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.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Anything to avoid evolution disclaimers and "teaching the controversy"

Teachers are now attending special workshops to learn sugar-coating methods for shoving evolution down students' throats, but it is hard to take seriously some teachers' complaints about resistance to the teaching of evolution when these teachers are not in favor of trying evolution disclaimer statements and "teaching the controversy" as methods for reducing such resistance. A news article in the Atlanta-Constitution says,

Some students burst into tears when a high school biology told them they’d be studying evolution. Another teacher said some students repeatedly screamed “no” when he began talking about it.

Other teachers said students demanded to know whether they pray and questioned why the had to learn about evolution if it was just a theory.

About 60 public high school teachers from the Atlanta area were at Emory University last week, swapping stories about the challenges they face when teaching evolution.
They said students often walk in with grave misconceptions about the subject, and many parents fear teachers will tell kids that they can’t have their religious beliefs.

“I’ve seen churches train students to come to school with specific questions to ask to sabotage my lessons,” said Bonnie Pratt, a biology teacher at Northview High in north Fulton County. “We need parents and the community to understand why and how we teach evolution.”

The teachers were at a workshop on teaching evolution organized by Emory’s Center for Science Education. They discussed ways to teach it and how to address challenges and misconceptions. The training was part of a two-day evolution conference on campus that ended Friday.

However, only 2% of respondents in a recent national survey of science teachers said that they avoid evolution altogether.

In Edwards v. Aguillard 482 U.S. 578, 593-594 (1987) , the Supreme Court struck down the teaching of creationism but gave approval to "teaching the controversy":
.
We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. Indeed, the Court acknowledged in Stone [Stone v. Graham] that its decision forbidding the posting of the Ten Commandments did not mean that no use could ever be made of the Ten Commandments, or that the Ten Commandments played an exclusively religious role in the history of Western Civilization. 449 U.S. at 42. In a similar way, teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction. But because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to endorse a particular religious doctrine, the Act furthers religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.

Teachers are protesting too much when they complain that teaching the controversy would confuse students -- if evolution theory is robust, it should not be easy to confuse students about it.

The Kitzmiller v. Dover evolution-disclaimer case is widely known but it is not widely known that two other decisions against evolution disclaimers, Selman v. Cobb County (textbook sticker) and Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish (oral disclaimer), came close to being reversed. The appeals court panel in Selman v. Cobb County indicated in an oral hearing that it was leaning towards reversal but then vacated and remanded the decision because of missing evidence, and the county school board then took a dive by settling out of court. Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish came within single votes of getting an en banc (full court) appeals court rehearing and certiorari by the Supreme Court (a grant of certiorari requires approval of four of the nine Supreme Court justices). Supreme Court denials of certiorari are normally made without comment, but in an unusual move, Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justices Thomas and Rehnquist, issued a long, detailed opinion dissenting from the denial of certiorari in Freiler. The appeals court judges who dissented from the denial of an en banc rehearing also issued a long opinion.

The National Center for Science Education is especially hypocritical -- the NCSE is opposed to evolution disclaimer statements but gives teachers advice on how to use religion to promote evolution in the classroom.

Students, parents, and others need to make more resistance to the dogmatic teaching of Darwinism -- we need classroom disruptions, demonstrations, letter-writing campaigns, etc..
.

Labels:

34 Comments:

Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

The propagandists-for-Darwinism are working hard to con students into thinking that Darwinism is objectively verified science, and that it doesn't favor or oppose any religious view. Some of their propaganda-devices are quite adroit and sophisticated.

But of course their sales-pitch is false; and it's hard to believe that anyone sincerely thinks that Darwinism, i.e., the conventional evolutionary doctrine or dogma, is neutral with respect to religion.

In fact, the Darwin-dogma arbitrarly assumes and holds, that all species must have somehow arisen by perfectly mindless, mechanical processes; even though that claim cannot be scientifically demonstrated. Thus Darwinism is essentially an arbitrary doctrine derived from philosophical materialism, not a science: and philosophical materialism is a religion. Darwinism is in fact little more than the "creation-story," or creation-myth, preached by those whose religion is philosophical materialism.

