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.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Fatheaded Ed misinterprets Epperson v. Arkansas

It would be so much easier if I could just post a comment on Ed's blog saying that I disagree with him, instead of posting a whole new article here.

An article on Fatheaded Ed's blog says,
Back to the Future on Evolution

This time in Maine, where at least one resident wants to party like it's 1967:

The decades-old controversy over the teaching of evolution in public schools is resurfacing in Somerset County.

A director of SAD 59 in the Madison area is urging the board to drop evolution from high school science curriculums on grounds that it's an unprovable theory that shouldn't be taught as fact.

Matthew Linkletter of Athens says neither evolution nor creationism belongs in a science curriculum.

Sorry, Matthew, the courts already ruled on this. Look up Epperson v Arkansas.

In a response to a comment, Ed says,
.
a lurker wrote:

What does Epperson v Arkansas have anything to do with this.

In that case involved a law that made it illegal for a teacher to teach evolution and that a teacher could be charged with a crime if he did.

The court in Epperson did not rule that the law was unconstitutional because of the potential punishment, they ruled that it was unconstitutional because it was not religiously neutral. The court recognized that the only reason anyone wanted to prohibit the teaching of evolution was to give favor to their religious anti-evolution views.

For crying out loud, Ed, (his trademark expressions are "for crying out loud" and "batshit wingnuttery") the news article did not say that the SAD 59 director in Maine proposed prohibiting the teaching of evolution -- the article only said that he proposed dropping it from the curriculum.

Also, Ed misrepresented the Epperson decision. Of course the court's ruling was partly based on the potential punishment -- if the statute had been merely an advisory resolution with no potential punishment, then the statute would never have been challenged in the first place. And the court did not "[recognize] that the only reason anyone wanted to prohibit the teaching of evolution was to give favor to their religious anti-evolution views" -- the court only said that there was no "suggestion" of any other reason:

No suggestion has been made that Arkansas' law may be justified by considerations of state policy other than the religious views of some of its citizens. (page 107)

This is another example of Fatheaded Ed either misinterpreting the facts or not checking the facts. Furthermore, he censors comments that try to correct him about the facts or his interpretations of the facts. Yet he acts very offended when people don't consider him to be equal to a professional reporter, if not better. Fatheaded Ed is the poster child of unscrupulous BVD-clad bloggers.

BTW, Justice Black said in a concurring opinion in Epperson,

Under this statute, as construed by the Arkansas Supreme Court, a teacher cannot know whether he is forbidden to mention Darwin's theory at all or only free to discuss it as long as he refrains from contending that it is true. It is an established rule that a statute which leaves an ordinary man so doubtful about its meaning that he cannot know when he has violated it denies him the first essential of due process . . . .

The Court, not content to strike down this Arkansas Act on the unchallengeable ground of its plain vagueness, chooses rather to invalidate it as a violation of the Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment . . . .

A second question that arises for me is whether this Court's decision forbidding a State to exclude the subject of evolution from its schools infringes the religious freedom of those who consider evolution an anti-religious doctrine. If the theory is considered anti-religious, as the Court indicates, how can the State be bound by the Federal Constitution to permit its teachers to advocate such an "anti-religious" doctrine to school children? The very cases cited by the Court as supporting its conclusion hold that the State must be neutral, not favoring one religious or anti-religious view over another. The Darwinian theory is said to challenge the Bible's story of creation; so, too, have some of those who believe in the Bible, along with many others, challenged the Darwinian theory. Since there is no indication that the literal Biblical doctrine of the origin of man is included in the curriculum of Arkansas schools, does not the removal of the subject of evolution leave the State in a neutral position toward these supposedly competing religious and anti-religious doctrines? Unless this Court is prepared simply to write off as pure nonsense the views of those who consider evolution an anti-religious doctrine, then this issue presents problems under the Establishment Clause far more troublesome than are discussed in the Court's opinion . . . . .

