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, May 10, 2008

9th Circuit wrong about parodies and satires in fair use cases



"O, Reason not the need!"
-- King Lear in Shakespeare's play "King Lear"

"Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness."
-- Anti-Defamation League's denunciation of "Expelled"

According to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the above cartoon would not be fair use of Shakespeare's "King Lear" because the cartoon is not a commentary about the play but is a commentary about something else. Another example would be my satirical use of the "best butter" story from the Mad Hatter's Tea Party in Alice in Wonderland (example: judges are not supposed to give legal advice to litigants but Judge Jones' legal advice was OK because it was the "best" legal advice).

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

Note: These discussions of parody v. satire may be of limited usefulness in the Yoko Ono v. Expelled case because these discussions are mainly about complete works whereas the "Expelled" movie uses just a few seconds -- about 15 -- of "Imagine." However, this issue of parody v. satire could nonetheless arise in the case.

An article titled "Unfair Use: The Lack of Fair Use Protection for Satire under § 107 of the Copyright Act" by Adriana Collado, in the June 2004 issue of the Journal of Technology Law & Policy says,

Modern application of the Fair Use Doctrine to parody and satire has been shaped by two cases: Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. [21] and Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. Penguin Books USA, Inc.[22]

I discussed Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994), a Supreme Court decision (as indicated by "U.S."), in recent preceding posts ("Issue in Yoko v. Expelled: parody v. satire" and "Parody v. satire II: Footnote 14 of Campbell is the key"). Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. Penguin Books USA, Inc.109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997) is, as indicated, a 9th Circuit decision.

The article continues,
.
The [Supreme] Court examined the Fair Use Doctrine carefully, and rejected the notion that any one of the fair use factors, by itself, would create a presumption against fair use. [40] In doing so, the Court seemingly left the door open for fair use protection for satiric works. That door was slammed shut by the Ninth Circuit, however, in Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. Penguin Books USA, Inc.[41] [p70] . . . . .

Although the Ninth Circuit cited Campbell when deciding Dr. Seuss, it did not follow Campbell’s interpretation of the Fair Use Doctrine. [42] In deciding whether the appellants’ use was fair, the circuit court based its ruling on the fact the appellants’ creation was a satire, not a parody.[43]

Note: the article and the Dr. Seuss decision define "parody" as something that ridicules the original work and "satire" as something that ridicules something else -- definitions that I disputed in my previous articles on the subject.

The summary of the Dr. Seuss decision says (the summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted C 1994 by Barclays Law Publishers),

[10] The parodist is permitted a fair use of a copyrighted work if it takes no more than is necessary to "recall" or "conjure up" the object of the parody. The critical issue was whether The Cat NOT in the Hat! was a parody. [11] Parody must target the original, not just its general style, the genre to which it belongs, or society as a whole. (numbers are item numbers, not footnote numbers)

As for the statements in bold above, the Supreme Court in Campbell says nothing of the kind, as I showed in my two preceding posts on the issue, and Collado's article agrees that Campbell says nothing of the kind.

The court's opinion itself says in Dr. Seuss,
The [Supreme] Court pointed out [in Campbell] the difference between parody (in which the copyrighted work is the target) and satire (in which the copyrighted work is merely a vehicle to poke fun at another target): "Parody needs to mimic an original to make its point, and so has some claim to use the creation of its victim's (or collective victims') imagination, whereas satire can stand on its own two feet and so requires justification for the very act of borrowing."

Wrong, wrong, wrong. For starters, the Dr. Seuss opinion's above interpretation of the Campbell opinion's statememt is wrong. Furthermore, as I showed in my previous posts, the Supreme Court's interpretations of the meanings of "parody" and "satire" are wrong. The only clear difference between "parody" and "satire" is that "parody" is always an imitation of another work. Both a parody and a satire that is an exact copy of the borrowed work can poke fun at the borrowed work, another target, or both. Anyway, this distinction between parodies or satires that ridicule the borrowed work and those that ridicule only something else is arbitrary, capricious, vague, nitpicking, stupid, and just plain wrong. The titles of two expert legal treatises on the subject, "The Satire/Parody Distinction in Copyright and Trademark Law -- Can Satire Ever be a Fair Use?" (an American Bar Association report) and "Unfair Use: The Lack of Fair Use Protection for Satire under § 107 of the Copyright Act," show that there is considerable alarm over the courts' applications of the fair use law to parodies and satires.

