RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (639) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... >   
  Topic: The Bathroom Wall, A PT tradition< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
J. Biggs

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2006,10:43   

Dear Raging Bee,

Although that quote sums up Larry's position, it is far too coherent to have actually come from him.  Also he never refers to anyone who supports ToE as a scientist, they are always "Darwinists".  And Evolution is always Darwinism.  Also he would probably add that Judges have no authority to rule on issues brought before them if their rulings disagree with his position.  He also likes to add that it is improbable that unguided random mutation and natural selection can account for life's complexity.  You have to remember Larry is not only an engineer, but an expert in all fields of science, law, polling, history and basket-weaving.  How dare you question his authoritay.

Raging Bee

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2006,10:43   

J: Biggs: You're right, of course; and my only excuse is that I don't have time to give Whatsmyname's obsessively-repeated axe-grinding the full range of the ridicule it deserves.

PS: I made a bit of a typo; I meant to say "...they’re guilty of fraud AND child-abuse..."

W. Kevin Vicklund



Posts: 68
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,09:01   

What's the over-under on how soon Larry attempts to post in the Just Make Bizarre Stuff Up thread?  I bet he tries to refute my comment with a case (I have a specific one in mind) that in fact supports my comment.  Another Blum v. Stenson moment, as it were.

BTW, Wesley, does Larry's ban extend to AtBC?  I've been wanting to start a thread here (at AtBC) for detailed rebuttals of various ID arguments (so we can show that the arguments are refuted without derailing the original PT thread too badly), starting with Larry's 12 (13?) claims that Judge Jones messed up.  But I don't want to violate the rules (er, anymore than I have already - it's so hard to hold back when you've got a detailed rebuttal).  The idea is to have detailed rebuttals, like those I have posted, rather than the standard Lenny responses or the one-liners.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,09:46   

just start it and see what happens, Kevin.

If they let thordaddy post threads, and not get banned, certainly nothing you could do would warrant punishment.

cheers

  
W. Kevin Vicklund



Posts: 68
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,15:57   

8:15 eastern time as J. Simes.  I'll say the over got it.  Okay, next one.  Over/under for Wesley deleting it?  I'm placing the line at midnight eastern.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,16:17   

I'm going to go out on a limb and say Wes won't delete the first one, but if larry posts the same drivel a second time, they both will be deleted then.

what's on the line here?  just bragging rights?

  
W. Kevin Vicklund



Posts: 68
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,17:39   

It's the internet, dude.  What else, other than posting rights, do we have to wager?

I'm thinking Wes may let it be if no-one really responds.  Actually, there's a hypothetical he brings up that I think is worth addressing (can an appeal be pre-emptively mooted by voluntary cessation?), regardless of who brought it up.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,00:20   

Quote
I'm thinking Wes may let it be if no-one really responds.


ahhh, but aren't you biasing the settings for the wager if you actually reply to Larry?

meh, besides which someone already did, a noob, no less, and immediately saw the inanity of larry's poots:

Quote
(Zombie Jesus help his states bar association if hes an attorney.)


so, i proceeded to inform our noob of larry's status as an escaped mental patient.

  
J Simes

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,03:21   

The new school board should have avoided any <b>appearance</b> of collusion with the Dover plaintiffs and the plaintiffs` legal representatives,   and the new school board did not do that.    For that,  the new school board members have no one to blame but themselves.  

(1) At the Dec. 5 meeting,   the new board members should have kept their campaign promises to repeal the ID policy and then offered to make an out-of-court settlement with the plaintiffs.    Even if the new board members believed that it was probably too late for such actions to do any good,   these actions would have at least been a symbolic gesture showing that the new board sincerely wanted to keep the campaign promises to repeal the ID policy and save the taxpayers money.     They knew that this meeting was the last chance to ask for an out-of-court settlement and that they were <b>lucky</b> to get the chance.   Question -- what possible harmful consequences could have resulted from taking the above actions?    