Fortunately, as intelligent design theory, and also the many non-ID criticisms of Darwinism, both become more generally understood, and as the public becomes better educated and thus begins to be aware of the many weaknesses and absurdities that exist in the alleged "science" of the conventional evolutionary biologists ( or more precisely, in their pseudoscience,) the effort of the Darwin-fanatics to preach their materialist/Darwinist religion in the public schools, will become more and more diffult.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Pol Pot's ghost said...

Old Darwin claimed that blind strife
Has somehow created all life.
I'll honor his creed,
For with it, no need
For intelligence: chaos is rife,

So I'll rip up the system, and kill
Its defenders. Destroy them. I will.
Old Darwin's the way
To our Marxism! Say,
How much blood his dogma will spill,

For if people are merely machines,
Created by death, why, that means
We can break a few "eggs"
When our purpose thus begs
For slaughter. It's all in our genes.

(Pol Pot is a firm advocate of Darwinist and materialist dogmas is the public schools, and he knows how to break human "eggs.")

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:59:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Nice poetry.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:08:00 PM  
Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

Thanks, Larry. I wrote the poem
"Pol Pot's ghost said...", although I neglected to say so.

I should put a note on it that says,

"Non-copyright 2008, by Jim Sherwood. No rights reserved. May be reprinted by anyone, free, by any means whatsover, forever."

And the last word in my first comment was supposed to have been "difficult."

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:35:00 PM  
Blogger Erin said...

You can't have debate if you only let you and your cronies comments through.

Just an FYI.

P.S. patting each other on the back repeatedly doesn't count as debate.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:16:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Erin moaned,
>>>>> You can't have debate if you only let you and your cronies comments through. <<<<<<

All right, dunghill, I have posted all recently submitted comments.

You lousy trolls have a double standard -- you have not said a word of criticism of the real arbitrary censorship that goes on at other blogs.

Here is the comment that prompted me to turn on comment moderation:

Voice in the Wilderness barfed,

>>>>>> I tried to follow the instructions and they did not work. Per the instructions, I saved the comment form to my hard-drive ( I could save it only as a PDF file ), filled it in, and then tried to email the filled-in form as an attachment but could not -- I could email the comment form only as an empty form. <

The instructions work. Anyone who knows anything about computers can see what the dullard did wrong. <<<<<<<

Not only is the above statement insulting, but it has no redeeming social value because it does not say what I did wrong. Yet you lousy trolls think that my no-censorship policy somehow obligates me to allow my blog to be cluttered up with crap like that.

There is more -- ViW also barfed:

>>>>>>> Thank you for helping us in two ways:

1. You gave us the address to make comments on the need to teach science, not superstition, in science classes. <<<<<<

That kind of comment is just a waste of space -- of course I am aware that people who don't agree with me might also send in comments.

>>>>>> 2. The incoherence of your own comments will strengthen our case. <<<<<<

That comment is also a waste of space.

>>>>>> 3. I found a way around your blocking of me. Even you should be able to figure out how to solve that. <<<<<<<

That is a lie -- I never blocked ViW. Blogger.com does not even offer the option of blocking individual commenters.

However, it was ViW's first statement that really got to me because it just contained insults without explaining what I did wrong.

"So I'm the bad guy" -- like D-FENS said in "Falling Down."

You have no sense of decency, you worthless sack of #*&*$@>.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008 3:20:00 AM  
Blogger Erin said...

Larry said, (see how i don't use unnecessarily demeaning words like "barfed," "spewed," "moaned," etc.)

"All right, dunghill, I have posted all recently submitted comments." (awesome job on name-calling, specifically not allowed in your rules)

Larry, was that on this thread? or was it everywhere? Because i see that it was only on this thread. And. . .only my comment. Cool beans.

"you lousy trolls think that my no-censorship policy somehow obligates me to allow my blog to be cluttered up with crap like that."

