Re: Reply to "Judge Jones said it, I believe it, that settles it"


wade wrote:
> catshark wrote:
>
> > Yeah, that is always a problem with these kinds of things. How do you
> > balance saying everything that *could* be said while keepng it short
> > enough that non-lawyers stay *just* this side of MEGO, without leaving
> > out anything that *must* be said?
> >
> > Suffice it to say, if you haven't been through the Kitzmiller decision
> > at least once, it won't make much sense. The good thing is you won't
> > understand Francisco's article either.
>
> With all respect, your response sucks.

De gustibus non disputum est.

>
> And I don't think I disagree with a word of it. But I'm inclined to
> distill it
> to something that would work if targeted to a letters to the editor
> type
> response. For instance,
>
> In his critique of the Kitzmiller decision, Michael Francisco asks why
> judge jones comments on the scientific merits of ID and goes on to
> attack him for having done so. The best response to be to suggest that
> one actually read the Kitzmiller decision because it's all in there. In
> short,
> if ID isn't science it's obvious religious ties become clear while
> shining
> light on the actual motives of those pushing ID. The discovery
> instutute
> filed a brief with the court arguing that ID is science with the
> further
> argument that _because_ ID is science, it's religious connections
> don't matter. The defendants repeat essentially the same argument.
>
> Why did Judge Jones evaluate the scientific merit of ID? The defense
> (and the discovery institute) effectively asked him to. Jones
> then did so and found ID wanting. Rather than complain about it,
> perhaps the DI should reflect on something Michael Francisco
> ought to learn in law school. Don't ask questions that you don't
> want to be answered. Don't raise the issues you don't want address.
>
> ****
> Yeah, it suck too but it gets it over with faster.

Funny, I thought it was perfect for a Letters to the Editor column.

--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------

LAWYER, n.
One skilled in circumvention of the law.

- Ambrose Bierce -

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Reply to "Judge Jones said it, I believe it, that settles it"
    ... With all respect, your response sucks. ... if ID isn't science it's obvious religious ties become clear while ... Why did Judge Jones evaluate the scientific merit of ID? ... Yeah, it suck too but it gets it over with faster. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hey Mr. Hyde!
    ... Yeah, did someone misattribute a post or something? ... Because Alex always posts constantly in response to me ... > Decentralization would mean putting one engine on each wheel, ... Which means you're also agreeing with me, as is Alex, effectively... ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: OT : Dear Mr. President
    ... Dale Houstman wrote: ... >>>Yeah, they will, and if you don't think so, you've got a hoplessly naive ... When a category 5 horricane hit Cuba directly, ... The aftermath, resuce, and response has showed the ultimately ugliest ...
    (rec.music.beatles)
  • Re: real theories vs imaginary tales such as natural selection
    ... hippo diarrhea. ... more competent at concealing your identity behind a pseudonym than you ... are at discussing science, math, and a wide variety of other topics. ... Yeah, yeah. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • More musings about the state of this group
    ... of this newsgroup since my so-called departure generated a response ... trolls by responding to them and no real musical content other than ... making in the past when they announced their own departure) however I ... Yeah, yeah, yeah. ...
    (rec.music.beatles)