(2) The plaintiffs might have been more willing to consider making an out-of-court settlement if Judge Jones had not assured them in advance that the board election would have no effect on his decision ( -- from http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3223198 ).      The new board`s decision to not repeal the ID policy at the Dec. 5 meeting supported and reinforced Jones` decision to ignore the effect of the election .     I think I smell a conspiracy here.  

(3) New board members have blamed the former board members for the expense of the lawsuit but to my knowledge have not condemned the assignment of an excessive number of plaintiffs' attorneys, 9-10,   which drove up the attorney fee award.      At least <b>five</b>  plaintiffs` attorneys were in the courtroom on each day of the 6-week trial (-- from http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/13928874.htm  ).     Those 9-10 attorneys were not mostly just names on a distribution list.  

(4) Some new board members said that they did not want to do anything about the ID policy until after the release of the Dover decision ( --from http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3223198 ).      This wait-and-see policy could be justified only if (i) the new board members believed that  the defendants had some chance of winning the case and (ii) the new board members would have been willing to defend the ID policy in an appeal,  something that would have been completely contrary to their campaign promises to repeal the ID policy.        

(5)  After the board voted to approve the $1 million settlement,  the new board president said of Pepper Hamilton,  which together with the ACLU and the AU represented the plaintiffs,    "I think that Pepper Hamilton was very gracious.`` -- from  http://www.yorkdispatch.com/features/idesign/ci_3535139   Of course,  since the settlement had already been approved,   there was no longer any need for her to say anything nice about the plaintiffs` legal representatives,   who alone were to blame for driving up the legal costs by assigning an excessive number of attorneys.    

(6) By not taking any action at the Dec. 5 meeting,   the new board was risking not just the $1 million of the final settlement,  but was risking the $2+ million that the plaintiffs initially asked for.

The board showed that it was perfectly happy to have the Kitzmiller v. Dover case be a big fundraiser for the ACLU and the AU -- at the expense of Dover taxpayers.

The new board will never be able to prove that it was not in cahoots with the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs` attorneys.

Joseph O'Donnell

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,03:21   

<i>I think I smell a conspiracy here.</i>

I hear that tinfoil hats actually increase the ability of the CIA to get into your brain. Also, did you know that fluoride isn't really for making your teeth stronger, but it's actually to help satellites pinpoint your location by making you more electromagnetically 'visible' from space.

You'll do well to heed my warnings, lest you fall victim to the aryan 7 foot tall blond Lizards from space. They have sexual intercourse with women across America to make a new master race and are working with the CIA, fluoridation and the dover school district board to DESTROY US ALL.

DESTROY US ALL I TELL YOU.

J Simes

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,03:21   

The new school board should have avoided any <b>appearance</b> of collusion with the Dover plaintiffs and the plaintiffs` legal representatives,   and the new school board did not do that.    For that,  the new school board members have no one to blame but themselves.  

(1) At the Dec. 5 meeting,   the new board members should have kept their campaign promises to repeal the ID policy and then offered to make an out-of-court settlement with the plaintiffs.    Even if the new board members believed that it was probably too late for such actions to do any good,   these actions would have at least been a symbolic gesture showing that the new board sincerely wanted to keep the campaign promises to repeal the ID policy and save the taxpayers money.     They knew that this meeting was the last chance to ask for an out-of-court settlement and that they were <b>lucky</b> to get the chance.   Question -- what possible harmful consequences could have resulted from taking the above actions?    

(2) The plaintiffs might have been more willing to consider making an out-of-court settlement if Judge Jones had not assured them in advance that the board election would have no effect on his decision ( -- from http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3223198 ).      The new board`s decision to not repeal the ID policy at the Dec. 5 meeting supported and reinforced Jones` decision to ignore the effect of the election .     I think I smell a conspiracy here.  