Also, it is surprising that the Dr. Seuss decision was published, considering that it is not a final decision but is only an interlocutory decision on a preliminary injunction:

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction prohibiting the publication and distribution of the infringing work.

The stupidity of the 9th Circuit judges here is no surprise to me -- what can be expected of a bunch of incompetent buffoons who in my lawsuit against the unconstitutional California "smog impact fee" could not understand the simple argument that the state lost its federal-court tax-suit immunity by "[leaving] the sphere that is exclusively its own" (Parden v. Terminal Railway, 377 U.S. 184 (1964)) by basing the fee entirely on the state's special status under federal auto emissions laws and regulations. An expert later testified in state court that the fee required the approval of the US Environmental Protection Agency! And those idiots failed to dismiss a California lawsuit that clearly belonged in the DC Circuit court of appeals.

Here are some excerpts from the book "The Cat NOT in the hat." IMO these excerpts show a lot of creativity and originality and I find them amusing. Also, some definitions of "parody" say that a parody can be merely humorous and not necessarily mocking. "JUICE" is from the fictitious author of the book, "Dr. Juice," an imitation of "Dr. Seuss," where "juice" comes from O.J. Simpson's initials, sometimes interpreted as "orange juice."

A happy town
Inside L.A.
Where rich folks play
The day away.

But under the moon
The 12th of June.
Two victims flail
Assault! Assail!
Somebody will go to jail!

Who will it be?
Oh my! Oh me!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A plea went out to Rob Shapiro
Can you save the fallen hero?
And Marcia Clark, hooray, hooray
Was called in with a justice play.

A man this famous
Never hires
Lawyers like
Jacoby-Meyers.
When you're accused of a killing scheme
You need to build a real Dream Team.

Cochran! Cochran!
Doodle-doo
Johnnie, won't you join the crew?
Cochran! Cochran!
Deedle-dee
The Dream Team needs a victory.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hmm. . . take the word JUICE.
Then add ST.
Between the U and I, you see.
And then you have JUSTICE.
Or maybe you don't.
Maybe we will.
And maybe we won't.
`Cause if the Cat didn't do it?
Then who? Then who?
Was it him?
Was it her?
Was it me?
Was it you?
Oh me! Oh my!
Oh my! Oh me!
The murderer is running free.

IMO the main considerations in fair use cases should be: (1) the risk of "market substitution" and (2) "tarnishment," as defined as "a form of trademark dilution in which a junior mark’s similarity to a famous mark causes consumers to mistakenly associate the famous mark with the junior user’s inferior product or service," 74 Am. Jur. 2d Trademarks and Tradenames § 116.

This could be the only blog on the Internet that has done much legal analysis of the Yoko Ono suit. The Darwinist blogs mostly just say that the "Expelled" producers robbed Yoko.
.

Labels:

17 Comments:

Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

More proof that Larry is delusional. As usual, he has no understanding of what he reads. When it comes to the subject of Law, this goes double.

As for definitions, he has already admitted that he makes his own.

The rant follows up with repetition and proof of his misunderstanding of the "best butter" story and then his repeated lie about Judge Jones giving legal advice to defendants.

Larry, repetition of long since shreaded arguments and misstatements does not constitute additional proof.

Stop digging. You are beginning to bore people.

Saturday, May 10, 2008 11:39:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> As for definitions, he has already admitted that he makes his own. <<<<<<

No, you stupid dunghill, the courts made their own definitions -- I just followed the definitions in the dictionaries.

>>>>>> The rant follows up with repetition and proof of his misunderstanding of the "best butter" story and then his repeated lie about Judge Jones giving legal advice to defendants. <<<<<<

You feeble-minded beetlebrain, even your idol Fatheaded Ed Brayton claimed that Judge "Jackass" Jones gave legal advice to the defendants -- but Ed thought that was OK because it was the "best" kind of legal advice. Anyway, whether or not that particular example of Judge Jones is a good example of a "best butter" satire is not relevant to the point I was making here, and that point was that the 9th circuit was wrong to rule that satires that only ridicule something other than the copied work cannot ever be considered to be fair use (and those legal treatises I cited agree with that point).

