of repeating myself."

When one side proves all the facts listed in its Proposed Findings, and the other side proves none, then the copying will be one-sided. This is exactly what happened in Kitzmiller. I'm getting tired of repeating myself as well.

As Richard Dawkins once said, "When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity,
the truth does not necessarily lie halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong."

If you're from Missouri, Larry, you must be from the corner that lies just barely over the state line from Oz.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 8:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Larry Fafarman said...

As the saying goes, don't feed the trolls.

So does that mean you are going on a diet? ZING!

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 9:24:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 9:31:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous, you went too far by posting street address information about me, whether that information is correct or not. That kind of information potentially exposes me to a strong possibility of harm or harassment.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 9:48:00 AM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>Both the plaintiffs and defendants submitted opening post-trial briefs and answering post-trial briefs.<<<

To the peanut gallery: post-trial briefs is an appropriate term.

>>>The ideas in the Dover opinion's ID-as-science section were virtually entirely copied from just the plaintiffs' first opening post-trial brief (the plantiffs' opening post-trial brief was actually in two parts -- the first part was what Jones copied from) while ignoring the other post-trial briefs.<<<

Even by the DI's standards, over 9 of the 36 page section did not come from the PPFoF. That equates to about 3 pages of text. The conclusion that Jones ignored the other briefs is not warranted without comparing the section to the other briefs.

>>>There was no evidence that Jones even read any post-trial brief other than the one that he copied from.<<<

Nor is there evidence that Jones read the one he copied from, unless you compare the decision to the brief. Therefore, you must compare the decision to the other briefs in order to reach that conclusion.

>>>If the defendants' arguments were really bad, all the more reason to address them in order to refute them.<<<

And amazingly enough, if you look at the portions he didn't copy, he does address the defendant's arguments, at least those from the reply brief. I'm not masochistic enough to wade through the grammatical morass that is the DPFoF. The methodology of the DI tends to obscure the times Jones addresses the arguments from the reply brief. The reason? The DI did their analysis on a paragraph by paragraph basis - if part of a paragraph could be attributed to the PPFoF, the DI counted the whole paragraph in its word count. But if Jones addressed the defendants rebuttals in the same paragraph as he used the plaintiffs argument that was being unsuccessfully rebutted, the DI methodology wouldn't recognize that as a separate source.

>>>Jones did not even need to do any independent thinking in countering the defendants' arguments -- he could have copied the counterarguments in the plaintiffs' answering post-trial brief.<<<

Oh, guess what? He did that too.

Of course, you wouldn't know this, because you refuse to actually compare the other briefs to the decision.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:41:00 AM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>Anonymous, you went too far by posting street address information about me, whether that information is correct or not. That kind of information potentially exposes me to a strong possibility of harm or harassment.<<<

I agree with Larry here. Posting this kind of information is inappropriate and serves no legitimate purpose.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:44:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Kevin said (January 16, 2008 10:41:00 AM ) --
>>>>>>Even by the DI's standards, over 9 of the 36 page section did not come from the PPFoF. That equates to about 3 pages of text. <<<<<<

What? Make up your mind -- is it 9 pages of text or 3 pages of text?

The DI said that about 9.1% (100% minus 90.9%) of the ID-as-science section came from the ACLU's opening PPFoF. IMO even that 9.1% figure is generous, because the end of the ID-as-science section had a long summary that did not introduce any ideas that had not already been covered.

>>>>> And amazingly enough, if you look at the portions he didn't copy, he does address the defendant's arguments, at least those from the reply brief. <<<<<

With 90.9% (higher by my estimation) of the ID-as-science section coming from the ACLU's opening post-trial brief, there is not much room for anything else.

>>>>> The DI did their analysis on a paragraph by paragraph basis -- if part of a paragraph could be attributed to the PPFoF, the DI counted the whole paragraph in its word count. <<<<<<

My impression in going through the DI's side-by-side comparison (Table D here) was that usually the paragraphs that were included in the word count were complete virtual copies of the ACLU brief.

>>>>> But if Jones addressed the defendants rebuttals in the same paragraph as he used the plaintiffs argument that was being unsuccessfully rebutted, the DI methodology wouldn't recognize that as a separate source. <<<<<<

A lot of judicial opinions eliminate confusion by saying that the plaintiff's (or appellant's or petitioner's) brief said this and that the defendant's (or appellee's or respondent's) brief said that, or that an amicus brief said this, or my own independent opinion is this, or whatever. There is no guessing game for the reader. The Dover opinion's ID-as-science section is just a mindless unattributed rehash of the ACLU's opening post-trial brief. Judge Jones is an incompetent who has no business being on the bench. He should go back to his old job of state liquor commissioner, which is better suited to his limited talents. I like Barry A.'s definition of a federal judge: "a lawyer who knows a senator."

