Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: antiRepublicrat
There you go. The DI was involved in the beginning by your own admission.

Are you also blind? I made no such admission. I displayed the timeline. NCSE was involved in the situation beginning in June. The vote occurred in Oct and DI was asked for an opinion by a news reporter. They replied in the negative. That sure is no admission of DI's involvement with Dover at that time. They were asked after the December suit to testify but eventually said no to the request. Had they been involved they could have been subpoenaed. They were not.

Because that's about when the DI was in talks with the board over "teach the controversy."

Prove it.

You've supposedly read the document.

I have. That is the reason I asked you the question that you haven't answered. So answer it. Or continue to demonstrate your disingenuousness.

And read the story of how the Wedge Document became public Here.

Okay, so the news reporter posted a story alleging something. Where is the proof? I have posted a link to the Wedge Document which shows not markings on it. Where is the one marked "TOP SECRET". You won't find it because the story is a pitiful example of an attempt at sliming a group. "TOP SECRET", YGTBSM as we used to say in the Air Force.

753 posted on 09/07/2009 6:05:41 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 745 | View Replies ]


To: AndrewC
NCSE was involved in the situation beginning in June.

About the same time DI was involved.

They were asked after the December suit to testify but eventually said no to the request.

Notice it was a withdrawal of defense witnesses whose depositions had been long before been scheduled. The DI had been involved, and then pulled out.

Prove it.

In his deposition, Buckingham said he was contacted by the DI way back when the debate over the textbook was going on. If I have my timeline correctly, that was Summer. He says the DI even sent him some materials.

But then maybe you got me, maybe Buckingham was lying. After all, he lied under oath on the witness stand.

Where is the proof?

So your references represent proof, yet mine don't? If you want to contest what was in the article, feel free to contact Matt Duss, the person who discovered it.

758 posted on 09/07/2009 8:55:20 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 753 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson