Joined: Jan. 2006
Ah, Dave Scot, self-taught jailhouse lawyer.
Given Dave's uncanny ability to predict how Dover would go ('we own the courts, now, too'/'Judge Jones won't want to cut his career off at the knees'), we should take him very seriously now.
Let's look at this tard a little closer:
|I understand that Guillermo doesn’t believe ID is religion but his personal opinion has no bearing and he needn’t make any statement that he personally believes ID is not religion. He only needs to argue that ID is religion in the opinion of federal courts. If the justice system considers ID religion then Guillermo had his civil rights violated by Iowa State University. There can be only two outcomes - the court hearing Guillermo holds that ID is not religion and thus his civil rights were not violated (a win for ID) or the court holds that his civil rights were violated and rules that universities cannot use ID to discriminate against faculty on that basis (also a win for ID). I don’t see any downside. Either way ID comes out better for it.|
Sooo... let me disentangle this: ID isn't religion, and GG doesn't think it is, but he should claim it IS religion in the courts (isn't that bearing false witness?), so that he can either (a) win a case of religious discrimination, or (b) LOSE his case, thus 'proving' ID is not religion.
No, Dave, you tard, there's a third choice: ISU points out all the other reasons for not tenuring GG, GG's claims of religious discrimination get laughed out of court, GG stays unemployed, and the DI goes on record as saying ID is religion.
Message to Dave: haven't you been convinced by now that ID has been very ill-served by depending on lawsuits instead of research?
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus