Was "How to spot a hidden religious agenda" article libelous?
A few weeks ago, New Scientist magazine published online (and also in the printed magazine, so I have heard) an article titled, "How to spot a hidden religious agenda." The article was then pulled and the following message was left:
A copy of the original article is here.
My analysis of the article:
IMO it is libelous to negatively stereotype publications solely on the basis of words or terms that they contain. The article implies that one could do a computerized word search of a publication and if any of the taboo words are found, conclude that the publication has a "hidden religious agenda." Indeed, a publication containing words or terms listed in the article may actually be pro-Darwinist and/or anti-religious. IMO the article would be OK if it were titled "How to spot a possible (not "hidden") religious agenda" and if the contents were consistent with that title (the contents are not now consistent with that title). Anyway, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black -- a lot of pro-Darwinist publications have religious agendas.
Also, the article has a serious factual error:
.
"Continue" to lose court battles? There was only one court case about ID: Kitzmiller v. Dover. And ID was not actually taught in the Dover Area school district -- there was just a one-minute evolution-disclaimer statement that informed the students that ID books were available in the school library.
.
New Scientist has received a legal complaint about the contents of this story. At the advice of our lawyer it has temporarily been removed while we investigate. Apologies for any inconvenience.
A copy of the original article is here.
My analysis of the article:
IMO it is libelous to negatively stereotype publications solely on the basis of words or terms that they contain. The article implies that one could do a computerized word search of a publication and if any of the taboo words are found, conclude that the publication has a "hidden religious agenda." Indeed, a publication containing words or terms listed in the article may actually be pro-Darwinist and/or anti-religious. IMO the article would be OK if it were titled "How to spot a possible (not "hidden") religious agenda" and if the contents were consistent with that title (the contents are not now consistent with that title). Anyway, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black -- a lot of pro-Darwinist publications have religious agendas.
Also, the article has a serious factual error:
.
As creationists in the US continue to lose court battles over attempts to have intelligent design taught as science in federally funded schools, their strategy has been forced to... well, evolve.
"Continue" to lose court battles? There was only one court case about ID: Kitzmiller v. Dover. And ID was not actually taught in the Dover Area school district -- there was just a one-minute evolution-disclaimer statement that informed the students that ID books were available in the school library.
.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 3/31/2009 09:23:00 AM
28 Comments:
The article appears to me to be full of libelous claims, although I'm not a legal scholar. For instance, it claims that Denyse O'Leary is a "creationist," which is manifestly false. But New Scientist today is full of arbitrary materialist propaganda. These fanatics are evidently becoming more and more desperate.
The worst "hidden religious agenda" is that of the Darwinists and the apostles of materialist philosophies, who work to install the Church of Darwin (as it might appropriately be called) in public school science classrooms.
Sounds like New Scientist (the national inquirer for science magazines) is using something that might come from secret societies like "Freemasonary" or something like that...lol
The NCSE jumped on the bandwagon of "hidden religious agendas" with New Scientist, coming up with other claims of it's own such as; "Analyze and Evaluate" are code words for creationism because the likes of Scott claims only creationists doubt evolutionary theories...Yea really, does Scott and others like her believe evolutionists should not have independence of their own?
It appears that way, this is what I call; nutty conspiracy theories who have nothing to back up their claims while believing in indoctrination of evolution!
Michael said,
>>>>>> The NCSE jumped on the bandwagon of "hidden religious agendas" with New Scientist, coming up with other claims of it's own such as; "Analyze and Evaluate" are code words for creationism because the likes of Scott claims only creationists doubt evolutionary theories. <<<<<
Right, Michael. The Darwinists also see "weaknesses" as a code word. At least I had a rational reason for not liking the word "weaknesses": invalid criticisms are not real weaknesses. And because the scientific meaning of the word "theory" is different from the everyday meaning, the Darwinists threaten to hire process servers to serve process on government officials for using that word in science education standards.