Your no censorship policy DOES, in fact, obligate you to "allow your blog to be cluttered up with crap like that." That is EXACTLY what a no-censorship policy is about. I'm sorry that you don't like your policy, and aren't sticking to it, but that is, in fact, what a no censorship policy obligates you to do.

Larry said,
"However, it was ViW's first statement that really got to me because it just contained insults without explaining what I did wrong."

I won't say that it was "Anyone who knows anything about computers can see what the dullard did wrong." as he did, but there was, in fact, a Microsoft Mord document (Accessible via OpenOffice suite if the Microsoft Office suite is beyond your abilities.) posted. PDF documents, as a matter of course, are documents in which you may not save changes, that's their virtue as a medium. Presumably they posted the PDF so that you could fill it in, print it and fax it to them, if you so desired.

In response to the "trolls" repeatedly bringing up Larry's double standard (Defying YOUR OWN RULES which are POSTED ON YOUR BLOG!) Larry said,
"You lousy trolls have a double standard -- you have not said a word of criticism of the real arbitrary censorship that goes on at other blogs. "

This is not our problem. Period. It may happen, but it's your issue, not ours. If you want to address that (which you have tried to, repeatedly) you may put it in a blog post rather than attempting to force us to fight your battles by defying YOUR OWN RULES.

Larry also said,
"You have no sense of decency, you worthless sack of #*&*$@>."

I have no sense of decency? Really? This coming from the name-calling, ad hominem attacking, reason-defying person who writes this blog? I don't call YOU names. I don't attack your character as a means of argument. I DO adhere to the rules of debate, generally, sticking to the definitions commonly accepted by the general populus, I TRY not to change my argument halfway through the debate. (Though I know it gets me nowhere.) And it's me who's a "worthless sack of #*&*$@>?" Makes sense to me!

P.S. There is no shortage of "space" on the internet, especially since you are not hosting this site. Get over your "cluttered up" complaint. That's what you want, or claim to want. That's what no-censorship, on the internet is about.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008 12:04:00 PM  
Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

If the conventional "evolutionary biologists" would get their jackboots off the necks of the people, and especially off the necks of parents with children in school, there would be no controversy. These Darwinists are incredibly irrational, arrogant, backward, and tyrannical in their attitudes and actions.

It amazes me that these Darwin-dogma-fanatics would increase their efforts to indoctrinate children in Georgia, while the controversy continues to escalate fairly rapidly. Thanks to them, we can expect steadily increasing conflict over this for many years, and possibly for decades.

They may be so ignorant that they are unaware of the continuing decline of the old evolutionary dogmas. But who knows what goes on in their heads?

Wednesday, October 29, 2008 4:16:00 PM  
Blogger Erin said...

Dear Larry,
You have inadvertently (or maybe vertantly) turned your blog into a very boring place.

Love,
Erin

Thursday, October 30, 2008 5:11:00 PM  
Anonymous dootland said...

The instructions work. Anyone who knows anything about computers can see what the dullard did wrong. --viu.

Larry, what you probably did wrong that viu didn't say, is that you cannot save an edited .pdf file with Adobe Reader, the free download.

For you to do that you would either have to purchase the full Adobe version or use a program like OpenOffice or Scribus to save the changes in pdf format.

Since you are a regular computer user and maintain a blog (indicating one who is an advanced computer user) perhaps viu was simply flabbergasted that someone wouldn't know this.

Friday, October 31, 2008 5:56:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>>> Larry, what you probably did wrong that viu didn't say, is that you cannot save an edited .pdf file with Adobe Reader, the free download. <<<<<<<

Wrong, you stupid ignoramus. Filled-in IRS forms can be saved by means of the free Adobe reader.

>>>>> For you to do that you would either have to purchase the full Adobe version or use a program like OpenOffice or Scribus to save the changes in pdf format. <<<<<<

I wonder if it is even possible for someone other than the creator to convert an uneditable PDF file into an editable one by any means. If that were possible, it might defeat the purpose of making the file uneditable in the first place.