Certainly the Darwinian theory, precisely like the Genesis story of the creation of man, is not above challenge. In fact the Darwinian theory has not merely been criticized by religionists, but by scientists, and perhaps no scientist would be willing to take an oath and swear that everything announced in the Darwinian theory is unquestionably true. The Court, it seems to me, makes a serious mistake in bypassing the plain, unconstitutional vagueness of this statute in order to reach out and decide this troublesome, to me, First Amendment question. However wise this Court may be or may become hereafter, it is doubtful that, sitting in Washington, it can successfully supervise and censor the curriculum of every public school in every hamlet and city in the United States. I doubt that our wisdom is so nearly infallible . . . .

I would either strike down the Arkansas Act as too vague to enforce or remand to the State Supreme Court for clarification of its holding and opinion.

Dissenting and concurring opinions are often ignored because those opinions are not binding precedents, but those opinions often make more sense than the majority opinions.

IMO evolution should be taught because it is something people should know and because it is useful in biology even if it is a hokey idea. The use of evolution in cladistic taxonomy has increased since Justice Black wrote the above words in his concurring opinion published in 1968. However, I also believe that the weaknesses of evolution as well as the strengths should be taught or that there should at least be evolution disclaimer statements to reduce offense to those who for various reasons are opposed to the teaching of evolution. Also, IMO the courts should declare the evolution controversy to be non-justiciable. [1] [2] [3]
.

Labels: ,

43 Comments:

Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

The dunghill said:

> It would be so much easier if I could just post a comment on Ed's blog saying that I disagree with him, instead of posting a whole new article here. <

Perhaps people can interpret your lack of a comment on Ed's blog as agreement?

Perhaps also Ed will allow you back on his blog if you were to apologize for your previous sock puppetry and batshit wingnuttery?

Friday, May 16, 2008 7:27:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are right. We can definitely take Larry's lack of comments on other of Ed's posts as agreement.

Friday, May 16, 2008 9:35:00 AM  
Anonymous Alt-Anonymous said...

< ... he acts very offended when people don't consider him to be equal to a professional reporter ... >

I'd be offended to be compared to a "professional reporter".

Friday, May 16, 2008 12:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Hector said...

Larry reminds me of a character on Saturday Night Live. It was a talk show host with a number of phones in front of him, none of which were ringing. He starts with a basic statement for discussion. None of the phones ring. He repeats the phone numbers. No ringing. He restates the topic making it sound a little more controversial. Still no rings. He then makes more and more outrageous statements in hopes of getting an audience to no avail.

Friday, May 16, 2008 2:36:00 PM  
Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

Old Darwin's fall we may in this behold,
That Darwin-trolls, in rabid packs, do run
Around this blog where Larry offers gold,
In comments that the foolish idly shun.
"He censors, bans," they say: "He's this; or such."
And where's the evidence? I think they lie,
And lying in wait, beguile the fools too much,
As fooling, they fake: then cry a baboon-cry.
Who, when these species, simian, shall display
Their Darwin-worship, hooting, void of heed,
Shall be the one to chase them all away,
And save our discourse from their lowly breed?
Oh, none: unless this miracle take hold,
That trolls grow wise, so wisdom may unfold.

Friday, May 16, 2008 3:45:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

That's a beautiful poem, Jim. Thank you.

Friday, May 16, 2008 4:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Jim Sherwood" poeticized: this blog where Larry offers gold,
In comments that the foolish idly shun.

"Gold" like the previous post that was wrong (Is judge incompetent?)? The "trolls" are the only ones who get the facts straight.

Saturday, May 17, 2008 10:18:00 AM  
Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

Caroline Crocker has put a pretty good video, Intelligent Design Rockumentary, on YouTube: featuring a quite intelligently designed redhead.

So, to increase box office, I'm recommending an addition to the movie:

An IDist, who strips as she dances,
Should murmur, "Selection and chance is
A notion that's shot!
But ID is so HOT
That sex is the thing it enhances."

Saturday, May 17, 2008 1:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good ol' Jim, Off topic and insipid as always.

Saturday, May 17, 2008 4:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Alt-Anonymous said...

