346
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 77:
Line 77: + + + + + + Line 90:
Line 96: + + + + Line 99:
Line 109: + +
Talk:Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District (view source)
Revision as of 00:55, June 2, 2008
, 00:55, June 2, 2008→Questions concerning Aschlafly's edit
: 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)
: 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)
::You are of course ignoring that the case is called ''Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District''. Who is Kitzmiller? This I think is fundamental to the article. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:55, 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)
: 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)
::Cronological order is important when telling the story so in any sensible prose it should go verdict, award, reduction on appeal. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:55, 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?
: 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)
: 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)
:: No you removed it because you are trying to make this look like it is all the ACLU doing and not that of the parents and the law firm they hired. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:55, 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?
*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 reasoning used is not as important as the outcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
::Yes it is. You are the lawyer you should know this. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:55, 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)
: 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)
::Still uncited opinon. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:55, 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)
: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)
::WilliamH you are either you are a parodist or like Andy imagine everything in the world can be divided into liberal/conservative views. Somethings are testable facts and some important ones have been removed to the detriment of this article. Jimmy wrote a much better article then the one there now. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:55, 1 June 2008 (EDT)