>>>>> You are beginning to bore people. <<<<<<

You think that you don't bore people, you stupid sack of &*^*$@ ? You have been doing your best to sabotage this blog so that quality readers won't want to come here.

Your comments are so inane that I am afraid that other readers suspect that you are just a sockpuppet feeding me lines (i.e., the other readers think that I am practicing Charlie McCarthyism).

Saturday, May 10, 2008 12:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>>>> You are beginning to bore people. <<<<<<

You think that you don't bore people, you stupid sack of &*^*$@ ? You have been doing your best to sabotage this blog so that quality readers won't want to come here.

Actually, ViU is completely correct: you are amazingly boring for a deluded psycho. As an aside, your infatuation with the question of parody and satire is revealing some obsessive-compulsive symptoms. Too bad I never took a course in psychology, it would be fun to guess what ails you. Anyway, back to topic: his comments and those of a couple other quality commentators are the only thing keeping me here, given your tasteless and baseless posts. Quality readers? You have to write quality posts to get them -- you are a long way off.

Saturday, May 10, 2008 1:20:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> As an aside, your infatuation with the question of parody and satire is revealing some obsessive-compulsive symptoms. <<<<<<

You stupid fathead, I am not the one who is obsessed with the question of parody and satire -- the courts are. Like those two legal treatises I cited, I am only responding to the courts' obsession. I have consistently maintained that any differences between parodies and satires do not matter so far as fair use is concerned.

>>>>> his comments and those of a couple other quality commentators are the only thing keeping me here, given your tasteless and baseless posts. <<<<<<

You are kept here by breathtakingly inane comments?

Saturday, May 10, 2008 2:02:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

BTW, the Supreme Court said in Campbell,

If, on the contrary, the commentary has no critical bearing on the substance or style of the original composition, which the alleged infringer merely uses to get attention or to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh, the claim to fairness in borrowing from another's work diminishes accordingly (if it does not vanish), and other factors, like the extent of its commerciality, loom larger. (emphasis added)

So Campbell only says that when "the commentary has no critical bearing on the substance or style of the original composition," then "the claim to fairness in borrowing from another's work" only "diminishes," and -- contrary to the Dr. Seuss decision's misinterpretation of Campbell -- Campbell does not say that the claim to fairness then necessarily disappear entirely.

Saturday, May 10, 2008 4:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Hector said...

> No, you stupid dunghill, the courts made their own definitions -- I just followed the definitions in the dictionaries. <

You previously paraphrased Lewis Carrol "a word means exactly what I say it means, nothing more, nothing less.

You cannot show where Judge Jones gave legal advice so you try to beg the question by misrepresenting what Ed Brayton said.

Your posts are so inane that I am afraid that other readers suspect that you are just a foil for Ed Brayton. They may believe that you make a fool of yourself just to discredit the creationists' cause.

Actually people, he really believes the crap that he is spouting.

What is probably driving out the largest number of readers is your inability to raise your comments above the third grade level. Nobody is going to take anyone seriously anyone whose only tactics are insults and mindless repetition.

Saturday, May 10, 2008 5:43:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> You previously paraphrased Lewis Carrol "a word means exactly what I say it means, nothing more, nothing less. <<<<<

I did? I can't recall doing that.

>>>>> You cannot show where Judge Jones gave legal advice so you try to beg the question by misrepresenting what Ed Brayton said. <<<<<

No, I did not misrepresent what Fatheaded Ed said. Here is exactly what he said:

(from board minutes)Board president Reinking noted that legal counsel advised the board that the trial is over and can not change the outcome of any vote.

This is the same position, by the way, that was taken by everyone involved in the case, including the attorneys for both sides. It's the same position taken by the Judge in the case. It's the same position taken by every legal scholar who addressed the issue. There was virtually no chance that the case would be mooted.


The board minutes' statement was misworded -- it should have been "a board vote cannot change the outcome of the trial" -- not vice-versa. That statement -- which Ed said was supported by Judge Jones -- is legal advice by any definition, because that statement helped persuade the board to not repeal the ID policy prior to the release of the decision. Whether you think that this legal advice was the "best" kind of legal advice (like the March Hare's putting the "best butter" in a watch) is immaterial -- it was still legal advice and judges are not supposed to give legal advice to litigants.