Larry, you may want to look up what actually constitutes libel and then explain what is libelous in that content. As to their being only a single court case, that's true only if you have a short term memory:
Epperson v. Arkansas, Daniel v. Waters, Hendren v. Campbell, McClean v. Arkansas, Segraves v. California, Edwards v. Aguillard, Bishop v. Aronov, Webster v. New Lenox, LeVake v. Independent School District, Kitzmiller v. Dover and that's only off the top of my head. The only other cases (such as Cobb County) have been more or less draws. That's from 1968 to 2005. Now, there's only been a single decision explicitly about ID, but given that that that court and the article both take the position that ID is just creationism...
Joshua driveled,
>>>>>> Larry, you may want to look up what actually constitutes libel and then explain what is libelous in that content. <<<<<<
I don't need to look up "libel," bozo, I know what it means. I already explained what I think is libelous in that content (context?). The lawyer who advised the magazine to pull the article also thought it might be libelous (though this is a British magazine and British libel law might be stricter than US libel law).
>>>>>> Epperson v. Arkansas, Daniel v. Waters, Hendren v. Campbell, McClean v. Arkansas, Segraves v. California, Edwards v. Aguillard, Bishop v. Aronov, Webster v. New Lenox, LeVake v. Independent School District, Kitzmiller v. Dover and that's only off the top of my head. <<<<<<<
Most of those cases are minor. And don't think I am impressed by your rattling off these cases from the "top of [your] head," ignoramus, because you missed a really big one -- Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish, which struck down an oral evolution-disclaimer statement. What makes Freiler especially significant was how close it came to being reversed -- it came within one vote of getting an en banc (full court) appeals court rehearing and within one vote of a grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court (it got three votes and a minimum of four votes are required). There were dissenting opinions opposing the denials of en banc rehearing and certiorari -- this was especially unusual in the Supreme Court, where denials of certiorari are usually made without comment. You also missed Peloza v. Capistrano School District, where the 9th circuit court of appeals ruled that a teacher could be required to teach evolution even if teaching it is against his religion.
>>>>>> The only other cases (such as Cobb County) have been more or less draws. <<<<<<
Selman v. Cobb County was not a "more or less draw." The appeals court judges indicated at an oral hearing that they were leaning towards reversal and then they vacated and remanded the decision because of missing evidence. The school board then took a dive by settling out of court.
>>>>>> Now, there's only been a single decision explicitly about ID, but given that that that court and the article both take the position that ID is just creationism... <<<<<<
I don't give a damn what position was taken by Judge "Jackass" Jones and that stupid article -- Kitzmiller v. Dover was the only decision that expressly ruled on ID. You lousy Darwinists think that you can make up anything.
Larry, you state that "British libel law might be stricter than US libel law." In fact it is much stricter (in England and Wales at least, Scotland and Northern Ireland are complicated). This has actually lead to the term "libel tourism." When I wrote my earlier remark I wasn't aware that New Scientist was based in England. That makes their behavior much more reasonable. (The issue in England is primarily not that what constitutes libel is much broader than in the US but that the burden of proof is much more difficult)
Now regarding the cases I listed. Of course most of the cases are minor. It isn't frequent that there's a massive test case with massive amounts of resources pored in by all sides.
You are correct of course to point out that there are cases that I didn't list although given that I was again working off the top of my head I fail to see how it is my fault for missing some.
Regarding Cobb County, in general what judges or justices say in oral arguments is rarely a good predictor of what will end up happening. Look for example Granholm v. Heald. And again, regardless, the court didn't reverse the decision. They remanded. There's no way of getting around that fact.
Moreover, the fact that some cases almost got overturned isn't compelling. The general pattern is quite clear: creationism and its offspring intelligent design have lost every single case in the last 40 years. Creationists have continued to modify their tactics in response to those court cases and each time the court has said no.
