Talk:John E. Jones III

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Talk:John E. Jones III as edited by RSchlafly (Talk | contribs) at 17:20, 7 May 2007. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Conservative your an embarrassment. Etaroced 02:13, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Signed an order prohibiting appeal???? And your a LAWYER???? Wow. Etaroced 02:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, do you have a cite, Andy?-AmesGyo! 10:30, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
I thought that the newly-elected Dover school board members agreed to a settlement that prohibited an appeal, and Jones signed it. RSchlafly 12:49, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Plagiarism Goofiness

The DI blogger in question suggested Jones may have committed plagiarism, inviting the reader to "decide for yourself." He didn't make an accusation, and we should not characterize his statements as such. If you find another source where a DI blogger accuses Jones of plagiarism, by all means change the wording again, but also change the note to a source that actually supports such a claim. The whole thing is kind of goofy, and I don't want to make DI's writing staff look worse than they already do.--All Fish Welcome 18:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Furthermore, one of my sentences was modified to read, "The source was later acknowledged in the published text of the speech," but the original note was left intact. The original note does not support the proposition that the source was later acknowledged in the published text. It only supports the proposition that the source is acknowledged in the published text as of xx April, 2007. If you can find another source that supports the idea that the Lambert citation was not present in the originally published text, by all means, put it in. But do not make footnoted statements in which the note does not support your text.--All Fish Welcome 19:00, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
The incident is minor, and barely worth mentioning. It seems clear that Jones gave the speech without explaining that he was using some literal quotes, and without citing his source. The DI blogger pointed it out, and Jones added some quote marks and a footnote to acknowledge the source. Not a big deal, really, but I am trying to be accurate. RSchlafly 19:19, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you, RSchlafly, that it's not a big deal. It seems to me that this is in fact gossip, but Aschlafly disagrees.-Speaker 17:02, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

The current text doesn't say that is a big deal, and sticks to verifiable facts. It credits Jones with posting the source. RSchlafly 17:20, 7 May 2007 (EDT)