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, May 05, 2008

Fatheaded Ed Brayton's untrustworthiness

In a comment under my recent post "Fatheaded Ed Publishes Probable Hoax," W. Kevin Vicklund said,
And once again, Larry stars as the Boy Who Cried "Wolf!". Seeing as every time you have accused Ed of making stuff up you have been proven wrong, why would you expect anyone to believe you if it ever did happen?

It actually did happen in Ed's following statements about whether the Dover School Board could have mooted the Kitzmiller v. Dover case by repealing the ID policy prior to judgment:
.
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.

For starters, Ed's first statement above is improperly worded -- it should read that the outcome of a vote (on whether to repeal the ID policy) could not change the outcome of the trial, not vice-versa.

Fatheaded Ed's above statements are thoroughly contradicted by a newspaper article. In the newspaper article, only the Dover defendants' lead attorney said that repealing the ID policy immediately could not moot the case, and he was biased because he wanted the case to be appealed, which the new school board was unwilling to do. The newspaper article reported that the plaintiffs' attorneys declined to comment and that the judge only said that the school board election results would not affect his decision (though that statement improperly gave legal advice by implying that his decision would not be affected by repeal of the ID policy, the only way in which the election could have affected his decision). The article reported than an attorney hired by a former board member wrote a report advising the new board that repealing the ID policy immediately might moot the case. Aside from this newspaper article, other attorneys opined that immediate repeal of the ID policy might have mooted the case.

On his blog post about the Ono suit's temporary restraining order, Fatheaded Ed was very indignant about people questioning his credibility:

Apparently I'm not a "reputable person." When a journalist writes a story for a newspaper, they merely cite a document rather than provide links to it. So even if I had cited a newspaper report that didn't show the entire original document, would that really make a difference? Only if you have the presumption that I'm not credible when I report about a document I've seen but a newspaper reporter is. And if you have that presumption of me, I think a little irritation is more than warranted.

Ed, I have that presumption of you. You are not like a newspaper reporter. Newspaper reporters are accountable -- you are not. You are just a BVD-clad blogger -- and an unscrupulous one at that.

With Fatheaded Ed's arbitrary censorship of comments and commenters, Ed's blogs cannot even be self-correcting as to objective facts, let alone present a variety of views.

Ed is the poster child of unscrupulous BVD-clad bloggers -- he wants privileges without responsibilities.

Now the first comment is going to be from Voice in the Urbanness, who will claim that I misinterpreted the newspaper article.
.

Labels:

11 Comments:

Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> Now the first comment is going to be from Voice in the Urbanness, who will claim that I misinterpreted the newspaper article. <

No. My first comment is going to be about your usual lies about Ed's censorship. Unlike you, he doesn't censor arbitrarily.

It is amazing that after you have been caught calling wolf again, you would call attention to it.

Tuesday, May 06, 2008 4:51:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> No. My first comment is going to be about your usual lies about Ed's censorship. <<<<<<

So you admit that Fatheaded Ed is untrustworthy. You didn't deny it.

>>>>>> he doesn't censor arbitrarily. <<<<<<

Wrong. Fatheaded Ed said to commenter xyz,

Apparently, Larry (xyz) is still having difficulty understanding the basic English phrase "you don't get to comment here and all your messages will be deleted."

A policy of censoring all comments from a particular commenter is arbitrary censorship.

As I said, how many times do I have to kick the butts of you lousy trolls through the goalposts before you go down and stay down?

Tuesday, May 06, 2008 5:25:00 AM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>It actually did happen in Ed's following statements about whether the Dover School Board could have mooted the Kitzmiller v. Dover case by repealing the ID policy prior to judgment:

>>>>>>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.<<<

>>>For starters, Ed's first statement above is improperly worded -- it should read that the outcome of a vote (on whether to repeal the ID policy) could not change the outcome of the trial, not vice-versa.<<<

For starters, that's not Ed's statement. Ed is directly quoting from the December 2005 meeting minutes - the improper wording is due to the Board's secretary, not Ed. It should be noted that the meeting minutes make it clear that the "legal counsel" referred to here is the board's long-time solicitor, not the defense counsel. Furthermore, other articles made it clear that the Board's solicitor had given the same advice at the workshop that took place before the December Board meeting.

>>>Fatheaded Ed's above statements are thoroughly contradicted by a newspaper article.<<<

No, they aren't. They simply aren't confirmed by that article, which is not the same thing. First, as you yourself admit:

>>>In the newspaper article, only the Dover defendants' lead attorney said that repealing the ID policy immediately could not moot the case<<<

So that's one claim upheld.