Joshua said,
>>>>>>> You are correct of course to point out that there are cases that I didn't list although given that I was again working off the top of my head I fail to see how it is my fault for missing some. <<<<<<
You were trying to show off, bozo, by saying that you were working off the top of your head, so I called you on it. You missed two important cases.
>>>>>> Regarding Cobb County, in general what judges or justices say in oral arguments is rarely a good predictor of what will end up happening. <<<<<<<
It was a good indicator this time -- the appeals judges were not subtle. Judge Ed Carnes told the plaintiffs/appellees' attorney stuff like the following:
"I don't think y'all can contest any of the sentences. The sticker says that evolution is a theory and not a fact -- the book supports that."
"Your problem is that you have to take a sentence that is reflective of a book you love so much, and say that it violates the First Amendment."
Another judge said that he saw no evidence that the sticker misled students.
>>>>>>> And again, regardless, the court didn't reverse the decision. They remanded. There's no way of getting around that fact. <<<<<<
Doofus, my point was that the appeals court judges likely would have reversed the decision if it hadn't been vacated and remanded because of missing evidence. What an idiot.
>>>>>> Moreover, the fact that some cases almost got overturned isn't compelling. <<<<<<
You stupid fathead, vote splits in the courts are considered to be very important and are often very closely watched. Why do you think there are such big fights over judicial nominations? And in Freiler, the judges/justices opposing the denials of certiorari and an en banc rehearing wrote dissenting opinions -- that is especially unusual in the Supreme Court.
>>>>>> The general pattern is quite clear: creationism and its offspring intelligent design have lost every single case in the last 40 years. <<<<<<<
I was just pointing out, doofus, that you Darwinists had close shaves in Selman v. Cobb County and Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish. You were very lucky.
You are a lousy troll.
Joshua, you lousy troll, in the last comment that you submitted, you said,
"I am, however, happy to see that you agree that Cobb despite what its proponents claimed in court, was really about creationism."
I never agreed to that. That statement is absolutely false and your comment will not be posted until that statement is removed.
Larry, well excuse me for misinterpreting what you said. I didn't save the comment so I invite you to repost it below without that remark if it bothers you so much.
OK, here is your comment without the offending sentence:
Joshua said,
Larry, it might occur to you that someone was saying off the top of their head to make a point about how many cases there were, not to "show off". In any event, even if I had been trying to show it doesn't alter the point at all, that there have been many cases.
And you are still missing the fundamental point. Creationists have lost every single case that's come up. Every single one. Even if Cobb had gone the other way, that would give you a total of one case out of some 15 or so going for creationists. If this were a sports team and the best one could say about their record was something like "well yes, their record for the season is 15-0-1, but one case almost went into overtime and the tie almost went to their side" what would the response be? It wouldn't be to conclude that the team was doing well.
Ok, then Larry now my inquiry for you: What was wrong with my sentence? In particular, how do you think that Cobb County is at all relevant if it was not about creationism or about intelligent design?
Joshua said,
>>>>>> Larry, it might occur to you that someone was saying off the top of their head to make a point about how many cases there were, not to "show off". <<<<<<
Saying "only off the top of my head" implied that there were a lot of cases that you did not mention. How many cases didn't you mention, other than the two that I pointed out, Freiler and Peloza?
>>>>>> Even if Cobb had gone the other way, that would give you a total of one case out of some 15 or so going for creationists. <<<<<<
Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish was almost reversed too. The important thing is that you Darwinists have been crowing that your opponents have never won a single case, and a single victory would change that.
Joshua said...
>>>>>> how do you think that Cobb County is at all relevant if it was not about creationism or about intelligent design? <<<<<
Creationism and ID are not the only criticisms of evolution theory.
Yes, a single victory would change that. Look at the sports analogy again. A record that is 0-15-1 is still 15 losses and 1 tie. Even if one of those moved over to 1-14-1 or even to 2-14-0 that would still be a crushingly bad season. Furthermore, it wouldn't alter the point made by the New Scientist article in the slightest: creationism and its variants (or if you prefer "anti-evolutionists") have lost far more cases than they've won.