Anyway, please note that our discussion here is off-topic -- the main topics in this post are (1) my Wikipedia discussion-page criticisms of the ridiculous claims made about Ding Elsberry's stupid text comparison program and (2) the Wickedpedians' censorship of those criticisms ( also, the time that has been spent arguing about Ding Elsberry's program would have been much better spent discussing the side-by-side text comparison in the Discovery Institute's report ). Also, my previous post's topic -- of which this post is partly a continuation -- is Wickedpedian censorship of a link to the Discovery Institute's rebuttal of Wickedpedian criticism of a DI report. You folks are trying to distract attention from the egregious Wickedpedian censorship by introducing off-topic issues.

Also, to me the whole ID-as-science section is moot because IMO the ID-as-science question is non-justiciable.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1:33:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Olorin said (January 16, 2008 8:23:00 AM) --
>>>> When one side proves all the facts listed in its Proposed Findings, and the other side proves none, then the copying will be one-sided. <<<<<<

But then the opinion shows no proof that the other side proved none of its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Those unproven proposed findings and conclusions could be raised in an appeal and the opinion would have no answer. As I said, it is probable that Jones wrote the opinion the way he did because he knew that an appeal was unlikely.

>>>>> As Richard Dawkins once said, "When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong." <<<<<<

Duh. And that is supposed to be a gem of wisdom?

Oftentimes there is no truth -- there are just opinions.

>>>>> If you're from Missouri, Larry, you must be from the corner that lies just barely over the state line from Oz. <<<<<

And you are the scarecrow who needs a brain.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1:54:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>What? Make up your mind -- is it 9 pages of text or 3 pages of text?<<<

The percent sign must have been dropped when I edited "almost 10%" to "over 9"%. I note that you make a similar mistake in your very next sentence (should be "didn't come"):

>>>The DI said that about 9.1% (100% minus 90.9%) of the ID-as-science section came from the ACLU's opening PPFoF. IMO even that 9.1% figure is generous, because the end of the ID-as-science section had a long summary that did not introduce any ideas that had not already been covered.<<<

And that section adresses some of the arguments brought up in the defendants reply brief. Of course, you wouldn't know, since you can't be bothered to actually read it.

>>>With 90.9% (higher by my estimation) of the ID-as-science section coming from the ACLU's opening post-trial brief, there is not much room for anything else.<<<

And what if the reply briefs didn't contain much content? Two quick question for you. How long is the ID-as-science section in the plaintiffs reply brief? How much of those estimated 3 pages would need to be taken up to include the points made?

>>>My impression in going through the DI's side-by-side comparison (Table D here) was that usually the paragraphs that were included in the word count were complete virtual copies of the ACLU brief.<<<

And my detailed analysis shows that the DI missed 12 places where a sentence-by-sentence comparison shows that these ideas were not taken from the Pepper-Hamilton brief. Further investigation of these and the ones the DI did manage to identify show that a great deal of them deal with the arguments presented in the TMLC reply brief. Of course, you wouldn't know that because you haven't bothered to actually read the reply briefs, have you?

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 2:37:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Kevin said,
>>>>> The percent sign must have been dropped when I edited "almost 10%" to "over 9"%. I note that you make a similar mistake in your very next sentence (should be "didn't come"): <<<<<<

So we're even. At least my mistake is excusable because I get flustered and exasperated because of all the crap that you and others throw at me.

>>>>> And that section adresses some of the arguments brought up in the defendants reply brief. <<<<<<

So what's maybe two or three sentences out of a 6000 word section?

>>>>> And my detailed analysis shows that the DI missed 12 places where a sentence-by-sentence comparison shows that these ideas were not taken from the Pepper-Hamilton brief. <<<<<<

So what are those 12 places? Could you show them here so we could debate them? Maybe all or some of them don't really show any independent thinking after all.

>>>>>> Further investigation of these and the ones the DI did manage to identify show that a great deal of them deal with the arguments presented in the TMLC reply brief. <<<<<<

The burden of proof is on you to show that a great deal of them deal with the arguments presented in the TMLC reply brief. Why should I go on a wild goose chase to try to prove your point? Anyway, if Jones was responding to the TMLC reply brief, he should have said so.

What happened to Elsberry's program? I thought that program proved conclusively that only 66% of the opinion's ID-as-science section was copied from the ACLU's opening post-trial brief.

And you're still ducking the Wickedpedia censorship issue.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Y'know Larry, the further you descend into the cloacae, the more you sound like canis distemperus mit eine bischen piezzo di cabeza loca. Sad really; but we now know that Darwin was wrong: sometimes the corpore insana still survive.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 4:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> whether that information is correct or not. <

I guess you are saying that it was correct.

> At least my mistake is excusable because I get flustered and exasperated because of all the crap that you and others throw at me. <

You are the one posting crap. We are just pointing out the source of the smell.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 9:14:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home