(3) New board members have blamed the former board members for the expense of the lawsuit but to my knowledge have not condemned the assignment of an excessive number of plaintiffs' attorneys, 9-10,   which drove up the attorney fee award.      At least <b>five</b>  plaintiffs` attorneys were in the courtroom on each day of the 6-week trial (-- from http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/13928874.htm  ).     Those 9-10 attorneys were not mostly just names on a distribution list.  

(4) Some new board members said that they did not want to do anything about the ID policy until after the release of the Dover decision ( --from http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3223198 ).      This wait-and-see policy could be justified only if (i) the new board members believed that  the defendants had some chance of winning the case and (ii) the new board members would have been willing to defend the ID policy in an appeal,  something that would have been completely contrary to their campaign promises to repeal the ID policy.        

(5)  After the board voted to approve the $1 million settlement,  the new board president said of Pepper Hamilton,  which together with the ACLU and the AU represented the plaintiffs,    "I think that Pepper Hamilton was very gracious.`` -- from  http://www.yorkdispatch.com/features/idesign/ci_3535139   Of course,  since the settlement had already been approved,   there was no longer any need for her to say anything nice about the plaintiffs` legal representatives,   who alone were to blame for driving up the legal costs by assigning an excessive number of attorneys.    

(6) By not taking any action at the Dec. 5 meeting,   the new board was risking not just the $1 million of the final settlement,  but was risking the $2+ million that the plaintiffs initially asked for.

The board showed that it was perfectly happy to have the Kitzmiller v. Dover case be a big fundraiser for the ACLU and the AU -- at the expense of Dover taxpayers.

The new board will never be able to prove that it was not in cahoots with the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs` attorneys.

Joseph O'Donnell

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,03:21   

Did you think your paranoid ramblings weren't paranoid or irrelevant enough the first time to deserve being posted a second time?

J Simes

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,03:21   

<blockquote>Comment #94761
Posted by Joseph O`Donnell on April 5, 2006 07:08 AM

Did you think your paranoid ramblings weren’t paranoid or irrelevant enough the first time to deserve being posted a second time?</blockquote>
Sorry.   It was an accident.   It has happened to other commenters too.    I don`t know how it happens.

Rilke's Granddaughter

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,03:21   

Larry, you have been banned for being in violation of board rules (and you certainly <i>should</i> be ignored for making stupid, ill-informed, disruptive posts).  Your ignorance and maliciously rude behavior are pretty amazing, even for you.  Tell me - why <i>shouldn't</i> you be disemvowled?

Your latest screed is a case in point: it contains no actual information, no logic, and displays such an astounding ignorance of the law that I can only hope that you're not conscious of your own short-comings.

You really don't need to show us that you're rude, ignorant, and dumb.  We've already figured that out.

W. Kevin Vicklund

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,03:21   

Reed, J Simes is a known alias of the banned poster Larry Fafarman.  He was banned for posting for several months under numerous names after being warned that doing so would get him banned, and for posting under the name of a PT regular (sir-toejam, if I recall).  He has also threatened to post under Arden Chatfield's and my names in an attempt to get some of our posts deleted.  (NB - he was not banished for the content of his posts, though that may have contributed to the decision)  Please take the proper actions.

Moses

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,03:21   

<quote>Comment #94760

Posted by J Simes on April 5, 2006 07:02 AM (e)

The new school board should have avoided any appearance of collusion with the Dover plaintiffs and the plaintiffs‘ legal representatives, and the new school board did not do that. For that, the new school board members have no one to blame but themselves.</quote>

No, they couldn't.  Because wing-nut echo chamber would drag them, regardless.  <b>Just like it did!</b>

<quote>(1) At the Dec. 5 meeting, the new board members should have kept their campaign promises to repeal the ID policy and then offered to make an out-of-court settlement with the plaintiffs. Even if the new board members believed that it was probably too late for such actions to do any good, these actions would have at least been a symbolic gesture showing that the new board sincerely wanted to keep the campaign promises to repeal the ID policy and save the taxpayers money. They knew that this meeting was the last chance to ask for an out-of-court settlement and that they were lucky to get the chance. Question — what possible harmful consequences could have resulted from taking the above actions?</quote>

We have a funny little thing here in America.  It's called "the law."  The law said that the Board had to make a motion and wait 30-days for the public to comment and have proper notice.