As to how many cases did I not mention- I mentioned all I could from thinking for a few minutes. I suppose there all of the Larry Caldwell lawsuits also. I suspect there are others but I don't know and it wouldn't alter things substantially. Unless there's some case where creationists won that you and I both couldn't remember the situation simply would become even more overwhelming. And again, even if the creationists did win a single case it doesn't make the situation very different. The bottom line is that the New Scientist's characterization was completely correct.
>>>>>> Yes, a single victory would change that. Look at the sports analogy again. <<<<<<
No, doofus, I am not going to look at the sports analogy again. Winning a big court case would break a significant psychological barrier -- you Darwinists could never say again that we never won anything.
Actually, we have had some minor "victories" -- Chris Comer and Yoko Ono lost their lawsuits. But we haven't had a really big victory yet.
>>>>>> And again, even if the creationists did win a single case it doesn't make the situation very different. The bottom line is that the New Scientist's characterization was completely correct. <<<<<<
What? You are changing the subject -- the New Scientist article had nothing to do with lawsuits.
Larry, you must be pretty desperate when you count Yoko Ono's copyright dispute with Ben Stein as an example of a lawsuit over whether ID could be taught in school. Let's not forget the original context. Let's also not forget that many of the "Darwinists" were not at all happy with her lawsuit.
The context is creationism in public schools. That's what the New Scientist was talking about, and you can't get around that by throwing out other examples.
And yes, winning a single case would mean that creationists would not have lost every single case about teaching things in schools. It would still be an abysmal record.
>>>>>> Larry, you must be pretty desperate when you count Yoko Ono's copyright dispute with Ben Stein as an example of a lawsuit over whether ID could be taught in school.<<<<<<
You are putting words in my mouth -- I never said it was such an example. It was, however, a related case, and dismissal of her suit was certainly the best outcome for opponents of dogmatic Darwinism.
Also, you mentioned Caldwell v. Caldwell, which also was not such an example.
>>>>>> The context is creationism in public schools. That's what the New Scientist was talking about, and you can't get around that by throwing out other examples. <<<<<<
No, that is not what New Scientist was talking about. New Scientist was talking about "How to spot a religious agenda."
>>>>>> And yes, winning a single case would mean that creationists would not have lost every single case about teaching things in schools. It would still be an abysmal record. <<<<<<
How many times do I have to repeat myself, bozo? I said that winning a big case would break a psychological barrier -- you Darwinists could never again claim that we never won anything in court.
Larry, the section in the article that you were responding to said "As creationists in the US continue to lose court battles over attempts to have intelligent design taught as science in federally funded schools, their strategy has been forced to... well, evolve." You responded to that. We were, last I checked, discussing the other cases in the context of the section you quoted. So yes, that is precisely what New Scientist was talking about.
I don't know why I'm bothering to have this discussion when you can't even keep track of what we're talking about.
And the Caldwell suits are relevant to teaching of evolution in public schools (although not all of them). Caldwell by his own description is trying to get evolution criticized in public schools (http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo4/IDcaldwell.php ), Caldwell's suit against Berkeley was about material related to evolution on Berkeley's website. Berkeley is, don't forget, a public university. Some of Caldwell's other suits are similarly related.
As to your comment that there are substantial forms of anti-evolution that aren't creationism or ID, well the New Scientist apparently disagrees with you, as do the courts... funny that.