You lousy despicable dunghill, I am not merely an advanced computer user -- I am a super-expert computer user. I have a certificate in computer science from West Los Angeles College. I have taken well over a dozen full computer courses covering different computer languages (Fortran, C, C++, Visual Basic, etc.), operating systems (Windows, MS-DOS, etc.), and applications programs (word processing, CAD/CAM, desktop publishing, spreadsheets, etc.). I was just trying to follow the instructions for the comment form. In an act of desperation, I tried emailing the filled-in form as an attachment without saving it to my hard-drive -- no soap. I even tried using the "select" tools to copy sections of the comment form to an email -- the image quality was too poor.

And look at what that piece of crap ViU wrote:

The instructions work. Anyone who knows anything about computers can see what the dullard did wrong.

Just get the hell off this blog, you lousy dunghill.

Friday, October 31, 2008 11:29:00 AM  
Anonymous Sherry D said...

> You lousy despicable dunghill, I am not merely an advanced computer user -- I am a super-expert computer user. <

Larry is showing advanced stages in mental deterioration. First he considers himself a legal expert. Now he claims to be a computer expert despite numerous indications to the contrary.

> I have a certificate in computer science from West Los Angeles College. <

Which requires the completion of classes in mostly obsolete programming languages and operating systems. These certificates are an incentive for people to take more night classes at the colleges which are highly profitable for these colleges but are often not allowed credit for degrees even at the colleges that give them.

Friday, October 31, 2008 11:57:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

One of the nice things about comment moderation is that I can delay the posting of comments until I feel like answering them -- which is often never. I am getting sick and tired of constantly having to justify my existence.

Erin driveled (Wednesday, October 29, 2008 12:04:00 PM) --
>>>>> see how i don't use unnecessarily demeaning words like "barfed," "spewed," "moaned," etc.) <<<<<

Of course you don't use "demeaning" words, dunghill, because it is not your blog that is being cluttered up with crap.

>>>>>> Larry, was that on this thread? or was it everywhere? <<<<<<

Everywhere at that time.

>>>>>> Your no censorship policy DOES, in fact, obligate you to "allow your blog to be cluttered up with crap like that." <<<<<<

Wrong, dunghill. My no-censorship policy does not obligate me to accept the following kinds of crap --

(1) Gossip about my private affairs.

(2) Saying I am wrong without saying why -- except when something is strictly a matter of opinion, and even then a reason is sometimes in order (saying that I made a mistake in submitting a comment form is not a matter of opinion).

(3) Lying about objective facts (e.g., a claim that Judge Jones told a newspaper that he was going to follow the law when he actually told the newspaper that the school board election results would not affect his decision).

>>>>> but there was, in fact, a Microsoft Mord document <<<<<<

Wrong, dunghill. In the beginning there was only the PDF document. And I was not talking about the MS-Word form and so I don't need to discuss it now.

>>>>>> Presumably they posted the PDF so that you could fill it in, print it and fax it to them, if you so desired. <<<<<<

That was not in the instructions. And a lot of Internet users don't have the software, equipment, or skills for performing particular operations. If I printed the PDF file, I would have to send it by snail-mail -- I have no means of faxing the printed form myself. A lot of Internet users don't even know how to save, find, and retrieve files on their hard drives, or they don't know how to attach files to emails -- these are not essential skills for Internet use.

>>>>>>> This is not our problem. Period. It may happen, but it's your issue, not ours. <<<<<<

Arbitrary censorship of blog visitors' comments is a problem for a lot of people. You Darwinists are always complaining about your comments being arbitrarily censored on Uncommon Descent (I myself have given up on Uncommon Descent because I was arbitrarily censored there). The best place to post a response is on the blog that contains what one is responding to, and being able to post a response on one's own little blog doesn't begin to compensate for being censored on a big blog that is a major de facto public forum. Blogs are being authoritatively cited by court opinions, scholarly journal articles, the established news media, etc., making blog accuracy (blogs cannot be "self-correcting" if inconvenient facts are censored) and fairness of particular importance. And even if I were the only one affected by arbitrary censorship, that wouldn't make it right.