Not to mention, omitted the link and misrepresented the content.

Saturday, May 17, 2008 7:14:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous driveled,
>>>>> Gold" like the previous post that was wrong (Is judge incompetent?)? <<<<<<

Well, he is. He should have told the parties that if they did not agree to electronic transmission of documents, then he was going to extend the schedule.

Sunday, May 18, 2008 8:25:00 AM  
Anonymous Alt-Anonymous said...

BTW, "Scruffers2011" is apparently Michael Behe (not Carolyn Crocker).

Who'd a thunk it?

Sunday, May 18, 2008 4:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> He should have told the parties that if they did not agree to electronic transmission of documents, then he was going to extend the schedule. <

But then some asshole would have construed that as improperly giving legal advice.

Monday, May 19, 2008 7:07:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

ViU driveled,
>>>>>> He should have told the parties that if they did not agree to electronic transmission of documents, then he was going to extend the schedule.

But then some asshole would have construed that as improperly giving legal advice. <<<<<<<

You stupid dunghill, that's making a decision, not giving legal advice. Also, delaying the hearing in Yoko v. Expelled would not have substantially affected the future rights of the parties whereas Jones' legal advice in the Dover suit was about something that would substantially affect the future rights of the defendants -- by not repealing the ID policy prior to judgment, the defendants forever lost the ability to appeal on the basis of a claim that repealing the ID policy mooted the case. And even if Judge Jones could speak for himself, he could not speak for appellate judges. And he could not even speak for himself, because he had not had the opportunity to hear any defendants' arguments as to why repealing the ID policy prior to judgment should moot the case.

Also, nothing in the rules says that when a party is represented by multiple attorneys in different locations, it is OK to serve papers on just one location.

OK, maybe the Yoko judge should have simply said that he was not going to require hand delivery of papers, period -- then it couldn't be argued that he was giving legal advice. Federal court rules do not authorize judges to require hand delivery of papers. The Yoko defendants should have said that they would just drop papers in the regular snail-mail if the plaintiffs did not agree to electronic transmission.

What an idiot. Under the Social Darwinism that you love so much, you would be among the first to be euthanized for the purpose of vastly improving the average intelligence of the human race.

Monday, May 19, 2008 10:49:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Larry garbled: What an idiot. Under the Social Darwinism that you love so much [...]

Larry, I have never read anything by ViU that suggests that he (?) supports Social Darwinism. The only person who seems to support it is you, if only to have it to link with the biological theory of evolution, so that you may criticize the latter by association with the former (although there is none, and in any ways falls under the logical fallacy of association).

Larry blathered: because he had not had the opportunity to hear any defendants' arguments as to why repealing the ID policy prior to judgment should moot the case.

They were among those who said that the elections would not affect the case. To whom are you accusing Jones of giving advice? The defense attorneys wanted a ruling, the plaintiffs wanted a ruling. I think that covers all the lawyers involved in the case. If anything, it was a statement for the public to vote for who they wanted, regardless of the outcome of the case (whose verdict would not be decided, or at least announced, until after the elections).

Monday, May 19, 2008 11:22:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous driveled,
>>>>> Larry, I have never read anything by ViU that suggests that he (?) supports Social Darwinism. <<<<<<

Sheeeesh -- it's just a joke. I am using poetic license.

>>>>> They were among those who said that the elections would not affect the case. <<<<<<

Who are "they"? I was only talking about Judge Jones. By saying that the election would not affect his decision, he was implying that repeal of the ID policy would not affect his decision. That's giving legal advice, which judges are not supposed to do. How many times do I have to go over this? As I said, I feel that arguing with Darwinists is like trying to spoonfeed an uncooperative baby who keeps knocking away the spoon and spattering the food and making a big mess.

>>>>>> To whom are you accusing Jones of giving advice? <<<<<<

The new school board and its attorneys, obviously.

