Freshwater: Oct 30, 2009

| 41 Comments

This was the last of three October hearing sessions. The next sessions are scheduled for November 17-19.

The highlight of today was testimony by Taylor Strack, a student in Freshwater’s class, who corroborated Zach Dennis’ testimony about how the students’ arms were positioned and what stopped the shock that Freshwater was supplying via the Tesla coil.

Taylor Strack Direct testimony

Taylor Strack was a student in the 8th grade science class at the time the alleged burning of Zachary Dennis’ arm occurred, and she saw the procedure followed. That came out in cross examination; first is her direct testimony by R. Kelly Hamilton, Freshwater’s attorney.

Some time prior to her testimony Hamilton showed Taylor the “Watchmaker” video that Kerri Mahan had once testified was shown in Freshwater’s science class (see here for her latest version). Taylor testified that she had not seen the video before Hamilton showed it to her. She had never been to FCA.

She testified that she was in class the day Freshwater demonstrated the Tesla coil. She said that if Freshwater held a student’s arm down, he would release it. She then said if a student said Freshwater held his arm down “they were lying.” That was a little confused(ing) – Taylor speaks very softly and was hard to hear.

Interpolation from cross examination

This got a little clearer during cross examination. David Millstone, the Board’s attorney, had her clarify that procedure. She testified that Freshwater asked if anyone in the class wanted to try it (being zapped). A student would approach him at the front of the room and put an arm on the overhead projector and Freshwater would apply the arc to the arm. She testified that if the student asked Freshwater to stop, he would stop. That is consistent with Zachary Dennis’ description of what happened. Overall, it’s not clear in her testimony whether Freshwater put his hand on a student’s hand on the overhead or not. She implied both that he did and didn’t during her testimony.

Back to direct examination

Taylor testified that she did not hear Freshwater mention a temporary tattoo, crosses, or red marks in connection with the Tesla coil demonstration.

With reference to a student being zapped on the butt by Freshwater, she testified that she didn’t see it. She heard the student give a :little shriek,” looked up and saw the student looking surprised and Freshwater smiling. She testified she didn’t have a sense that Freshwater did it purposely.

She testified that Freshwater never referred to the Bible in class and didn’t hold it up. She testified that he didn’t tell the class that the Bible explained the Big Bang. She didn’t remember the “hydrosphere” notion being mentioned, nor any mention of Answers in Genesis. She said he didn’t promote Easter or Good Friday in class, and didn’t mention creationism or intelligent design.

She testified that another student brought up a question about how life was formed, and Freshwater described fine tuning. The student then referred to a “higher power” and Freshwater changed the subject. She didn’t remember “here” being used.

Hamilton asked what she thought of the allegations made against Mr. Freshwater. She said that they are “… stupid. Nobody got hurt.”

Taylor Strack cross

Aside from the testimony noted above regarding the procedure by which students were zapped with the Tesla coil, Taylor also testified that there was a creationism/evolution debate in class some time that year (2007-2008), She said Freshwater made the decision to have the debate.

Asked about Mt. St. Helen’s, she said Freshwater did not discuss the rapid formation of coal in relation to it. Asked by Millstone, she gave a pretty mainstream sketch of coal formation.

Regarding dinosaurs, she didn’t recall whether Freshwater mentioned humans and dinos living at the same time. She did say that he said there was insufficient air pressure now for them to be that large.

There was no redirect or recross.

Finn Laursen Direct

Finn Laursen is the executive director of Christian Educators Association International and an experienced school administrator (principal and superintendent in Ohio). He does a good deal of lecturing and workshops on First Amendment issues in the schools.

His initial testimony was directed at the Finding Common Ground book Daubenmire used in his two-day class at Mt. Vernon Nazarene University. It seems to be a well regarded source for that topic. A variety of organizations (pdf), ranging from Laursen’s Christian Educators to People for the American Way, have signed on to it.

Laursen testified that the mere fact of a Bible on a teacher’s desk is not a First Amendment problem; that he himself had a Bible on his desk when he was an administrator. In and of itself it does not constitute a “religious display.” Asked what constitutes a religious display, Laursen said “It promotes religion, draws attention to a specific doctrine or belief.”

There was a fairly long section of testimony concerning Laursen’s interactions with Lori Miller, another teacher who had a Bible on her desk along with other devotional materials, was instructed by an administrator to remove it all, and was later allowed to put the Bible back on her desk. (See here and below for this Keystone Kops sequence.) In summary, Laursen advised Miller, who is a member of his association, that it was legal to have a Bible on her desk, and that if the administration was trying to “cleanse” her desk she should file a grievance.

Laursen testified that in his view if a school tries to “sanitize the school” from religious material, that abounts to “religious harassment,” or discrimination.

Asked by Hamilton about insubordination, Laursen said one had to consider history and patterns of behavior. He would meet with the teacher (who should have representation along), clarify what is meant by insubordination, follow up, and document everything. A successful termination, he said, depends on documentation. In investigating a situation one would talk with as many people involved as possible.

Asked about the mandatory reporting requirement for suspected cases of abuse, Laursen said that the school – teachers and administrators – must report. They do not have discretion in the matter. Asked if a parent reported an injury to a student caused b a teacher, but didn’t want the teacher to go to jail, Laursen said it is not up to the school to make that decision–the incident must be reported. Asked what one should do if he doubted to reliability of the allegation, Laursen said it is still reportable.

Laursen said that he would immediately talk to the people directly involved, especially the teacher as soon as possible after the parent(s) left his office.