>>>>>> Get over your "cluttered up" complaint. <<<<<<

There is so much garbage posted here that it is often hard to find legitimate discussions of the issues.

Friday, October 31, 2008 3:35:00 PM  
Anonymous General Populus said...

Well! It seems I've been promoted! Thank you! :-)

Your no censorship policy DOES, in fact, obligate you to "allow your blog to be cluttered up with crap like that." That is EXACTLY what a no-censorship policy is about. I'm sorry that you don't like your policy, and aren't sticking to it, but that is, in fact, what a no censorship policy obligates you to do.

Precisely right. Touché.

Dootland receives partial credit regarding PDF files.

Larry has still not posted my offer to explain about PDFs (if he can even still find it), in return for actually following his stated policy. (Am I a "meanie"?)

Friday, October 31, 2008 8:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Hector said...

> There is so much garbage posted here that it is often hard to find legitimate discussions of the issues. <

Then just stop posting the garbage that you write, and stop censoring the legitimate discussions.

Friday, October 31, 2008 9:35:00 PM  
Anonymous General Populus said...

Larry has still not posted my offer to explain about PDFs (if he can even still find it) ...

Correction: He did post it (a mere four days late). He still has not acknowledged or accepted the offer.

Saturday, November 01, 2008 10:59:00 AM  
Blogger Nada Platonico said...

Larry wrote, "There is so much garbage posted here that it is often hard to find legitimate discussions of the issues"

I search for comments made by anyone other than Larry, Jim Sherwood, and Michael, to start. It's hard sometimes with all the posts made by Larry.

Saturday, November 01, 2008 1:50:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> I search for comments made by anyone other than Larry, Jim Sherwood, and Michael, to start.<<<<<

I have just posted all of the comments that were still in the October queue, except comments that break my simple rules and one comment that was accidentally rejected.

At least you lousy hypocritical trolls see most of your comments here after a while -- I never see any of my comments on a lot of your favorite blogs.

I may keep comment moderation turned on so that some comments will not be posted until I feel like responding to them.

Saturday, November 01, 2008 2:37:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

General Populus barfed

>>>>>> Larry has still not posted my offer to explain about PDFs <<<<<<

I know all that I need to know about PDF's, bozo.

Saturday, November 01, 2008 2:39:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Sherry shitted,
>>>>>> Which requires the completion of classes in mostly obsolete programming languages and operating systems. <<<<<<

Most of the stuff I learned is not obsolete, dunghill.

One thing I did avoid was the Pascal programming language, which was touted as a "learning" language and which was widely taught. By the time they finished upgrading Pascal (the last version I saw was version #7), it was as complicated as the other programming languages.

It was nice being familiar with an early programming language, Fortran IV, and later programming languages, C and C++, because I could tell what features were really new and what were just old features under new names. And I also saw that it was a myth that C++ added new capabilities -- C++ just enabled programs to be written in an elegant form that was more compact and more readable.

>>>>>> These certificates are an incentive for people to take more night classes at the colleges which are highly profitable for these colleges but are often not allowed credit for degrees even at the colleges that give them. <<<<<<

Wrong, idiot -- these were regular courses that could be credited towards an associate degree, which I obviously had no use for.

Saturday, November 01, 2008 4:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wrong, you stupid ignoramus. Filled-in IRS forms can be saved by means of the free Adobe reader.

Larry, you stupid ignoramus, the reason Adobe Reader is called Adobe Reader is because it is designed for one use - READING pdfs. That is also the reason it's distributed for free. The government forms are the exception, not the rule, mainly because the creation of pdfs that the end-user can save just using the Reader can be quite expensive, as you need to get a custom quote from Adobe themselves, who take into account such things as how many 'lost' sales of Adobe Acrobat would be entailed by allowing you to distribute this form.

