Uncommon Dissent

Sunday, October 30, 2005

Shallit Yet Again — P.S. B.S. (0 comments)

"I delete only the comments I find factually irrefutable. When the facts aren't on my side, I make hand-waving assertions and call upon my enemies to vindicate themselves, because, as everyone knows, the burden of proof is on someone else. Hell, I'll keep making these accusations as often as I feel like it, because they obviously don't interfere with my important, vital, paradigm-shifting research."

(Added)

Ed Brayton says it much more eloquently, and gets to the heart of the matter:
This is quite a ridiculous explanation that Dembski has come up with, one based primarily on ignorance (of two different types - A) he hasn't seen the deposition, so he is in no position to presume that it was an "embarrassment" and B) he seems completely unaware that it was the TMLC who fought to keep Shallit off the witness stand, not our side) and wishful thinking. His zeal to invent such fanciful rationalizations when a couple of emails would likely have cleared up the confusion might even be termed...well, obsessive.
(Added to the addition)

It gets worse. Now Mr. Brayton has uncovered the TMLC's motion to prevent Shallit from testifying (pdf). Last word to Brayton again:
I would suggest that Dembski should also be embarrassed to have claimed that the reason Shallit didn't testify was the alleged "embarrassment" of his deposition, especially since Dembski had never seen the deposition. But then, arguments from ignorance seem to be Dembski's specialty and he has never shown the slightest tendency to be embarrassed even when he clearly ought to be.



Filed under: I'm Obsessed With My Obsessive Enemy

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home