>>>>>> The defense attorneys wanted a ruling, the plaintiffs wanted a ruling. <<<<<<

It doesn't matter what the defense attorneys wanted -- what mattered is what the new school board wanted. And the defense attorneys also wanted an appeal, which they didn't get. IMO the defense attorneys would rather have had no ruling at all than have an unappealed adverse ruling.

>>>>>> I think that covers all the lawyers involved in the case. <<<<<<

Not exactly. What about that attorney who wrote a report urging the school board to repeal the ID policy immediately?

Monday, May 19, 2008 1:31:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

>>> He should have told the parties that if they did not agree to electronic transmission of documents, then he was going to extend the schedule. <<<

> You stupid dunghill, that's making a decision, not giving legal advice. <

No, you mindless cretin, that is giving advice. He made no decision.

> Also, nothing in the rules says that when a party is represented by multiple attorneys in different locations, it is OK to serve papers on just one location. <

Anyone who had the slightest aquaintence with law would know the answer to that. Of course Larry has shown that he knows nothing about law.

> Under the Social Darwinism <

Larry would have gone up the chimney like his relatives did.

Monday, May 19, 2008 1:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Larry failed reading comprehension: >>>>> They were among those who said that the elections would not affect the case. <<<<<<

Who are "they"? I was only talking about Judge Jones.

They are the defense attorneys. You were talking about Jones who "had not had the opportunity to hear any defendants' arguments." In order to hear these arguments, presumably someone has to speak. Not everyone is like you and hears voices inside his or her head.

Larry, again: And the defense attorneys also wanted an appeal, which they didn't get. IMO the defense attorneys would rather have had no ruling at all than have an unappealed adverse ruling.

That's because in order for a lawsuit to advance it needs an agreement between clients and their lawyers. The lawyers went looking for a case, found a gullible school board, brought about the lawsuit, and couldn't have it happen in time for the elections to change the composition of the board. Poor planning on their part.

Larry muttered: How many times do I have to go over this?

Until you get it right. You haven't done so to date. Do it again.

Larry added: What about that attorney who wrote a report urging the school board to repeal the ID policy immediately?

Who did he represent? From what I gather, he did not have a client and was not involved in the case. That makes his opinion irrelevant (just like yours).

Did Jones make the statement before or after the election? I assumed that it was before but I have no recollection and have no interest in looking it up.

Monday, May 19, 2008 1:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ViU correctly observed: > Under the Social Darwinism <

Larry would have gone up the chimney like his relatives did.

Larry is like the Nazi punks in the Dead Kennedy's classic, "Nazi punks fuck off." The final verse: "in the real Fourth Reich you'd be the first to go" (repeat several times).

Monday, May 19, 2008 1:50:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

ViU barfed,
>>>>> No, you mindless cretin, that is giving advice. He made no decision. <<<<<<

You previously said, "But then some asshole would have construed that as improperly giving legal advice." So you apparently think that this would have been properly giving legal advice. Just like putting the "best" butter in a watch.

>>>>> Also, nothing in the rules says that when a party is represented by multiple attorneys in different locations, it is OK to serve papers on just one location. <

Anyone who had the slightest aquaintence with law would know the answer to that. <<<<<

My above sentence is a statement of fact, not a question, you stupid idiot.

>>>>>> Larry would have gone up the chimney like his relatives did. <<<<<

How would you prefer to be euthanized -- by lethal injection or the gas chamber?

Monday, May 19, 2008 3:07:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous said,
>>>>> They are the defense attorneys. You were talking about Jones who "had not had the opportunity to hear any defendants' arguments." In order to hear these arguments, presumably someone has to speak. <<<<<

So? What was there to stop the school board's attorneys from speaking or writing? If the school board had repealed the ID policy prior to judgment, then a motion to dismiss the case could have been filed along with supporting reasons.

>>>>>> That's because in order for a lawsuit to advance it needs an agreement between clients and their lawyers. <<<<<

If the school board wanted to repeal the ID policy prior to judgment and their attorneys didn't want go along, then the school board could have found other attorneys.

>>>> Poor planning on their part. <<<<<

How could the attorneys "plan" the outcome of an election?

