Re: Fwd: [asa] The Swift-Boating of Judge Jones

From: PvM <>
Date: Fri Dec 15 2006 - 00:12:42 EST

Interesting position but there is no reason why one would take
Janice's position as necessarily relevant or even correct. She
disagrees with the Judge on an issue of the anti-establishment clause
which she believes to be a premise for his ruling.
Judge Jones showed that the school board was religiously motivated and
that, combined with a lack of secular purpose for Intelligent Design,
is the basis for Jones' excellent ruling.
Somehow critics of Jones focus on strawmen and ad hominems rather than
on the ruling itself which is in fact quite thorough.
What part does Janice believes was wrong in the Judge's statement? How
does she intend to support these claims?
I hope that this is not going to be another drive by posting and that
we can uncover if there is some meat to Janice's arguments.

As to self plagiarism:

----Begin Quote---
Although in scholarly and scientific writing there are some situations
in which some forms of text reuse are acceptable, many other instances
in which text and/or data are known to have been reused violate the
ethical spirit of scholarly research. The concept of ethical writing,
about which this instructional resource revolves, entails an implicit
contract between reader and writer whereby the reader assumes, unless
otherwise noted, that the material was written by the author, is new,
is original and is accurate to the best of the author's abilities. In
this section we review some of the most common instances of
self-plagiarism and provide guidelines to avoid these pitfalls.
---End Quote------------

Did Meyer et al even quote the original papers from which they quoted?

-----Begin quote-----
Instances in which dual publication may be acceptable

Some authors who submit the same article to more than one journal do
so with the rationale that their paper would be of interest to each
set of readers who would probably not otherwise be aware of the other
publication. Indeed, circumstances have been identified which would
justify the dual publication of a paper. However, the editors of both
journals would have to agree to this arrangement and the existence of
each version of the published paper would have to be made clear to
each set of readers. Blancett, Flanagin, & Young (1995; cited in
Iverson, et al., 1998) provide a number of scenarios where dual
publication may be acceptable (see also the International Committee of
Medial Journal Editors' Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted
to Biomedical Journals, updated, 2006). For example, summaries or
abstracts of papers that are published in conference proceedings are
often subsequently published in expanded form as a journal article.
Another situation where redundant publication may be acceptable occurs
when an article published in one language is translated into a
different language and published in a different journal. In these and
other cases where redundant publication is being considered by the
author, the editors and the readers of each paper must be made aware
that a second published version exists.
 ----End Quote----

On 12/14/06, Janice Matchett <> wrote:
> @ This is my problem with the judge:
> May 22, 2006 - Judge Jones reveals his false beliefs (premise for his
> ruling) about the Anti-Establishment Clause in the Constitution:
> "The founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by
> a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational
> inquiry. They possessed a great confidence in an individual's ability to
> understand the world and its most fundamental laws through the exercise of
> his or her reason. This core set of beliefs led the founders, who constantly
> engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by
> barring any alliance between church and state." ~U.S. District Judge John E.
> Jones in his May 2006 commencement address to 500 graduates at his alma
> mater, Dickinson College.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Dec 15 00:13:08 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 15 2006 - 00:13:08 EST