What Jones actually said was that the board election results would not affect his decision -- but because the only way the election results could possibly affect his decision was by repeal of the ID policy prior to judgment, he was essentially saying that repeal of the ID policy would not affect his decision.

Trying to argue with Darwinists makes me feel like I am trying to spoonfeed an uncooperative baby who keeps knocking the spoon away and spattering the food and making a big mess.

Saturday, May 10, 2008 7:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>>>I have consistently maintained that any differences between parodies and satires do not matter so far as fair use is concerned.

To borrow your words: You stupid dunghill, you missed my point completely. You haven't shown that the issue of parody/satire is relevant to this case. Proof of your obsession with this topic: three posts (the last three, if I remember) after it came up in a comment on an earlier thread.

Saturday, May 10, 2008 7:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually it's four posts in three days -- further evidence of my point about Larry's latest obsession.

Saturday, May 10, 2008 7:34:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> You haven't shown that the issue of parody/satire is relevant to this case. Proof of your obsession with this topic: three posts (the last three, if I remember) after it came up in a comment on an earlier thread. <<<<<<

As I said, the problem is that the courts are obsessed with the parody/satire issue. The issue is irrelevant to me.

I discussed two big legal treatises that deal with this parody/satire issue.

The reason for all the posts is that I make a new post whenever I make an important new discovery.

Saturday, May 10, 2008 8:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> That statement -- which Ed said was supported by Judge Jones -- is legal advice by any definition <

That statement is not legal advice by any stretch of the imagination. (of a sane person). Stating a fact does not become advice because someone then deals with reality. He did not tell the board what to do. They decided for themselves based on the facts.

I know this will go over your head and you will just restate your previous position.

I am sorry that you have a tough time arguing with evolutionists. Perhaps if you were to try rationality, if you were capable of it.

> The reason for all the posts is that I make a new post whenever I make an important new discovery.

Saturday, May 10, 2008 8:23:00 PM


[Photo]

"O, Reason not the need!"
-- King Lear in Shakespeare's play "King Lear"

"Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness."
-- Anti-Defamation League's denunciation of "Expelled"

According to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the above cartoon would not be fair use of Shakespeare's "King Lear" because the cartoon is not a commentary about the play but is a commentary about something else. Another example would be my satirical use of the "best butter" story from the Mad Hatter's Tea Party in Alice in Wonderland (example: judges are not supposed to give legal advice to litigants but Judge Jones' legal advice was OK because it was the "best" legal advice).

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

Note: These discussions of parody v. satire may be of limited usefulness in the Yoko Ono v. Expelled case because these discussions are mainly about complete works whereas the "Expelled" movie uses just a few seconds -- about 15 -- of "Imagine." However, this issue of parody v. satire could nonetheless arise in the case.

An article titled "Unfair Use: The Lack of Fair Use Protection for Satire under § 107 of the Copyright Act" by Adriana Collado, in the June 2004 issue of the Journal of Technology Law & Policy says,

Modern application of the Fair Use Doctrine to parody and satire has been shaped by two cases: Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. [21] and Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. Penguin Books USA, Inc.[22]
I discussed Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994), a Supreme Court decision (as indicated by "U.S."), in recent preceding posts ("Issue in Yoko v. Expelled: parody v. satire" and "Parody v. satire II: Footnote 14 of Campbell is the key"). Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. Penguin Books USA, Inc.109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997) is, as indicated, a 9th Circuit decision.

The article continues,
.
The [Supreme] Court examined the Fair Use Doctrine carefully, and rejected the notion that any one of the fair use factors, by itself, would create a presumption against fair use. [40] In doing so, the Court seemingly left the door open for fair use protection for satiric works. That door was slammed shut by the Ninth Circuit, however, in Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. Penguin Books USA, Inc.[41] [p70] . . . . .