>>>>> Until you get it right. <<<<<<

I had it right from the beginning, idiot.

>>>>>> Who did he represent? From what I gather, he did not have a client and was not involved in the case. <<<<<<

He represented a former school board member. He was "involved" in the case because he wrote a report advising the school board.

>>>>> That makes his opinion irrelevant (just like yours). <<<<<

And I suppose that the only relevant opinions here are yours, ViU's, Fatheaded Ed's, etc..

>>>>> Did Jones make the statement before or after the election? <<<<<<

Not that it matters, but I presume that it was after the election. The statement was reported in a news article about a school board meeting that occurred long after the election.

Monday, May 19, 2008 3:31:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Larry mistakes: So? What was there to stop the school board's attorneys from speaking or writing? If the school board had repealed the ID policy prior to judgment, then a motion to dismiss the case could have been filed along with supporting reasons.

Except the defense attorneys didn't want the case mooted and the policy was not repealed.

Larry flatulates: If the school board wanted to repeal the ID policy prior to judgment and their attorneys didn't want go along, then the school board could have found other attorneys

If they could have found other attorneys willing to make the argument -- someone other than the specialist in real estate law would have been appropriate. But the didn't, so it doesn't matter.

Larry just doesn't get it: How could the attorneys "plan" the outcome of an election?

They couldn't, but they should have known that a change could come as a result of the case, regardless of the verdict or whether there was a verdict yet or not, as was the case.

Again, Larry just doesn't get it: I had it right from the beginning, idiot

No you didn't (again).

Larry is utterly clueless: He represented a former school board member. He was "involved" in the case because he wrote a report advising the school board.

After the election. He wasn't involved in the case. Wasn't he a real estate lawyer? Maybe he can help you draw up a contract to lease out the other half of your brain. I wonder if his license is valid your state...

And I suppose that the only relevant opinions here are yours, ViU's, Fatheaded Ed's, etc..

Mine is irrelevant too. Correct, but irrelevant. Same goes for ViU, Ed Brayton (that's who you mean, right?). You, on the other hand, are just irrelevant (and wrong).

Larry -- $#%&( -- Not that it matters, but I presume that it was after the election

If he said it after the election, it's a statement of fact. If it's before, it's to avoid influencing the election. If it's construed as advice, it means: don't waste your time, but if you want to, go right ahead. From what I gather there are about three people who think the case could have been mooted: a real estate lawyer, a disgraced former school board member who perhaps wanted to save face by wishfully thinking that he could magically make the case disappear, and Larry (not to mention the Uncommonly Dense people, spinning the case into an unimportant event). Also irrelevant here (see later post as to why Larry was banned with cause from blogs, not arbitrarily censored as he claims).

Monday, May 19, 2008 5:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> You previously said, "But then some asshole would have construed that as improperly giving legal advice." So you apparently think that this would have been properly giving legal advice. <

Another fine example of Larry's total unfamiliarity with logic.

If I deny that golden unicorns were not stampeding through the Houston Astrodome, that does not imply that I believe they were walking down the boardwalk.

I see that Anonymous has booted your ass cleanly between the goalposts. Stop digging Larry.

Monday, May 19, 2008 10:30:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous driveled,
>>>>>> Except the defense attorneys didn't want the case mooted <<<<<<

I explained the reason for that -- the defense attorneys wanted the case to be appealed.

>>>>>> If they could have found other attorneys willing to make the argument -- someone other than the specialist in real estate law would have been appropriate. <<<<<<<

It was just a general question about the law and a specialist was not needed. As I pointed out, even a layperson who has some training or experience in doing legal research can quickly become an expert in a narrow area of the law.

>>>>> But the didn't, so it doesn't matter. <<<<<<

So if it doesn't matter, then why do you and ViU continue to argue about it?

>>>>> He was "involved" in the case because he wrote a report advising the school board. <<<<<

Well, that's being "involved" -- he wrote a report advising the school board on a major decision that the school board faced.