Saturday, November 01, 2008 7:37:00 PM  
Anonymous General Populus said...

"I may keep comment moderation turned on so that some comments will not be posted until I feel like responding to them."

Some comments will not be posted until the posters feel like making them.

Sunday, November 02, 2008 12:52:00 AM  
Anonymous dootland said...

MR. Fafarman uh, sir, I concede: your computer education precludes you from having made a mistake with the pdf form.

But to insult me over this, PDF of all things, bespeaks of one ranting under the effects of cheap booze such as a $2 wine from the bottom shelf at a grocery store.

Perhaps you should consider upgrading your tipple --and none of that California stuff.

From all the drugs being done in that state I'm sure some of it has gotten into the topsoil.

Sunday, November 02, 2008 4:22:00 AM  
Anonymous Last Hussar said...

Larry, your comment

"One of the nice things about comment moderation is that I can delay the posting of comments until I feel like answering them"

is in direct contradiction of your policy.

"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."

As to the original thread Jim Sherwood is right in one thing- there is no controversy. There is no evidence for any form of Creationism or Intelligent Design. There are religeous texts from around the world (many of which do not agree with each other, or occasionally with themselves) but none of these have any evidence to show they are true.

It needs to be understood that 'NOT-Evolution' does not mean 'ID', even if evolution was shown to be false, that does not make creationism true. This is an important point to bear in mind, because most ID arguements focus on why evolution isn't true, with out providing any evidence for ID.

For ID to be taught as science, there must be something to teach aside from "[being] did it".

Sunday, November 02, 2008 5:54:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting. I make a post expalining, in detail, exactly how you are wrong about pdfs, and, after that, a post does get 'approved' - but it is NOT my post.

'No censorship' policy?

Fail.

Sunday, November 02, 2008 9:29:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Doofusland barfed,
>>>>>> I concede: your computer education precludes you from having made a mistake with the pdf form. <<<<<<

I didn't make a mistake, dunghill -- the pdf comment form cannot be used in the manner described in the TEA's instructions. And even if I had made a mistake, that was no reason to say that I know nothing about computers, you lousy sack of #$*#@. ViU's asinine comment just cluttered up this blog with shit, and my no-censorship policy does not obligate me to allow this blog to be cluttered up with shit. I just don't see that kind of shit posted on other blogs, so why should I put up with it on this blog?

And you lousy hypocritical trolls have not made a single criticism of the arbitrary censorship that is practiced on Darwinist blogs.

You lousy trolls are just desperately trying to discredit this blog because I have blown big holes in your Darwinist dogma, holocaust dogma, and other kinds of dogma. You are protesting too much.

Sunday, November 02, 2008 10:06:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous said...
>>>>>>> I make a post expalining, in detail, exactly how you are wrong about pdfs, and, after that, a post does get 'approved' - but it is NOT my post. <<<<<<

As I said, doofus, I am not publishing some comments until I feel like answering them. Your comment will be posted in due course.

And I am not wrong about pdf's, as I will show.

Sunday, November 02, 2008 10:15:00 AM  
Anonymous dunghill said...

It has been brought to my attention that I, Dung Hill, a former resident of Vietnam, am being referred to in a derogatory manner.

As Dung Hill I object to this use of my name to denote something vile and offensive. Please use another term such as fecespile or manuremound.

Thank you for your attention on this matter.

Sunday, November 02, 2008 10:22:00 AM  
Anonymous PDF Dogma said...

(G.P. says he thinks he should quit teasing Erin about misspelling "populace".)

A little history about PDF files:

The PDF format was developed many years ago by Adobe Corp. In their wisdom, they believed PDF should be an industry standard for documents. But how to achieve that?

Adobe came up with a brilliant marketing ploy. They would sell the editing program, "Acrobat",
that allows one to create or modify a PDF. But they would distribute "Reader" for free, so that anyone could transparently access a PDF read-only. This strategy was a huge success.