>>>>>> Larry, the section in the article that you were responding to said "As creationists in the US continue to lose court battles over attempts to have intelligent design taught as science in federally funded schools, their strategy has been forced to... well, evolve." You responded to that. We were, last I checked, discussing the other cases in the context of the section you quoted. So yes, that is precisely what New Scientist was talking about. <<<<<<
OK, I was thinking about the main theme of the New Scientist article, "how to spot a hidden religious agenda," because that was the reason why the article was pulled. Also, you threw me off by saying,
"The context is creationism in public schools. That's what the New Scientist was talking about, and you can't get around that by throwing out other examples. " The context was specifically intelligent design in public schools, not creationism in public schools -- New Scientist magazine was talking about "attempts to have intelligent design taught as science in federally funded schools."
>:>>>> I don't know why I'm bothering to have this discussion when you can't even keep track of what we're talking about. <<<<<<<
I wish you wouldn't bother to have this discussion or any other discussion on this blog. You are just a lousy troll who wastes my time. A lot of bloggers wouldn't even bother to post your crap.
>>>>>> And the Caldwell suits are relevant to teaching of evolution in public schools (although not all of them). <<<<<<<
Caldwell v. Rosewell Joint Union High School District was about what is actually taught in public schools. The much better known Caldwell v. Caldwell was not about what is actually taught in public schools.
>>>>> As to your comment that there are substantial forms of anti-evolution that aren't creationism or ID, well the New Scientist apparently disagrees with you, as do the courts... funny that. <<<<<<
Wrong, bozo -- they don't apparently disagree with me, and what if they did? I am entitled to my opinion. Funny that.
Larry, you just quoted the phrase "attempts to have intelligent design taught as science in federally funded schools." to claim that it is only about intelligent design when the quote starts off "As creationists in the US continue to lose court battles over ttempts to have intelligent design taught as science..." Yeah. This isn't about creationism at all.
The rest of what you said was similarly flawed. But since you apparently would rather I not comment you can be assured this will be my last remark here. Why you leave open commenting and then get annoyed when people disagree with you is beyond me but to each his own I suppose.
>>>>>> Larry, you just quoted the phrase "attempts to have intelligent design taught as science in federally funded schools." to claim that it is only about intelligent design when the quote starts off "As creationists in the US continue to lose court battles over ttempts to have intelligent design taught as science..." <<<<<<
You lousy troll, I already said that the article's statement is wrong because only one court case dealt specifically with intelligent design. I don't give a damn if the article's author and Judge "Jackass" Jones think that ID and creationism are one and the same. BTW, even Judge Jones did not claim that ID and creationism are one and the same -- he only claimed that ID could not escape its "creationist roots."
>>>>>> since you apparently would rather I not comment you can be assured this will be my last remark here. <<<<<<
Good riddance.
>>>>> Why you leave open commenting and then get annoyed when people disagree with you is beyond me but to each his own I suppose. <<<<<<<
I don't get annoyed with people just for disagreeing with me -- I just get annoyed with lousy trolls.
"Caldwell v. Rosewell Joint Union High School District was about what is actually taught in public schools. The much better known Caldwell v. Caldwell was not about what is actually taught in public schools."
It's Roseville, not Rosewell; and the suit against the district was concerned with whether or not Mr. Caldwell was allowed an adequate voice concerning the curriculum and whether or not he suffered from 'veiwpoint discrimination', not about the curriculum per se. Perhaps that's a subtle difference but it's an important difference.
Mr. Caldwell is 0-5. (1) Lost in his direct attempts to insert Intelligent Design Creationism in his local public schools, (2) lost in his attempt to sue the district, (3) and then its administrators. (4)Lost in his suit against UC (Caldwell v. Caldwell), (5) and lost in its appeal.
Bio613 said,
>>>>>>It's Roseville, not Rosewell; and the suit against the district was concerned with whether or not Mr. Caldwell was allowed an adequate voice concerning the curriculum and whether or not he suffered from 'veiwpoint discrimination', not about the curriculum per se<<<<<<
How is "whether or not Mr. Caldwell was allowed an adequate voice concerning the curriculum" . . . "not about the curriculum per se"?