<b>And, regardless, the Board couldn't moot the case because that's the way the law works.</b>  If you don't like the way the law works, I suggest you deal with it or move somewhere else where law-breakers can just say "oops, I'm reformed" to sabotage any case you bring.  Only to, once the case is dismissed, start their illegal actions all over again.

<quote>(2) The plaintiffs might have been more willing to consider making an out-of-court settlement if Judge Jones had not assured them in advance that the board election would have no effect on his decision ( — from http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3223198 ). The new board‘s decision to not repeal the ID policy at the Dec. 5 meeting supported and reinforced Jones‘ decision to ignore the effect of the election . I think I smell a conspiracy here.</quote>

Ah, a conspiracy nut.  Figures.  The truth is, once the case went to court and had been heard, there wasn't any point because the case couldn't be mooted (that's what Judge Jones was talking about).  Further, there was no reason to think (like happened in Kansas) the follow-up board wouldn't do the same #### thing.

Nope.  What was needed was a full-on judgment preventing this garbage from happening again as <b>the cretionist board refused to enter into a consent decree settlement binding the school district forever.</b>

<quote>(3) New board members have blamed the former board members for the expense of the lawsuit but to my knowledge have not condemned the assignment of an excessive number of plaintiffs’ attorneys, 9-10, which drove up the attorney fee award. At least five plaintiffs‘ attorneys were in the courtroom on each day of the 6-week trial (— from http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/13928874.htm ). Those 9-10 attorneys were not mostly just names on a distribution list.</quote>

Whaaa, whaa, whaa...   You know nothing of these types of Federal cases.  This wasn't an excessive number of attorneys or an excessive bill.  I've seen cases run into the $5 million, or more, legal fees.  And we're not talking "contingency" fees.  We're talking billable hours.

<quote>(4) Some new board members said that they did not want to do anything about the ID policy until after the release of the Dover decision ( —from http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3223198 ). This wait-and-see policy could be justified only if (i) the new board members believed that the defendants had some chance of winning the case and (ii) the new board members would have been willing to defend the ID policy in an appeal, something that would have been completely contrary to their campaign promises to repeal the ID policy.</quote>

The TMLC could have won the case (if they had one).  The Board (due to being unable to moot the case) couldn't change the policy to avoid fees.  The board, due to the law, couldn't change the policy until January 5th at the earliest.  The board wasn't the ****ing plaintiff!!!

<quote>(5) After the board voted to approve the $1 million settlement, the new board president said of Pepper Hamilton, which together with the ACLU and the AU represented the plaintiffs, “I think that Pepper Hamilton was very gracious.“ — from http://www.yorkdispatch.com/features/idesign/ci_… Of course, since the settlement had already been approved, there was no longer any need for her to say anything nice about the plaintiffs‘ legal representatives, who alone were to blame for driving up the legal costs by assigning an excessive number of attorneys.</quote>

They were gracious.  They could have billed DOUBLE, and collected, for what was settled.  <b>No point in acting like an ASS and doubling your costs, now is there?</b>  Or do things like actual manners and common sense get suspended by the wing-nuts?


<quote>(6) By not taking any action at the Dec. 5 meeting, the new board was risking not just the $1 million of the final settlement, but was risking the $2+ million that the plaintiffs initially asked for.</quote>

Once again, this little thing called "the law" prevents your proposed actions.  They propose a change.  It must be open for 30-days for public comment.  Then they must HEAR the public comment and vote.

No matter what YOU say from YOUR ignorance.