The TEA was operating under the assumptions of this original Adobe model. They inadvertently assumed that, because they had Acrobat, everyone else that would want to comment did also. But there's probably less than one copy of Acrobat out there for every hundred copies of Reader.

This assumption could have worked to TEA's benefit if they had stuck with it. After all, people who own Acrobat are serious publishers, or knowledgeable, or at least can afford $300 to buy it. But then TEA volunteered that they'd also accept comments written on the back of envelopes, etc. Perhaps they're still scratching their heads and wondering why those comments are less useful than those that came in the way they originally suggested?

In the meantime, agencies like the IRS were saying to Adobe, "We love your forms editing capability, but is there some way you can protect our form itself while allowing users to enter data? And BTW, our clients are not going to pony up $300 each to buy Acrobat."

And Adobe realized that whatever they did would have to integrate smoothly with their overall strategy.

So, beginning with Reader 6.0, the concept of "Document Rights" was born. This allows the form fields to be treated differently from the rest of the document. Note that, for this feature to work, you have to have both Reader 6.0 or later, and a document that has been composed to use the Document Rights features. In fact, DR includes an option to set a password on the form itself, so that even if you have Acrobat, you may be unable to modify a form unless you know the password (I'd be willing to wager a fair sum of money that the IRS has password-protected their forms).

Sunday, November 02, 2008 11:38:00 AM  
Anonymous Hector said...

> As I said, doofus, I am not publishing some comments until I feel like answering them. <

Perhaps those who you claim have censored you are just not publishing your comments until they feel like answering them?

Sunday, November 02, 2008 12:04:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous barfed,
>>>>>>Wrong, you stupid ignoramus. Filled-in IRS forms can be saved by means of the free Adobe reader.

Larry, you stupid ignoramus, the reason Adobe Reader is called Adobe Reader is because it is designed for one use - READING pdfs. That is also the reason it's distributed for free. The government forms are the exception, not the rule, mainly because the creation of pdfs that the end-user can save just using the Reader can be quite expensive, as you need to get a custom quote from Adobe themselves, who take into account such things as how many 'lost' sales of Adobe Acrobat would be entailed by allowing you to distribute this form. <<<<<<

I made no mistake, dunghill. Here is what Wikipedia says -- in part -- about "Adobe LiveCycle Reader Extensions," bozo --

The Adobe LiveCycle Reader Extensions is software that users can use to enable some features, in Acrobat Reader (now Adobe Reader) 5.1 and later on a per-file basis. These are features otherwise found in the full licensed product Adobe Acrobat.
For example, Adobe Reader cannot normally save filled in forms or apply digital signatures. If LiveCycle Reader Extensions is purchased with suitable options, it can prepare files that Reader can save or sign.

LiveCycle Reader Extensions is sold on a quotation basis, and the price will vary according to the number of forms and end users, on the basis that these are nominally lost sales of Acrobat. The original marketing target was large businesses and government organizations such as the US Internal Revenue Service . . .

The Reader extensions to enable adding comments in Reader (but no other features) are also available in Acrobat Professional 7.0. . . .

Acrobat 8 Professional

With the release of Acrobat 8 Professional, users can now enable the save feature in a PDF file for distribution to people with Adobe Reader 7.0 and later thus eliminating the need for Reader Extensions for this particular application. According to Adobe, this feature only applies to ad-hoc forms distribution and data collection. The license agreement for Acrobat 8 Professional limits this functionality to 500 unique users, or 500 submissions . . . .


What "lost sales of Acrobat"? How many people are going to pay for Adobe Acrobat software just for the occasional ability to save or email filled-in IRS forms or a few other forms?

Depending on the equipment available, people would have the following options for IRS pdf forms or other pdf forms if these forms could not be saved with filled-in data: The empty form could be printed and then filled in, and the filled-in form could be scanned back into the computer and (1) emailed as an attachment or (2) faxed (if the IRS accepts faxes), or the filled-in form could be sent by a separate fax machine or by postal mail. I don't see what the big deal is. Of course, being able to enter the data directly onto the pdf form is often easier and it is also easier to correct mistakes.