>>>>>> Mr. Caldwell is 0-5. (1) Lost in his direct attempts to insert Intelligent Design Creationism in his local public schools, (2) lost in his attempt to sue the district, (3) and then its administrators. (4)Lost in his suit against UC (Caldwell v. Caldwell), (5) and lost in its appeal. <<<<<<
Wrong, bozo, Caldwell not only lost the ninth circuit appeal but was also denied certiorari by the Supreme Court. That makes him 0-6, not 0-5, stupid. Duh.
And if Caldwell had won in the Supreme Court, that would make him 1-5, right?
You stupid fathead, only final wins and losses of court cases count -- individual court actions that are not conclusive are not counted. And Caldwell v. Roseville should also count as only one loss.
What a stupid idiot.
"How is . . . "not about the curriculum per se"?"
Just that. The issue of what may be included in the curriculum was not a component of that suit. Even if he had won that suit his curriculum proposal would have not been any closer to being implemented than it was because the curriculum issue wasn't a part of that suit. Caldwell felt his rights as a taxpayer had been violated. They were not. In fact the district bent over backwards to listen to his concerns.
"That makes him 0-6, not 0-5, stupid. Duh."
Well, you've got me there. Of course you've got to be 0-5 before you can be 0-6.
"And if Caldwell had won in the Supreme Court . . ."
If, if, if ...; well, he didn't. In fact the Supreme Court basically told him you don't have anything that we're going to spend our time on.
But let's stay with your proposition that he won or lost in the Supreme Court and that ". . . only final wins and losses of court cases count . . ." .
He lost and so his record in the only case that counts is 0-1. And if you're right and the cases he brings are ultimately about the curriculum the in the only case that matters Intelligent Design Creationism takes a big fat loss.
0 - 1 with no more games to play.
Bio613 said,
>>>>>> The issue of what may be included in the curriculum was not a component of that suit. Even if he had won that suit his curriculum proposal would have not been any closer to being implemented than it was because the curriculum issue wasn't a part of that suit. <<<<<<
Then what was the point of the lawsuit? The three basic conditions for Article III standing to sue are: (1) injury-in-fact, (2) injury is traceable to action of the defendant, and (3) injury is redressable by the court. If the court could not change the curriculum, then it seems that the third condition could not be satisfied.
>>>>>"And if Caldwell had won in the Supreme Court . . ."If, if, if ...; well, he didn't.<<<<<<
I was just making up a hypothetical example to illustrate the absurdity of your numbering system, doofus.
>>>>>> In fact the Supreme Court basically told him you don't have anything that we're going to spend our time on. <<<<<<
Denial of certiorari by the Supreme Court does not mean that the petition for certiorari has no or little merit. Even Fatheaded Ed Brayton opposed dismissal of Caldwell v. Caldwell on the grounds of lack of standing to sue, and that is really saying something.
>>>>> He lost and so his record in the only case that counts is 0-1 <<<<<<
I don't know enough about Caldwell v. Roseville to express an opinion about whether it counted or not.
>>>>>>> And if you're right and the cases he brings are ultimately about the curriculum the in the only case that matters Intelligent Design Creationism takes a big fat loss. <<<<<<
I said that Caldwell v. Caldwell was not about the curriculum per se, and it was also not about Intelligent Design. It was a complaint that a government-sponsored website gave a one-sided view of the compatibility of evolution and religion.
>>>>>> 0 - 1 with no more games to play. <<<<<<
The plaintiff's attorneys have considered refiling the lawsuit with a teacher instead of a parent as mascot.
"Then what was the point of the lawsuit?"
That's a good question. The only person who can really answer that is Larry Caldwell. Since it doesn't satisfy any of the three conditions you've presented, and doesn't include implementing the changes to curriculum that he proposed to the school district, there doesn't appear to be much point to it. I think it's easy to see why so many people ask, as you did, 'What's the point here?'
"... just making up a hypothetical example. . ."