>>>The newspaper article reported that the plaintiffs' attorneys declined to comment<<<

Which doesn't mean that they didn't discuss this with the new board. In fact, it doesn't even mean that they didn't comment at a different time to a different reporter. And Ed in fact demonstrated much earlier (the morning after the election) that the plaintiff's lawyers had made that claim:

>>>C. The structure of the complaint. Even if it does come up, it appears that the plaintiff's have solid legal grounds to demand that the case be completed and a ruling issued, regardless of the change in the board's makeup. The ACLU's lead attorney, Vic Walczak, told a newspaper yesterday that they prepared for this possibility and the complaint was designed to avoid being mooted:

>>>Beyond that, lawyers for the parents also are seeking a declaratory judgment, and for nominal damages of $1 if they win. Both requests are designed to "prevent the case from being mooted" by the election, Walczak said.<<<<<<

So another of Ed's claims is upheld.

>>>and that the judge only said that the school board election results would not affect his decision (though that statement improperly gave legal advice by implying that his decision would not be affected by repeal of the ID policy, the only way in which the election could have affected his decision).<<<

Yes, the article does give the false implication that Ed, Larry, myself, and a bunch of commenters at Panda's Thumb read into it. Because it was so poorly constructed, it took me a few reads to realize that Jones had not in fact made the implication. Had the newspaper included more of the comments made by Jones in the final print edition of the article, it would have been more clear what he was saying. Fortunately, someone preserved part of the original "breaking news" article that first appeared on the YDR website, before it was edited to the print edition that Larry is quoting from. It can be found at the end of the comments of the thread I linked to above:

>>>He considers only what has been offered for the record and won't take into consideration news accounts or that a new Dover Area school board has been elected since the trial.<<<

In the intervening five months, the interpretation that Jones had said that the board couldn't do anything to affect his decision became dominant. Is it any wonder that Ed misremembered the exact wording? Ironically, Larry objects to being expected to remember direct "Yes/No" answers given two and a half hours earlier.

>>>The article reported than an attorney hired by a former board member wrote a report advising the new board that repealing the ID policy immediately might moot the case.<<<

And this is the sole point that Larry might be able to crow about, had Ed said "lawyer" instead of "legal scholar."

>>>Aside from this newspaper article, other attorneys opined that immediate repeal of the ID policy might have mooted the case.<<<

Oddly enough, it was to these same attorneys that Ed was directing his attention.

Tuesday, May 06, 2008 11:02:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> So you admit that Fatheaded Ed is untrustworthy. You didn't deny it. <

Here we have another fine example of your reading comprehension problem. I also did not deny that the Earth is flat but, unlike you, I don't believe that it is.

>>>>>> he doesn't censor arbitrarily. <<<<<<

> A policy of censoring all comments from a particular commenter is arbitrary censorship. <

Not if he has been banned for cause. After you have violated the rules repeatedly as to sock puppetry, gratuitous ad hominems, etc. Ed has no obligation to sift through your rantings to see if something sane accidentally drifts in.

> As I said, how many times do I have to kick the butts of you lousy trolls through the goalposts before you go down and stay down? <

As I said, since this has never happened, we don't know.

You see those bars on either side of you? They are the goal posts.

Tuesday, May 06, 2008 12:24:00 PM  
Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

Brayton seems to have been the source of some bizarre misrepresentations about Behe's testimony in the Dover trial. The false claims had to do with a paper Behe co-authored with David Snoke; and they were regurgitated intact by Humes in his book Monkey Girl. The babble in question appeared on Brayton's blog, so he was certainly involved: although it may well have originated elsewhere.

Tuesday, May 06, 2008 1:08:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Pettifogger Kevin Vicklund strikes again.

>>>>>> For starters, that's not Ed's statement. Ed is directly quoting from the December 2005 meeting minutes -- the improper wording is due to the Board's secretary, not Ed. <<<<<<

That's true. I chose to correct the statement and Ed did not.

>>>>> It should be noted that the meeting minutes make it clear that the "legal counsel" referred to here is the board's long-time solicitor, not the defense counsel. <<<<<<

That's not true. I would have noticed that because it has been my contention from the beginning that there was no evidence that the board's newly rehired solicitor ever gave them such advice. Unfortunately, the board's Dec. 2005 minutes are no longer available online to verify that.