>>>>>>How could the attorneys "plan" the outcome of an election?<

They couldn't, but they should have known that a change could come as a result of the case <<<<<<

Well, they must have known that, and that was a risk they took.

>>>>>>> If he said it after the election, it's a statement of fact. If it's before, it's to avoid influencing the election. If it's construed as advice, it means: don't waste your time, but if you want to, go right ahead. <<<<<

Of course it was legal advice, doofus, because the only way the election results could affect his decision was by repeal of the ID policy prior to release of the decision. Judges are not supposed to give legal advice, period. And as I said, even if he could speak for himself, he could not speak for appellate judges.

>>>>> From what I gather there are about three people who think the case could have been mooted: a real estate lawyer, a disgraced former school board member who perhaps wanted to save face by wishfully thinking that he could magically make the case disappear, and Larry <<<<<<

Wrong -- it was more than three people, but that doesn't matter because it was inexcusable of Judge Jones to give legal advice to the defendants.

BTW, not that it matters, but there is a very strong case that repeal of the ID policy would have mooted the lawsuit --

Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001) is a decision that you Darwinists claim is impossible -- it had (1) voluntary cessation (voluntary repeal of a challenged state statute); (2) capability of repetition (there was no guarantee that the statute could not be re-enacted); (3) was declared moot by the courts; and (4) there was no award of attorney fees or court costs to the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court said in Buckhannon,

Numerous federal statutes allow courts to award attorney’s fees and costs to the "prevailing party." The question presented here is whether this term includes a party that has failed to secure a judgment on the merits or a court-ordered consent decree, but has nonetheless achieved the desired result because the lawsuit brought about a voluntary change in the defendant’s conduct. We hold that it does not. (emphasis added)


Casey Luskin discussed the issue of voluntary cessation and mootness. Casey is a real attorney. Compare his discussion to Fatheaded Ed's discussion here -- Fatheaded Ed's discussion has no legal citations, nothing.

>>>>> see later post as to why Larry was banned with cause from blogs, not arbitrarily censored as he claims <<<<<<

Wrong, dunghill. I and my comments were censored because unscrupulous BVD-clad bloggers felt threatened because my comments were too persuasive. Fatheaded Ed kicked me off his blog permanently because he disagreed with my literal interpretation of a federal court rule -- I said that when a plaintiff refuses an out-of-court settlement offer that offers relief that is equal to or greater than the maximum relief that could possibly be provided by the court, the court may dismiss the suit on the grounds of "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted," FRCP Rule 12(b)(6). What could be simpler? How would you like to be kicked permanently off this blog because I disagree with you? And banning a commenter -- as opposed to just censoring particular comments -- is always arbitrary.

How many times do I have to kick the butts of you lousy trolls through the goalposts before you go down and stay down? HOW MANY TIMES? I have to repeat the same airtight arguments over and over again for the benefit of newcomers to this blog, and I am getting sick of it.

Monday, May 19, 2008 10:39:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

ViU drivels,
>>>>>>If I deny that golden unicorns were not stampeding through the Houston Astrodome, that does not imply that I believe they were walking down the boardwalk. <<<<<<

That is the dumbest analogy I have ever seen.

Let's go over this real slow, dunghill, so that hopefully even a slow-witted dolt like yourself can understand --

Larry said: He should have told the parties that if they did not agree to electronic transmission of documents, then he was going to extend the schedule.

ViU said: But then some asshole would have construed that as improperly giving legal advice.

Larry: You stupid dunghill, that's making a decision, not giving legal advice.

ViU: No, you mindless cretin, that is giving advice. He made no decision.

OK, so you say that is giving legal advice. Then take your statement, "But then some asshole would have construed that as improperly giving legal advice." If you think that giving the above legal advice (remember, you yourself said that it is legal advice) is improper for a judge, then you are an asshole according to that statement. If on the other hand you think that giving the above legal advice is proper for a judge, then you think that it can be proper for judges to give legal advice, just as it is proper to put the "best" butter in a watch. Either way you lose.

Give it up, ViU. I am just too smart for you.