There's not much reason to bring up hypothetical examples. We're able to deal with factual events here. My numbering system isn't absurd; 0-5, no wins adds up to 0 and 5 losses adds up to 5. Of course as you pointed out it should reflect a worse performance than that - 6 losses.
"Denial ... does not mean that the petition ... has no or little merit."
Denial does send the message that the Supreme Court has limited time and resources and the case does not have sufficient merit to cause us to spend that time and resource dealing with it; and we don't think that the lower courts made a mistake. In spite of the fact that it was a petition to the Supreme Court the case could be described as frivolous, from the point of view of the court.
"I don't know enough about Caldwell v. Roseville to express an opinion ..."
But you did express an opinion. You stated "Caldwell v. Rosewell Joint Union High School District was about what is actually taught in public schools." which it was not, and then you reinforced your opinion that it was about curriculum by stating "How is "whether or not Mr. Caldwell was allowed an adequate voice concerning the curriculum" . . . "not about the curriculum per se"?"
Do you think that the Caldwell v. Roseville was about curriculum and yet 'didn't count'?
"I said that Caldwell v. Caldwell was not about the curriculum per se"
No you didn't. You stated "How is "whether or not Mr. Caldwell was allowed an adequate voice concerning the curriculum" . . . "not about the curriculum per se"?" in direct response to my comment about the Caldwell suit against the 'Roseville not Rosewell' district. Do you lie just now or forget what you said?
"... attorneys have considered refiling the lawsuit with a teacher ..."
Well, it will be interesting to see who the teacher is. There's no doubt there will be more games that Caldwell will play.
>>>>>> Of course as you pointed out it should reflect a worse performance than that - 6 losses. <<<<<<
It was obvious that I was being sarcastic, dunghill.
>>>>>> Denial does send the message that the Supreme Court has limited time and resources <<<<<<
True.
>>>>>> and the case does not have sufficient merit to cause us to spend that time and resource dealing with it; and we don't think that the lower courts made a mistake. In spite of the fact that it was a petition to the Supreme Court the case could be described as frivolous, from the point of view of the court. <<<<<<
WHAT? You are so full of living crap that it is coming out your ears, you stupid crackpot.
>>>>>> But you did express an opinion. You stated "Caldwell v. Rosewell [Roseville] Joint Union High School District was about what is actually taught in public schools." <<<<<<
Yes, but I did not express any opinion about the merits of the lawsuit.
>>>>> and then you reinforced your opinion that it was about curriculum by stating "How is "whether or not Mr. Caldwell was allowed an adequate voice concerning the curriculum" . . . "not about the curriculum per se"?"<<<<<<
That is not expressing an opinion about the merits of the lawsuit.
>>>>>> Do you think that the Caldwell v. Roseville was about curriculum and yet 'didn't count'? <<<<<<
I am saying that only the final loss of the lawsuit counts. The denial of administrative relief was not conclusive because that denial was appealed to the courts and hence should not be added to the loss of the lawsuit. According to your screwed-up reasoning, the losses of most lawsuits count as multiple losses because of negative administrative decisions and multiple negative non-conclusive court decisions. What a stupid jerk.
>>>>>> "I said that Caldwell v. Caldwell was not about the curriculum per se"
No you didn't. You stated "How is "whether or not Mr. Caldwell was allowed an adequate voice concerning the curriculum" . . . "not about the curriculum per se"?" <<<<<<
When I said, "How is "whether or not Mr. Caldwell was allowed an adequate voice concerning the curriculum" . . . "not about the curriculum per se"?", I was talking about Caldwell v. Roseville, not Caldwell v. Caldwell, doofus.
>>>>>"... attorneys have considered refiling the lawsuit with a teacher ..."
Well, it will be interesting to see who the teacher is. <<<<<
Why?
>>>>>> There's no doubt there will be more games that Caldwell will play. <<<<<<
It is the courts that have been playing games.
Post a Comment
<< Home