<quote>The board showed that it was perfectly happy to have the Kitzmiller v. Dover case be a big fundraiser for the ACLU and the AU — at the expense of Dover taxpayers.</quote>

The original board, perhaps.  Your lack of knowledge otherwise doesn't make your flimsy accusation correct.

<quote>The new board will never be able to prove that it was not in cahoots with the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs‘ attorneys.</quote>

You can't prove that you're not a child molester or serial rapist.  However, if I were to make those charges, <b>the burden of proof</b> (you know, taught to you 6th grade and 12th grade) <b>would be on me,</b> the accuser.  And, if I made those charges, and they were completely bogus, you could sue me for libel and/or slander.

Moses

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,03:21   

<quote>Comment #94776

Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on April 5, 2006 07:43 AM (e)

Larry, you have been banned for being in violation of board rules (and you certainly should be ignored for making stupid, ill-informed, disruptive posts). Your ignorance and maliciously rude behavior are pretty amazing, even for you. Tell me - why shouldn’t you be disemvowled?

Your latest screed is a case in point: it contains no actual information, no logic, and displays such an astounding ignorance of the law that I can only hope that you’re not conscious of your own short-comings.

You really don’t need to show us that you’re rude, ignorant, and dumb. We’ve already figured that out.</quote>

Oh crap, I wasted 15-minutes of my life on Larry the idiot?  Great.  Just ****ing great.

J Simes

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,04:37   

Not only was Dover plaintiff Bryan Rehm not on the school board at the time of the Dec. 5 meeting (though he might have attended the meeting as a private citizen),   but as a board member he abstained from the board`s February vote that approved the $1 million settlement with the plaintiffs -- see http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/13928874.htm  

If DI really wants to complain about something,   they should complain about the excessive number of plaintiffs` attorneys of record,  9-10,  which had the effect of driving up the calculated plaintiffs` attorney fees.     The above news article notes that the plaintiffs had no fewer than five attorneys in the courtroom on each day of the six-week trial.  

Thanks for bringing to my attention this Dec. 5 Dover school board meeting.    I was not even aware that this meeting took place -- I thought that the first meeting of the new board was on Jan. 3.

Outgoing board member Napierskie made the same proposal -- i.e.,  to try to moot the case by rescinding the ID policy -- at a mid-November ``lame duck`` meeting of the old school board (i.e.,  the meeting was held after the election).   See the following two news articles about this November meeting --