>>>>> Furthermore, other articles made it clear that the Board's solicitor had given the same advice at the workshop that took place before the December Board meeting. <<<<<<

What articles? I'm from Missouri -- you'll have to show me.

>>>>>The newspaper article reported that the plaintiffs' attorneys declined to comment<

Which doesn't mean that they didn't discuss this with the new board. <<<<<<

So the defendants should accept legal advice from the plaintiffs?

>>>>> In fact, it doesn't even mean that they didn't comment at a different time to a different reporter. <<<<<<

So how does telling one thing to one reporter and something else to another reporter make the plaintiffs' attorneys look good?

>>>>> The ACLU's lead attorney, Vic Walczak, told a newspaper yesterday that they prepared for this possibility and the complaint was designed to avoid being mooted:
Beyond that, lawyers for the parents also are seeking a declaratory judgment, and for nominal damages of $1 if they win. Both requests are designed to "prevent the case from being mooted" by the election, Walczak said. <<<<<<

If there were some magic ways of preventing a lawsuit from being mooted, all plaintiffs would be using them.

As for a claim for nominal damages being able to prevent mootness, Chapin Furniture v. Town of Chapin says,

In the absence of a constitutional deprivation, Chapin's nominal damages claim does not save this case from mootness.

Also, the opinion in Alpha Iota Omega Christian Fraternity v. Hamm said on page 29,
"...... the court in its discretion will not allow the continuation of a lawsuit merely to allow Plaintiffs to seek nominal damages, which, even if proven, would be limited to one dollar."

>>>>> someone preserved part of the original "breaking news" article that first appeared on the YDR website, --
He [Judge Jones] considers only what has been offered for the record and won't take into consideration news accounts or that a new Dover Area school board has been elected since the trial. <<<<<<<

Kevin, I have been over this before -- the only way that the election could possibly have affected his decision would have been by a repeal of the ID policy prior to judgment. So by saying that the election would not affect his decision, he was essentially saying that a repeal of the ID policy would not affect his decision. What would the reaction have been had Judge Jones said that he was going to delay release of the decision in order to give the school board a chance to repeal the ID policy first -- even if he had not said that such repeal would affect his decision?

>>>>>> And this is the sole point that Larry might be able to crow about, had Ed said "lawyer" instead of "legal scholar." <<<<<<

Actually, the term "legal scholar" is vague -- it can include law professors, judges, attorneys, and even advanced law students. And what about the attorney -- hired by a former school board member -- who prepared the written report advising the board that the case might be mooted by repeal of the ID policy prior to judgment?

>>>>>> Oddly enough, it was to these same attorneys that Ed was directing his attention.<<<<<<

Yes -- why don't their opinions count? For that matter, why doesn't my opinion count if I can back it up? I showed that according to Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001), repealing the ID policy prior to judgment might have mooted the case.

Anyway, even conceding all of your points, what Fatheaded Ed said is still wrong. And Fatheaded Ed's arbitrary censorship of comments prevents his blog from being self-correcting.

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.

Tuesday, May 06, 2008 5:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> What articles? I'm from Missouri -- you'll have to show me.<

Larry has no connection to Missouri. The Missourian's would like to make that clear. Larry considers the name of his asylum to be "gossip about his personal affairs" but it certainly is not in Missouri. It has certainly been proven that he can't be shown.

Tuesday, May 06, 2008 5:59:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> Larry has no connection to Missouri. <<<<<

Wrong -- I am connected to Missouri in spirit.

Ich bin ein Missourian.

Tuesday, May 06, 2008 6:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Alt-Anonymous said...

<< Ich bin ein Missourian. >>

You need to make that assertion at the St. Louis Wall (or is that Mall?).

(BTW, there was some controversy over JFK's usage of "ein" -- a tempest in a teapot, evidently.)

Tuesday, May 06, 2008 7:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

>(BTW, there was some controversy over JFK's usage of "ein" -- a tempest in a teapot, evidently.)<

Actually the controversy was over JFK's pronunciation of "Berliner". He seemed to be indicating that he was a jelly doughnut. The laughter of the public was dubbed over to cheers.

Tuesday, May 06, 2008 8:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Alt-Anonymous said...

<< JFK's pronunciation of "Berliner" >>

Hmm. He did kind of muff the pronunciation -- twice, yet.

(The resident and the donut have the same pronunciation, though.)

Pretty good speech otherwise.

Tuesday, May 06, 2008 9:39:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home