| Line 75: |
Line 75: |
| | Mr. Schlafly: in my opinion your edit has introduced an unreferenced opinion and removed important facts that contributed to the credibility of this article. Every major edit I made to this article was discussed beforehand and I even made every change you required, yet here you are deleting important facts that give a certain measure of comprehension to the Kitzmiller v Dover lawsuit. I'd like to know why the following changes were made. | | Mr. Schlafly: in my opinion your edit has introduced an unreferenced opinion and removed important facts that contributed to the credibility of this article. Every major edit I made to this article was discussed beforehand and I even made every change you required, yet here you are deleting important facts that give a certain measure of comprehension to the Kitzmiller v Dover lawsuit. I'd like to know why the following changes were made. |
| | *Why was the sentence concerning Tammy Kitzmiller and the ten other parents that were a part of the lawsuit removed? | | *Why was the sentence concerning Tammy Kitzmiller and the ten other parents that were a part of the lawsuit removed? |
| | + | |
| | + | : Everyone knows that the driving force behind this type of lawsuit is the anti-religion organizations. The parents probably did not pay even a dime for the lawsuit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | *Why was the $2 million sum mentioned prior to the verdict and why was it not mentioned that the payment of fees was reduced to $1 million? | | *Why was the $2 million sum mentioned prior to the verdict and why was it not mentioned that the payment of fees was reduced to $1 million? |
| | + | |
| | + | : What makes you think the fees were reduced? The award should be up-front and not hidden.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | *Why was mention of the lead law firm, Pepper Hamilton LLP, removed? | | *Why was mention of the lead law firm, Pepper Hamilton LLP, removed? |
| − | *Why was the legal reasoning the judge employed in his verdict removed? Shouldn't his reasoning involving the establishment clause, Lemon Test, other opinions about creationism, and the opinions of other jurists be included? | + | |
| | + | : It's obscure and meaningless. The names of law firms are not relevant to a summary of a decision. Do you know or care who the law firms were in key decisions?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | *Why was the legal reasoning the judge employed in his verdict removed? Shouldn't his reasoning involving the establishment clause, Lemon Test, other opinions about creationism, and the opinions of other jurists be included? |
| | + | |
| | + | : The reasoning used is not as important as the outcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | *The idea that the parents sued to "censor any mention of intelligent design in public school" is without merit. If I am wrong I'm sure you could provide the reference that is required by the commandments. | | *The idea that the parents sued to "censor any mention of intelligent design in public school" is without merit. If I am wrong I'm sure you could provide the reference that is required by the commandments. |
| | + | |
| | + | : That's what the suit was about, and the outcome was to censor any mention of intelligent design.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | Your removal of "liberal fluff" was nothing more that the removal of factual information. It has been said the facts have a liberal bias, even if that is so; it shouldn't be a barrier for adding pertinent information. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 19:35, 1 June 2008 (EDT) | | Your removal of "liberal fluff" was nothing more that the removal of factual information. It has been said the facts have a liberal bias, even if that is so; it shouldn't be a barrier for adding pertinent information. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 19:35, 1 June 2008 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | : Your "facts" are "liberal fluff" that obscure the result. You seem unclear about the result yourself!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | :You might want to give references to support your "facts." And why should we mention the judge's reasoning if we know he is biased? [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 19:36, 1 June 2008 (EDT) | | :You might want to give references to support your "facts." And why should we mention the judge's reasoning if we know he is biased? [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 19:36, 1 June 2008 (EDT) |