Although the Ninth Circuit cited Campbell when deciding Dr. Seuss, it did not follow Campbell’s interpretation of the Fair Use Doctrine. [42] In deciding whether the appellants’ use was fair, the circuit court based its ruling on the fact the appellants’ creation was a satire, not a parody.[43]
Note: the article and the Dr. Seuss decision define "parody" as something that ridicules the original work and "satire" as something that ridicules something else -- definitions that I disputed in my previous articles on the subject.

The summary of the Dr. Seuss decision says (the summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted C 1994 by Barclays Law Publishers),

[10] The parodist is permitted a fair use of a copyrighted work if it takes no more than is necessary to "recall" or "conjure up" the object of the parody. The critical issue was whether The Cat NOT in the Hat! was a parody. [11] Parody must target the original, not just its general style, the genre to which it belongs, or society as a whole. (numbers are item numbers, not footnote numbers)
As for the statements in bold above, the Supreme Court in Campbell says nothing of the kind, as I showed in my two preceding posts on the issue, and Collado's article agrees that Campbell says nothing of the kind.

The court's opinion itself says in Dr. Seuss,
The [Supreme] Court pointed out [in Campbell] the difference between parody (in which the copyrighted work is the target) and satire (in which the copyrighted work is merely a vehicle to poke fun at another target): "Parody needs to mimic an original to make its point, and so has some claim to use the creation of its victim's (or collective victims') imagination, whereas satire can stand on its own two feet and so requires justification for the very act of borrowing."
Wrong, wrong, wrong. For starters, the Dr. Seuss opinion's above interpretation of the Campbell opinion's statememt is wrong. Furthermore, as I showed in my previous posts, the Supreme Court's interpretations of the meanings of "parody" and "satire" are wrong. The only clear difference between "parody" and "satire" is that "parody" is always an imitation of another work. Both a parody and a satire that is an exact copy of the other work can poke fun at the other work, another target, or both. Anyway, this distinction between parodies or satires that ridicule only another work and those that ridicule only something else is arbitrary, capricious, vague, nitpicking, stupid, and just plain wrong. The titles of two expert legal treatises on the subject, "The Satire/Parody Distinction in Copyright and Trademark Law -- Can Satire Ever be a Fair Use?" (an American Bar Association report) and "Unfair Use: The Lack of Fair Use Protection for Satire under § 107 of the Copyright Act," show that there is considerable alarm over the courts' applications of the fair use law to parodies and satires.

Also, it is surprising that the Dr. Seuss decision was published, considering that it is not a final decision but is only an interlocutory decision on a preliminary injunction:

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction prohibiting the publication and distribution of the infringing work.
The stupidity of the 9th Circuit judges here is no surprise to me -- what can be expected of a bunch of incompetent buffoons who in my lawsuit against the unconstitutional California "smog impact fee" could not understand the simple argument that the state lost its federal-court tax-suit immunity by "[leaving] the sphere that is exclusively its own" (Parden v. Terminal Railway, 377 U.S. 184 (1964)) by basing the fee entirely on the state's special status under federal auto emissions laws and regulations. An expert later testified in state court that the fee required the approval of the US Environmental Protection Agency! And those idiots failed to dismiss a California lawsuit that clearly belonged in the DC Circuit court of appeals.

Here are some excerpts from the book "The Cat NOT in the hat." IMO these excerpts show a lot of creativity and originality and I find them amusing. Also, some definitions of "parody" say that a parody can be merely humorous and not necessarily mocking. "JUICE" is from the fictitious author of the book, "Dr. Juice," an imitation of "Dr. Seuss," where "juice" comes from O.J. Simpson's initials, sometimes interpreted as "orange juice."

A happy town
Inside L.A.
Where rich folks play
The day away.

But under the moon
The 12th of June.
Two victims flail
Assault! Assail!
Somebody will go to jail!

Who will it be?
Oh my! Oh me!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A plea went out to Rob Shapiro
Can you save the fallen hero?
And Marcia Clark, hooray, hooray
Was called in with a justice play.

A man this famous
Never hires
Lawyers like
Jacoby-Meyers.
When you're accused of a killing scheme
You need to build a real Dream Team.