``End to Dover Suit Sought`` -- http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3219237

```Backing Out Possible,  not simple`` --  http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3223198

The second of the above two news articles shows that there was conflicting legal advice at the time of the mid-November meeting --

School district attorney Richard  Thompson said,    ``By merely dismissing the case, even if that were agreed upon, would not eliminate the plaintiffs` ability to ask for reasonable attorney fees.``

``Kevin Alan Lewis, assistant professor of theology and law at the Talbot School of Theology, Biola University in California, said the defense could file a motion to dismiss on the basis that there is no controversy because the new board doesn`t favor the curriculum.``

`` The law is clear that a court cannot make a decision on a case that is moot,``  [Carlisle attorney Andrew]  Shaw`s document read. ``If the court cannot make a decision, the court also cannot award attorney fees.``

Napierskie`s proposal was also rejected by the outgoing board at this November meeting --
``Napierskie said he was surprised board members didn`t second his motion because they won`t be around to fight the suit,  and the new board isn`t interested in having intelligent design in science class.    He also didn`t believe the new board would continue with Thompson.``

Also,  by mid-November,   some incoming board members had already expressed their intention to not do anything until after the release of the judge`s decision --  ``Several incoming board members, including Patricia Dapp,  Terry Emig and Judy McIlvaine,  said they want to hear what the judge has to say in the case.``     I think that was a cop-out,  because I presume that they had campaigned on a promise to repeal the ID policy.

Regardless of the issue of awarding of legal fees,   I think that one of the best reasons for declaring this case to be moot -- or at least ruling on narrow grounds -- was that the changeover in the school board enormously complicated the situation in regard to an appeal.    Of course,   it was unfair that the original defendants had no chance to appeal because they were voted off the school board.    And what if,  just <b>hypothetically</b>,   the judge had ruled in favor of the defendants -- then how could the plaintiffs have appealed?     Would the new school board members have decided to fight an appeal after they had campaigned on a promise to repeal the ID policy?     If  the new board decided to repeal the ID policy anyway,   that would have mooted any appeal by the plaintiffs.     Technically speaking,  the plaintiffs would then have achieved the goal of getting rid of the ID policy,    but they would have been stuck with a precedent that they would not have liked.    

Others are now going to argue that my ``hypotheses`` are meaningless because they  describe ``impossible`` situations.    But courts are supposed to follow particular principles and procedures regardless of the situation or outcome.

Also, a court decision should not be made on the basis that one of the parties is ``entitled`` to an award of attorney fees and that making a decision on the case`s merits -- as opposed to dismissing the case -- is just a means of establishing eligibility for the award.

BTW,  along this same line of reasoning --
What if -- <b>hypothetically</b> -- the judge ruled that the Dover ID policy fails the Lemon test`s ``purpose`` prong but passes the ``effect`` prong?     The plaintiffs would of course be unhappy with the ruling that the ID policy passes the effect prong,   but they could not appeal this ruling,   since they won the case anyway.      I think this describes another good reason why a judicial analysis should end as soon as it appears that the basis for a decision is airtight.    

Anyway,   I think that there are some very ticklish legal questions here -- the situation was not as clearcut as some people would like to believe.

==========================================

``The world must construe according to its wits.      This court must construe according to the law.``   -- Sir Thomas More in the play,  ``A Man for all Seasons.``

Sir_Toejam

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,04:37   

bing bing bing!!!

we have a winner!

Larry finally posted his usual drivel here.

gees, lar, took you long enough.

now, where is that delete button...

Colin

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,04:37   

<i>Others are now going to argue that my “hypotheses“ are meaningless because they describe “impossible“ situations. But courts are supposed to follow particular principles and procedures regardless of the situation or outcome.</i>

And those principles and procedures clearly forbid a district court from dismissing a challenge to an action capable of repetition.  Every lawyer who has looked at this issue with anything remotely approaching objectivity agrees that the district court could not have dismissed this action as moot even if it had been asked.  Even the board's counsel, whose interests were perfectly aligned with presenting the board with any option that could make the case go away, concluded that moving for a mootness dismissal would be a waste of time.  

I assume that Larry is a layperson.  (Zombie Jesus help his state's bar association if he's an attorney.)  Law isn't as expert-driven as science, but even so, why does it never occur to laypeople such as creationists and legalistic crackpots that the field they've chosen to stalk is actually more complicated than picking a convenient position and defending it against all contrary facts?  These really aren't difficult legal questions... Asking, "Why would this case not be mootable?" is one thing.  Insisting over and over and over again that you know better than every objective legal analysis out there is just kind of sad.

Stevaroni

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,04:37   

