And someone obviously has not heard that the First Amendment -- the basis of the Dover decision -- does not hold sway in England.
...or he's just trolling with his red herrings again.
Tallhappy is not committed to the truth, obviously. And this is hardly the first time he has slandered me with false accusations for no cause -- and then not even been honorable enough to ping me to it when he publicly slanders me.
Tallhappy, I want you to explain this behavior. I'm giving you one chance to shape up and atone before I refer your stalking behavior to the moderators. If you fail to respond, or respond in a dishonorable manner (now or in the future) I'm going to leave it to the moderators to handle. I'd rather resolve this matter by having you begin to behave like an adult for a change, but if you are unable to do so, and since my past attempts to raise your level of civility have failed, I'll have no choice but to hand it off to those who have more options at their disposal than I do.
...
And your jumping to his defense looks like you're a meddlesome busybody who wants to throw stones at only one party without knowing the whole story. You're entitled to your opinion, but I submit that you have no clue about his past record of such behavior. One time would just be reason for eye-rolling. At the present time, however, and as I MADE CLEAR in the post you're whining about, it has continued to the point of outright stalking, especially since he finds excuses (often entirely illusory) to attack me out of the blue, when I had not addressed him on the current thread or any other for quite some time. He goes out of his way to frequently fire off a serious personal attack at me, usually quite false (while cowardly not even pinging me) on a regular basis and with no apparent triggering reason. He just has a fixation on me, and enjoys lying about me in a manner that often deprives me of the opportunity to defend myself in a timely manner. If you think that trying to find a way to put a lid on such behavior makes *me* the bad guy here, then just say so, and then I'll know to completely discount your judgment.
Disclaimer: quoted text from Freerepublic threads and "All" addressed in preparation for...
Unfortunately, you are flat-out wrong on this particular point.
I assure you, the Kitzmiller v. Dover Case received extensive coverage (newprint and broadcast media) here in what you have so charmingly characterised as "DarwinDawkinsland."
What concerned me about the coverage--and which I think should concern you as well--was the opportunity it afforded our mainstream press for yet another orgy of anti-American tweaking and smug superiority. The BBC (British Bolshevik Corporation) is never happier than when it can present American politicians as religious maniacs, ignorant yahoo bumpkins, and charlatan Elmer Gantrys--it all helps feed the socialists' pro-EU/anti-American agenda.
British conservatives, on the other hand, value NATO and the Atlantic Alliance, acknowledge the primary role the US plays both in defending and extending freedom in the world--and we had a hard political fight to secure such support as we could, from our current socialist government, for the global war on terror. And believe me, we were cheered by the decision of the conservative judge in Kitzmiller/Dover, whom I understand was appointed by President Bush, as an antidote to the mindless anti-American rubbish our press was running prior to his ruling.
Ichneumon the First Amendment -- the basis of the Dover decision -- does not hold sway in England.
Indeed not. But we do have our own constitutional guarantees of our ancient liberties. It is ironic that here, where there is not the legal separation of church and state, we no longer have to contend with religionists pursuing political agendas (we had plenty of those nightmares in our history, and it's not quite over in Northern Ireland even today). Or at least we didn't until very recently, when a portion of the Muslim population began lobbying--for state-funding for Darwin-free Islamic schools!