>>>>> Stop digging Larry. <<<<<<

There is nothing wrong with digging -- people dig tunnels, canals, gold mines, etc..

Monday, May 19, 2008 11:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Alt-Anonymous said...

< That is the dumbest analogy I have ever seen. >

I believe the first "not" was unintended.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 12:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> As I pointed out, even a layperson who has some training or experience in doing legal research can quickly become an expert in a narrow area of the law. <

But you have demonstrated that a layperson can do a great deal of reading of legal documents and still end up clueless.

> That is the dumbest analogy I have ever seen. <

It is a good example of your thought process.

Anonymous is right. I left out the "not". The judge was not giving legal advice and only a lunatic, such as yourself, could construe it that way.

I wonder why you don't get hurt flying over the goal posts? Perhaps it is because you land on your head?

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 6:53:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

ViU driveled,
>>>>>>The judge was not giving legal advice and only a lunatic, such as yourself, could construe it that way. <<<<<<

What? You said, "No, you mindless cretin, that is giving advice. He made no decision." Make up your friggin' mind.

ViU is desperately trying to make a comeback, but it's hopeless. He has been completely outwitted. He is only making himself look more and more foolish.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 7:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> What? You said, "No, you mindless cretin, that is giving advice. He made no decision." Make up your friggin' mind. <

It appears that Larry is the only one who is so stupid that he missed the typo even after it was pointed out by two people. Oh well, with his reading comprehension problem it wouldn't have made any difference.

Larry has lost but he is desperately trying to make a comeback by capitalizing on a typo, but it's hopeless. He is only making himself look more and more foolish.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 6:24:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

ViU driveled,
>>>>>> It appears that Larry is the only one who is so stupid that he missed the typo even after it was pointed out by two people. <<<<<<

You stupid fathead, I noticed the "typo" even before it was pointed out to me. And my comments had nothing to do with the typo.

You are so dumb that I wondered if it was even a typo.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 7:11:00 AM  
Anonymous 'Nonymous said...

< Sheeeesh -- it's just a joke. >

I b'lieve it's called a "warped sense of humor."

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 12:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> You stupid fathead, I noticed the "typo" even before it was pointed out to me. <

Then your comments were all the dumber.

> And my comments had nothing to do with the typo <

It looks like you still don't understand. They had everything to do with the typo. I was not meaning that the judge was giving legal advice. I was meaning that you are so idiotic that you would claim that he was, just as you did in a previous case where it was obvious to the sane that he wasn't.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 5:46:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

ViU driveled,
>>>>>> I was not meaning that the judge was giving legal advice. <<<<<<

You stupid fathead, let's go over our exchange again:

Larry said: He should have told the parties that if they did not agree to electronic transmission of documents, then he was going to extend the schedule.

ViU said: But then some asshole would have construed that as improperly giving legal advice.

Larry: You stupid dunghill, that's making a decision, not giving legal advice.

ViU: No, you mindless cretin, that is giving advice. He made no decision.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 6:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

Thank you for showing that I was right.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 11:47:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> Thank you for showing that I was right. <<<<<<

How can you possibly be right when you can't even make up your mind as to whether that would be giving legal advice?

Digging is often good, but you are digging in quicksand.

Thursday, May 22, 2008 1:28:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> How can you possibly be right when you can't even make up your mind as to whether that would be giving legal advice? <

Let's try again, you pathetic dingbat. My point was that a retarded whacko such as yourself, would claim that he was improperly giving legal advice.

Larry said: He should have told the parties that if they did not agree to electronic transmission of documents, then he was going to extend the schedule.

ViU said: But then some asshole would have construed that as improperly giving legal advice.

Now let's read carefully, dunghill. Was I saying that the judge was imporperly giving legal advice or was I pointing out that one retarded whacko had already accused a judge of giving legal advice when it was obvious to the sane that he gave none?

Larry: You stupid dunghill, that's making a decision, not giving legal advice.

Exactly what decision was he making, asshole? He was only telling what he would do.