<blockquote class="kw_quote">Of course, it was unfair that the original defendants had no chance to appeal because they were voted off the school board.</blockquote>

But the original school board members weren't the actual defendant, the Dover School District was. Ultimately the voters that make up the District (remember them, the people who ultimately had to pay the bill) got together and wisely chose a path where they wouldn't appeal.

People are thrown out of government for doing stupid things all the time. Unfortunately even though the stupid person is gone, the liability usually stays, so it's only fair that the effected party, be it a town or the school board on their behalf, gets to figure out how to best move on.  This is no different, the people of Dover spoke, and said "enough of this foolishness". Had the people (again, the real defendant) though it was an idea worth fighting for, they could have re-elected the board members that dragged them to courthouse steps in the first place.

I find it somewhat disingenuous that the "original defendants" and those that goaded them on, arranged to fight their good fight on someone else's dime, and then got all mad when the people actually paying the bill decided to throw in the towel.

Sir_Toejam

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,04:37   

<QUOTE>(Zombie Jesus help his state’s bar association if he’s an attorney.)</QUOTE>

no worries; larry's an escapee from an as yet unknown insane assylum, somewhere near the LA area.

irritating, always wrong, completely inane, but generally harmless.

J Simes

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,04:37   

<blockquote>Comment #94647 posted by Stevaroni on April 5, 2006 12:43 AM  
<blockquote>Of course, it was unfair that the original defendants had no chance to appeal because they were voted off the school board.</blockquote>

But the original school board members weren’t the actual defendant, the Dover School District was.</blockquote>

This is nitpicking sophistry.     The actual defendant named in the lawsuit`s official complaint was the ``Dover Area School District Board of Directors,``   which is informally known as the ``Dover School Board.``   The official complaint also named the ``Dover Area School District`` as a defendant,   but this was just a formality  because the Dover School Board was solely responsible for the ID policy.           See --http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/complaint/2004-12-14_Kitzmiller_v_DASD_Complaint.PDF    The original school board members in their official capacities as school board members constituted the actual defendant.

In the Hurst v. Newman case (El Tejon,  Calif.;   this case did not go to trial),   the plaintiffs prevented the possibility of any confusion as to who the actual defendants were by suing the school board members both as individuals and in their official capacities as school board members.     See http://www2.ncseweb.org/hurst/Hurst_v_Newman_Complaint.pdf

<blockquote>I find it somewhat disingenuous that the “original defendants” and those that goaded them on, arranged to fight their good fight on someone else’s dime, and then got all mad when the people actually paying the bill decided to throw in the towel.</blockquote>

So?    The plaintiffs and ``those that goaded them on`` also ``arranged to fight their good fight on someone else’s dime, and then got all mad when the people actually paying the bill decided to throw in the towel.``    Many on the plaintiffs` side wished that the case had been appealed,    even though the plaintiffs won.

Sir_Toejam

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,04:37   

Larry, do you ever tire of making stuff up?

Raging Bee

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,04:37   

Sir_Toejam: When did Larry actually make up anything new, other than his latest nom-de-merde?  He's been recycling stale creationist talking-points at least since I first came here.

W. Kevin Vicklund

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,04:45   

Thanks, Reed.

Arden Chatfield

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,04:45   

Now, is there <i>any way</i> we can keep Larry from posting on this?

J. Biggs

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,05:11   

Dear Wes Elsberry:

I just want to inform you that J.Simes/Larry made this comment in <b>No More Coffee for Mr. Witt</b>.

<blockquote>Commenters here who continue to ask that I be banned or deleted will run the risk that I will carry out my threat to start posting under their names. That way some of their posts may be accidentally deleted along with mine.

Calls for bans and deletions on PT show the same pro-censorship mentality as the calls for bans on scientific challenges to evolution theory.

As for the PT staff, I say again — the PT staff should either stop persecuting anti-Darwinist commenters or turn in PT‘s Scientific American magazine web award.</blockquote>

He has been banned because he has repeatedly shown that he can not play by the rules.  I suspect that you know he will also lay waste to this thread if you let him.  Since this is your thread, banning Larry is certainly your call.  However, I think we can all see he deserves being banned.

Moses

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,05:11   

I see Larry is at it again.  The defendants were the Dover Area School District <b>and</b> the Dover Area School District Board of Directors.

While Larry may think it's nitpicking, it's anything but nitpicking.  It's details.  And cases are won and lost on the details.  Sue the wrong person and you may find yourself on the outside, looking in, as the case is dismissed and you've gotten past the statute of limitations to sue the correct parties.

W. Kevin Vicklund



Posts: 68
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,05:25   

And the answer is: 10:12 am eastern.

  
  19142 replies since Jan. 17 2006,08:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (639) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]