Cochran! Cochran!
Doodle-doo
Johnnie, won't you join the crew?
Cochran! Cochran!
Deedle-dee
The Dream Team needs a victory.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hmm. . . take the word JUICE.
Then add ST.
Between the U and I, you see.
And then you have JUSTICE.
Or maybe you don't.
Maybe we will.
And maybe we won't.
`Cause if the Cat didn't do it?
Then who? Then who?
Was it him?
Was it her?
Was it me?
Was it you?
Oh me! Oh my!
Oh my! Oh me!
The murderer is running free.
IMO the main considerations in fair use cases should be: (1) the risk of "market substitution" and (2) "tarnishment," as defined as "a form of trademark dilution in which a junior mark’s similarity to a famous mark causes consumers to mistakenly associate the famous mark with the junior user’s inferior product or service," 74 Am. Jur. 2d Trademarks and Tradenames § 116.

This could be the only blog on the Internet that has done much legal analysis of the Yoko Ono suit. The Darwinist blogs mostly just say that the "Expelled" producers robbed Yoko.
.

posted by Larry Fafarman at 9:30 AM on May 10, 2008

Leave your comment
> That statement -- which Ed said was supported by Judge Jones -- is legal advice by any definition <

That statement is not legal advice by any stretch of the imagination. (of a sane person). Stating a fact does not become advice because someone then deals with reality. He did not tell the board what to do. They decided for themselves based on the facts.

I know this will go over your head and you will just restate your previous position.

I am sorry that you have a tough time arguing with evolutionists. Perhaps if you were to try rationality, if you were capable of it.

> The reason for all the posts is that I make a new post whenever I make an important new discovery. <

If you are making important new discoveries, why not share them with us? All we see is mindless repetition of the same old crap.

Sunday, May 11, 2008 3:38:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

ViU driveled,
>>>>>> He did not tell the board what to do. <<<<<

What an idiot. "Advice" by definition is not telling someone what to do -- it is an opinion that recommends or has the effect of recommending a course of action. My printed dictionary defines it as an "opinion given as to what to do or how to handle a situation; counsel." Was that attorney giving legal advice when he wrote that report saying that immediate repeal of the ID policy might moot the case? Yes or no? The answer is of course yes. Then was saying that immediate repeal of the ID policy could not moot the case not also giving legal advice? The answer is of course that it was also giving legal advice, and you have fallen again into the "best butter" trap -- judges are not supposed to give legal advice of any kind, not even the "best" kind. There are no exceptions. Furthermore, Jones could only speak for himself and could not speak for appellate judges. He couldn't even speak for himself because the defense might have raised arguments persuading him that he was so wrong that he was likely to be overruled on appeal -- one never knows.

Contrary to Fatheaded Ed's false statement, Judge Jones did not expressly say that immediate repeal of the ID policy would not affect his decision, but as I showed above, Jones clearly implied it.

I have clearly proven my contentions by following the rules of logic, but ViU does not believe my proofs because he thinks that nothing can be proven by logic. ViU therefore does not believe the binomial theorem, the fundamental theorem of calculus, or anything else that has been proven by following the rules of logic. ViU cannot even understand simple English words, simple sentences, and simple ideas. To ViU, the only truths are his own warped opinions.

As I said, trying to argue with Darwinists makes me feel like I am trying to spoonfeed an uncooperative baby who keeps knocking away the spoon and spattering the food and making a big mess. It is very frustrating.

ViU, why did you insert a copy of my entire article into your comment? That is clearcut vandalism.

Sunday, May 11, 2008 6:38:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> My printed dictionary defines it as an "opinion given as to what to do or how to handle a situation <

Which Judge Jones did not do. It looks like you are finally agreeing with me. Judge Jones no more gave legal advice than a person reading his watch and saying it is 6:00 PM is advice to a diner not to have breakfast.

> I have clearly proven my contentions by following the rules of logic <

You seem to know even less about logic than you do about law.

> ViU, why did you insert a copy of my entire article into your comment? That is clearcut vandalism. <

I didn't, dunghill. Anyone with half a brain would see that there is a problem with your blog. There are posts with no name, missing pictures and repetition (beyond your normal mindless repetition).

Sunday, May 11, 2008 11:17:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> Judge Jones no more gave legal advice than a person reading his watch and saying it is 6:00 PM is advice to a diner not to have breakfast. <<<<<<

Your breathtakingly inane comparisons do not impress any sane person. My comparison -- to the report that the attorney gave to the board -- is the correct one.

