Fatheaded Ed publishes probable hoax
A post on the blog of unscrupulous BVD-clad blogger Fatheaded Ed Brayton says,
A federal judge in New York has issued an injunction against any further distribution of Expelled in a lawsuit filed by Yoko Ono over the use of John Lennon's Imagine in the film without permission. The movie can continue to be shown, but no new prints can be sent out and they cannot distribute DVDs of the movie at least until they hold a hearing on a further injunction on May 19.
So far, no one has been able to verify the story. Ed and a commenter sent others on a wild goose chase trying to find verification. If it does turn out that this is a hoax, Ed will probably delete the post. I wish I could save the post as proof, but the webpage-saver program I tried didn't work for me. I hope that enough readers here see Ed's post before he deletes it.
Ron Steinman wrote,
.
There is a growing and disturbing movement in the media for a new freedom that promotes the idea that whoever covers news, and believes they are journalists without credentials, can and should be their own editor, writing and saying what he pleases in his self-created Web log [and also arbitrarily censoring comments from those who disagree with him]. Everywhere I turn, those who call themselves serious journalists, some even using that grand and old fashioned phrase, the press, are assaulting us with the virtues of this new-found freedom. Thus, blog, the shortened version, is now the latest gobbledygook noun in the English language. Lewis Carroll would be proud.
. . . .A major problem is bloggers who run items with no sources. When they cite sources, they are so tenuous as to make you pass Go and return the $200. When caught, the blog will sometimes print retractions quickly [a BVD-clad blogger is likely to just delete the comment that pointed out the error]. The problem is that the readers have become so undiscerning it makes no difference [Fatheaded Ed's fans are a good example]. As quickly as an item is found wrong and as quickly as the blog runs a correction, another rises to take its place. Accuracy has no place on many blogs. (bracketed comments are mine)
.
Labels: Ed Brayton (new #1)
12 Comments:
Larry,
I gave up a long time ago in commenting on your stupidity, but just in case anyone ("Anyone?) still reads your blog, you can find Judge Stein's Order to Show Cause in Lennon v. Premise (docket no. 08-cv-3813, SDNY). I'm holding a copy in my hand. It's printed in full on Ed Brayton's blog. Still think it's a hoax, folks?
Well it looks like Scary Larry had done it again. He even supplies the pies for people to throw into his face.
Scary Larry thinks that that name was chosen because people are in awe of his debating skills. It is the same as his other nicknames that he has aquired on the net such as Farfromsane and "The Great Shithead".
So Larry - you expect that Ed Brayton will delete his "hoax" post once he is proved wrong.
What will you do now that you have been proved wrong?
Do you know the meaning of the word "integrity?"
Or do you view the number of commenters here telling you what a fool you are as some sort of proof of "pushing the Darwinists' buttons?"
Well, it was a sort of a hoax -- the judge titled the order a "temporary restraining order" rather than an "injunction" (Ed's term for it) or "preliminary injunction." Though TRO's are generally considered to be injunctions, this TRO -- in comparison to typical preliminary injunctions -- is of short duration, lasting only about three weeks until a hearing on a real preliminary injunction is held. There was not enough evidence for a real preliminary injunction. However, I concede that the terms TRO and preliminary injunction might sometimes be used interchangeably. Anyway, if you go to Fatheaded Ed's blog, you will see that several commenters criticized his failure to identify his source, which was an obscure source that requires a fee.
"Well, it was sort of a hoax..."
Yeah - and your post was sort of a lie.
Any chance you'll be fixing it (in the post itself, not in the comments)?
>>>>> Any chance you'll be fixing it (in the post itself, not in the comments)? <<<<<
Done.
Also, I was very hasty about publishing this post because I was afraid that if Ed's article was exposed as a hoax, he would delete it and then I couldn't show it to people.
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?
Come on Larry. Scrape the lemon merangue off of your face and apologize to Ed.
(Urp!)
>>>>> you couldn't make yourself look more stupid if you tried. <<<<<<
Fatheaded Ed is the one who looks stupid, dunghill -- see my post titled "Fatheaded Ed's untrustworthiness." Not even lousy troll ViU tried to dispute my claim that Fatheaded Ed is untrustworthy.
> Not even lousy troll ViU tried to dispute my claim that Fatheaded Ed is untrustworthy. <
What purpose would there be in disputing it? Only you are stupid enough to believe it and you are not from Missouri and can't be shown.
Post a Comment
<< Home