300
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 133:
Line 133: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District (view source)
Revision as of 02:51, June 2, 2008
, 02:51, June 2, 2008no edit summary
:::::::http://boycott-hollywood.us/blogs/the_vast_right-wing_conspiracy/archive/2005/12/20/intelligent_design.aspx
:::::::http://boycott-hollywood.us/blogs/the_vast_right-wing_conspiracy/archive/2005/12/20/intelligent_design.aspx
::::::Now, if you do have references for your other assertions, then good. In my first comment above I simply suggested you linked to the references in question which I was unaware could be find in the body of the article. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 22:20, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Now, if you do have references for your other assertions, then good. In my first comment above I simply suggested you linked to the references in question which I was unaware could be find in the body of the article. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 22:20, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I'm not sure what other assertions you are talking about. As far as I know, everything I wrote of quoted was referenced.
:::::::http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/jan06/06-01-04.html
:::::::Ms. Schlafly appears to be uninformed about why Judge Jones used the term "breathtaking inanity". He said that in reference to the obvious lies told by some of the defendants. The rest of her comments are in the same vein. Read the depositions and the trial transcripts and you will see the obvious differences between the statements taken under oath.
:::::::http://www.discovery.org/a/3135 and :::::::http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/dover_in_review_an_analysis_of_1.html
:::::::These two links are just whining on the part of the Discovery Institute. Many of their statements are in glaring contradiction to the Wedge document and the testimony given by their expert witnesses such as Behe.
:::::::http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330
:::::::The WND article is a joke that shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone that has a rudimentary understanding of how judges write their opinions. It is not un-common for judges to use the findings of fact of the winning party. Does anyone seriously consider that the ACLU is actually complaining about Judge Jones using (plagiarizing) their research? I think they are impressed that the judge would do so.
:::::::http://tbayly.wordpress.com/2005/12/20/judge-rules-against-intelligent-design/
:::::::Hmmmmm. I think Judges Jone's preemptive strike against his critics was spot on. He correctly predicted the losing side would vent, and they did.
:::::::http://boycott-hollywood.us/blogs/the_vast_right-wing_conspiracy/archive/2005/12/20/intelligent_design.aspx
:::::::Typical right-wing rant from a person that doesn't like a judicial decision and then decides to label it judicial activism. No need to provide any evidence, just blow a gasket and then think they are providing meaningful commentary. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 22:51, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Jimmy, in addition to William's comments, you should learn the outcome of the case before you write about it and certainly before you criticize others about it. The fee award was $2 million. I'd guess you picked up the $1 million from Wikipedia's biased entry. It's baseless. You also seem unclear about how the ACLU sought, and obtained, censorship of reference to [[intelligent design]] in the classroom. Is that what you applaud?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Jimmy, in addition to William's comments, you should learn the outcome of the case before you write about it and certainly before you criticize others about it. The fee award was $2 million. I'd guess you picked up the $1 million from Wikipedia's biased entry. It's baseless. You also seem unclear about how the ACLU sought, and obtained, censorship of reference to [[intelligent design]] in the classroom. Is that what you applaud?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 1 June 2008 (EDT)