Saying it is 6:00 PM is not advice, because it means different things to different people. To some people, it is time for dinner. To night workers, it is time for breakfast. Some restaurants advertise that they serve breakfast at any time. And in the movie "Falling Down," the main character "D-Fens" becomes very upset when a fast-food restaurant won't serve him breakfast two minutes after the deadline. And then towards the end of the movie, he says, "So I'm the bad guy. How did that happen?" I think that is going to be one of my new slogans. The California legislature knowingly enacted the grossly unconstitutional smog impact fee and maintained it for nine years, but I'm the bad guy because I challenged the fee in federal court, where the challenge belonged because the fee was entirely based on the state's special status under federal laws and regulations. So I'm the bad guy when my serious, on-topic, and polite comments are arbitrarily censored on other blogs. So I'm the bad guy on Wickedpedia. And so forth. Anyway, to some people, 6:00 does not mean anything in particular. However, Judge Jones' statement that the election would not affect his decision could mean only one thing -- a repeal of the ID policy would not affect his decision.

Also, if the statement that it is 6:00 PM is wrong -- perhaps because the "best butter" -- along with some crumbs -- was put in the watch, the consequences -- eating the wrong meal at the wrong time -- would be no big deal. But the consequences of Judge Jones' advice to the Dover school board were a big deal.

>>>>>> There are posts with no name, missing pictures and repetition <<<<<

Of course some things are missing -- a lot of formatting that is supported in the original articles is not supported in the comment sections. Anyway, I have never seen this kind of malfunction before, and considering your penchant for vandalizing, I naturally suspected you.

Anyway, as I said, trying to argue with Darwinists makes me feel like I am trying to spoonfeed an uncooperative baby who keeps knocking away the spoon and spattering the food and making a big mess.

Monday, May 12, 2008 4:40:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

Farfromsane said:

> My comparison -- to the report that the attorney gave to the board -- is the correct one. <

So we are supposed to believe that an irrational statement from an insane person is the correct one just because he says so?

> Saying it is 6:00 PM is not advice <

Anymore than saying that elections will not change a judge's opinion.

From here on the Cretin gets lost in the meaning of breakfast.

> The California legislature knowingly enacted the grossly unconstitutional smog impact fee <

Another one of your obsessions.

> but I'm the bad guy because I challenged the fee in federal court <

No. Because you wasted the court's time with frivolous filings and likely delayed the overturning of the rule by making its opponents appear to be idiots while you were the only idiot involved.

> So I'm the bad guy when my serious, on-topic, and polite comments are arbitrarily censored on other blogs. <

Has anyone ever seen a serious, on-topic, polite comment from you? Anyway you have never been arbitrarily censored that you have been able to show us. You have been banned for cause.

> So I'm the bad guy on Wickedpedia. <

Yes. Your self proclaimed "Edit-war" was just another name for vandalism. You were frustrated because they wouldn't allow you to put false information into one of your articles.

> However, Judge Jones' statement that the election would not affect his decision could mean only one thing <

Yes. It meant that he would go by the law. No sane person would believe that was giving legal advice. Of course we aren't talking about sane people here. We are talking about Farfromsane.

> Also, if the statement that it is 6:00 PM is wrong <

Irrelevant. Judge Jones was stating the truth.

> But the consequences of Judge Jones' advice to the Dover school board were (sic) a big deal. <

Restating a falsehood in hopes that it will become true again? Judge Jones gave no advice to the Dover school board. Now stop spitting out your pablum.

> Anyway, I have never seen this kind of malfunction before, and considering your penchant for vandalizing, I naturally suspected you. <

Unlike you and your penchant for vandalizing with "edit wars", etc, I have not engaged in vandalizing.

Naturally this was followed by more of your mindless repetition.

Why not just number your idiotic statements and save yourself some typing time?

Monday, May 12, 2008 8:13:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

ViU, you have already lost the argument several times over. Stop cluttering up this blog with your useless drivel.

Monday, May 12, 2008 10:46:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> ViU, you have already lost the argument several times over.<

As usual Larry shows that he has no answer. Will we ever live to see him win an argument anywhere?

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 2:12:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home