Also, I was able to use the pdf "snapshot" tool to copy small sections of the filled-in comment form into the body of an email and got good image quality -- the reason why I got poor image quality before was that the sections I tried to copy were too big.

IMO it would have been much better to use a blog-type format for accepting the comments on the new Texas science standards. One of the advantages is that you can respond to others' comments -- Steve Schafersman posted his comments on his Houston Chronicle Evo.Sphere blog and I intend to respond to them here later. Also, entering comments on blogs does not require any special skills, software, or equipment.

And how do you justify the following comment from ViU, dunghill:

>>>>>> I tried to follow the instructions and they did not work. Per the instructions, I saved the comment form to my hard-drive ( I could save it only as a PDF file ), filled it in, and then tried to email the filled-in form as an attachment but could not -- I could email the comment form only as an empty form. <

The instructions work. Anyone who knows anything about computers can see what the dullard did wrong. <<<<<<

Sunday, November 02, 2008 12:39:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

PDF dogma says,
>>>>> A little history about PDF files: <<<<<<

Why does this "little history" mean, doofus, that I should allow this blog to cluttered up with breathtakingly inane comments like the following one from ViU:

>>>>>>> I tried to follow the instructions and they did not work. Per the instructions, I saved the comment form to my hard-drive ( I could save it only as a PDF file ), filled it in, and then tried to email the filled-in form as an attachment but could not -- I could email the comment form only as an empty form. <

The instructions work. Anyone who knows anything about computers can see what the dullard did wrong. <<<<<<<

>>>>>> The PDF format was developed many years ago by Adobe Corp. In their wisdom, they believed PDF should be an industry standard for documents. <<<<<<<

The only industry standards are ASCII text and html text.

>>>>>> Adobe came up with a brilliant marketing ploy. They would sell the editing program, "Acrobat",
that allows one to create or modify a PDF. But they would distribute "Reader" for free, so that anyone could transparently access a PDF read-only. <<<<<<<

How was this a "brilliant marketing ploy"? A lot of Internet files are read-only. This blog is read-only except for the comment sections.

>>>>>> people who own Acrobat are serious publishers, or knowledgeable, or at least can afford $300 to buy it. But then TEA volunteered that they'd also accept comments written on the back of envelopes, etc. Perhaps they're still scratching their heads and wondering why those comments are less useful than those that came in the way they originally suggested? <<<<<<<

You stupid fathead, why are comments from Acrobat non-owners "less useful" than comments from Acrobat owners? What a jerk.

Sunday, November 02, 2008 1:46:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Last Hussar driveled,

>>>>> Larry, your comment

"One of the nice things about comment moderation is that I can delay the posting of comments until I feel like answering them"

is in direct contradiction of your policy. <<<<<<

I am not going to the trouble of rewriting my policy just because some lousy trolls are messing up this blog, bozo.

>>>>>> There is no evidence for any form of Creationism or Intelligent Design. <<<<<<

There is a lot of evidence for creationism or ID, but Darwinists say that design is an illusion because there is so much evidence for evolution. But maybe evolution is an illusion.

>>>>>> For ID to be taught as science, there must be something to teach aside from "[being] did it". <<<<<<

As I said, even teaching pseudoscientific criticisms of evolution serves the purposes of broadening students' education, encouraging critical thinking, helping students learn the material, increasing student interest, preventing misconceptions, and helping to assure that technically sophisticated criticisms are taught by qualified science teachers. Also, there are non-ID criticisms of evolution -- I discuss some of them in articles under the "Non-ID criticisms of evolution" post label in the sidebar of the homepage.

Sunday, November 02, 2008 2:41:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Hector hectored,
>>>>> Perhaps those who you claim have censored you are just not publishing your comments until they feel like answering them? <<<<<<

Like is a few years enough time, dunghill? And they still have not published my comments.

Sunday, November 02, 2008 3:59:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home