::::::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)
:::::::Mr. Schlafly: Please cut me some slack, I obviously knew what the outcome was; I quoted the judge's decision. I know the fee award was $2 million, I never contested that fact. I did happen to notice the $1 million dollar number quoted at Wikipedia's factually biased Kitzmiller article. I also noticed the reference they used; do you have a problem with it? [http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/searchresults/ci_3535139] Did you have a problem with the reference I quoted earlier? [http://www.theacru.org/acru/the_aclus_exploitation_of_the_civil_rights_attorney_fee_act/] What about this one? [http://www.umt.edu/mlr/editors'%20note.pdf] And here. [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/PA/162_intelligent_design_costs_dov_2_24_2006.asp] It took me only 2 minutes to find all of these references. And yes, I do applaud the judge's decision to remove an idea with virtually no scientific support. Heck, even Prof. Behe can't be bothered to do any 'peer-reviewed' research for ID; he had better things to do according to his sworn testimony during the trial. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 23:07, 1 June 2008 (EDT)