Thursday, May 22, 2008 9:52:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> Was I saying that the judge was imporperly giving legal advice or was I pointing out that one retarded whacko had already accused a judge of giving legal advice when it was obvious to the sane that he gave none? <<<<<<

You lying dunghill, you said, "No, you mindless cretin, that is giving advice. He made no decision." Those are your exact words.

>>>>> Exactly what decision was he making, asshole? He was only telling what he would do. <<<<<

His decision was what he would do, idiot.

You are just wasting my time and cluttering up this blog with your drivel, dunghill.

Thursday, May 22, 2008 11:32:00 AM  
Anonymous Hector said...

> His decision was what he would do, idiot. <

Good grief Farfromsane. Make up your mind. Was the judge giving an opinion, making a decision, or what? Try to answer this directly. Forget what anyone else said or didn't say and take a position for a change.

You are just wasting our time and cluttering up this blog with your drivel, Farfromsane.

Thursday, May 22, 2008 3:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

Hector is right. You seem to be avoiding taking a position on this.

Thursday, May 22, 2008 7:23:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Hector driveled,
>>>>> Was the judge giving an opinion, making a decision, or what? . . . Forget what anyone else said or didn't say and take a position for a change. <<<<<<

You despicable dunghill, I already took a position -- I changed my mind and said that he should have ruled against hand delivery of documents, period. That way there is no ambiguity as to whether he was giving legal advice or making a decision. In fact, as it turned out, his court has a general rule that documents must be electronically filed, with a few exceptions.

Voice in the Urbanness barfed,
>>>>>> Hector is right. You seem to be avoiding taking a position on this. <<<<<<

You lousy sack of #$*^%, how many times do I have to tell you to keep your trap shut until after I have had a chance to answer?

Thursday, May 22, 2008 7:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> That way there is no ambiguity as to whether he was giving legal advice or making a decision. <

That statement is certainly ambiguous. Are you saying that he was giving legal advice or making a decision? In reality, he was doing neither.

> In fact, as it turned out, his court has a general rule that documents must be electronically filed, with a few exceptions. <

That seems irrelevant to the question of whether he was giving legal advice or making a decision.

> You lousy sack of #$*^%, how many times do I have to tell you to keep your trap shut until after I have had a chance to answer? <

We would have to wait too long as you still have not answered the direct quesion and probably won't. You will just repeat irrelevancies.

Your are not known to be a jackass for nothing.

Friday, May 23, 2008 9:11:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

ViU barfed,
>>>>>> That way there is no ambiguity as to whether he was giving legal advice or making a decision. <

That statement is certainly ambiguous. Are you saying that he was giving legal advice or making a decision? In reality, he was doing neither. <<<<<<<

No, idiot, the mere fact that you disagree with a statement does not make that statement ambiguous.

And you can't make up your mind -- you kept switching back and forth between calling the hypothetical ruling legal advice and calling it a decision, and now you are saying that it is neither.

To remove any possible ambiguity, I changed the hypothetical ruling -- it now says that electronic filing of documents and only electronic filing of documents will be required. That is a decision.

>>>>> We would have to wait too long as you still have not answered the direct quesion and probably won't. <<<<<<

You will just have to wait. I have better things to do with my time than just answer your stupid comments.

Saturday, May 24, 2008 6:28:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> That statement is certainly ambiguous. Are you saying that he was giving legal advice or making a decision? In reality, he was doing neither. <<<<<<<

> No, idiot, the mere fact that you disagree with a statement does not make that statement ambiguous. <

No, cretin, it was ambiguous in that it does not make it clear which, if either, he was doing.

You are trying to distract attention that you don't want to, or are unable to, answer the direct question.

>>>>> We would have to wait too long as you still have not answered the direct quesion and probably won't. <<<<<<

> You will just have to wait. I have better things to do with my time than just answer your stupid comments. <

Bozo first complains that we did not give him enough time to answer the question and then states that he won't (which we can see as he can't). Is there any wonder why he is not taken seriously?

Sunday, May 25, 2008 9:06:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home