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

To: antiRepublicrat
About the same time DI was involved.

Proof.

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.

Notice that the suit was not filed until December and that DI had already declined support for the Dover group in Nov. Are you really such a poor salesman?

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.

This is what you must prove..... Because that's about when the DI was in talks with the board over "teach the controversy."

Sending an unsolicited DVD is not "in talks about teaching the controversy." Prove the talks with the BOARD existed.

So your references represent proof, yet mine don't?

What references have you provided? You spout alot, but you don't show where you got the information. And my references show support for my position. The upshot is that Scopes was a conspiracy to bring about charges and Kitzmiller was not.

762 posted on 09/08/2009 1:21:38 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 758 | View Replies ]


To: AndrewC
Prove the talks with the BOARD existed.

Buckingham was ON the board. The DI contacted him cold. In his deposition he says he'd never heard of the DI before they contacted him. Again, he could be lying.

What references have you provided?

The article you dismiss, the one that shows the document was secret.

765 posted on 09/08/2009 5:27:04 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 762 | 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