Asked by Hamilton, Laursen testified that teachers in public schools “absolutely” have academic freedom. This wasn’t pursued, so we don’t know what “academic freedom” means in Laursen’s response.

FInally, Laursen testified that it was all right if FCA materials were stored in a teacher’s classroom.

Laursen Cross

On cross examination Laursen testified that it was appropriate to refer to the Bible in English and history classes where it was relevant to the topic under discussion. Asked about applications in math classes, he replied “None that come to mind.” Millstone asked, “How about Numbers?” A good laugh was had by all.

In answer to questions, Laursen said it was inappropriate to teach creationism, but that with respect to intelligent design it depends on “what is considered to be intelligent design.” “If there’s some science that doesn’t line up with evolution that would be appropriate.” Asked about the relevance of Kitzmiller to that remark, Laursen said Kitzmiller was decided on intent. Asked about whether intelligent design was shown to be equivalent to creationism in Kitzmiller, Laursen replied “In the ruling, yes.”

Asked whether a collage of 10 Commandments posters constituted a religious display, if there were no other such material, e.g., Hammurabi’s Code or some such present, Laursen testified that it could be inappropriate, “depending on the purpose.”

That ended Laursen’s cross; there was no redirect (except for another “Numbers” joke) or recross.

Patricia Dice testimony

Patricia Dice is a teacher in the Mt. Vernon school system, and accompanied Lori Miller to the meeting with middle school Assistant Principal Ritchie and Principal White (following Miller’s earlier testimony in this hearing) at which Miller was told she could keep her Bible on her desk so long as it wasn’t opened in the presence of students. The meeting was very short, on the order of 5-7 minutes, according to Dice. Dice kept notes and summarized them in a note to Miller that was introduced into evidence. Dice included a paragraph from the district’s policy on religion in the classroom in her note, though that wasn’t referenced in the meeting. m The policy says that religious materials are not to be displayed at any time.

Referring to Dice’s jewelry (recall this was the Friday before Halloween) Hamilton asked if the jewelry – earrings and a necklace of plastic skulls – promoted paganism. She said, “no.”

There was no cross examination.

Lori Miller testimony

There was some discussion about whether Miller could testify, having already testified at length early in the hearing. The referee allowed the testimony, since it refers to events that occurred after Miller testified the first time.

Miller testified that four days after her earlier testimony, accompanied by another teacher, Bill Oxenford, she met with Assistant Principal Ritchie and Principal White and was instructed to remove all religious materials, including her Bible, from students’ sight. She then contacted Finn Laursen, who advised her to look into the grievance process. She talked to Karen Seward, president of the union (MVEA), who told her she (Seward) would contact the OEA regional labor relations consultant. Miller called Laursen again, and he referred her to “Liberty Center.” I suspect, but do not know, that she meant Liberty Counsel, which is associated with the Liberty University School of Law.. That in turn is associated with Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University.

Miller testified that she had trouble inducing the union to take action, and that Seward and the consultant, Jeff Kesner, told her it wasn’t a grievable issue and that she should let it go.

Then the Liberty Center (Counsel?) told her to get clarification from the administration, the first step in the grievance process. That’s when she had the second meeting with Ritchie and White at which Dice was present. She recorded that meeting, as she had an earlier meeting with administrators, though this time the recording was not surreptitious. The recording shows the meeting to have lasted less than two minutes. Asked directly by Miller, White told her she could have a Bible on her desk.

Hamilton asked her about an in-service in August, 2009, on religion in the classroom led by David Millstone (the Board’s attorney) and another attorney from a Columbus law firm. She testified that at one point in Millstone’s Powerpoint presentation there was a slide with

May a teacher keep a Bible on his or her desk?

Courts have found it impermissible to keep a Bible on the desk when it is used for other than secular purposes.

Miller testified that there was then a slide with a large NO on it.

Finally, Miller testified that after the in-service she still didn’t understand the policy.

Miller Cross

Millstone produced a printout of the powerpoint show, and there is no such “NO” slide. (I have the actual .ppt file, and there’s no such slide in it.) Asked about the discrepancy, Miller said that she couldn’t remember where she saw it, or maybe she didn’t see a slide but just heard it said.

There was no redirect or recross.

That ended the testimony for the day. Another witness had been scheduled by Hamilton, but the dog ate his homework he forgot to bring his notes on the questions he wanted to ask the witness so the session was adjourned early.

Finally, I have to relate an anecdote that occurred Wednesday, when David Daubenmire was testifying. I didn’t hear it – I had to leave for a physician’s appointment – but another spectator did and posted it on a local web board:

At Wednesday’s hearing last week during a break, Mrs. Daubenmire was speaking with Levi Stickle. I thought I caught what she said to him but I wanted to be sure so I asked her to repeat her comment. She stated to me that she asked Levi who at the hearing “was good and who was bad”.

Obviously someone attending the hearing for the first time might want to know who is supporting John Freshwater, who is not but to twist it to “who is good, who is bad” speaks volumes about how Mrs. Daubenmire views those who don’t agree with the Freshwater agenda. I wonder how her husband feels about the subject? I think I can guess.

41 Comments

Off-topic, where the hell did people get the idea that “Taylor” is a first name, let alone a girl’s first name?

truthspeaker said:

Off-topic, where the hell did people get the idea that “Taylor” is a first name, let alone a girl’s first name?

I dunno, I named both my daughters Truthspeaker.

You think “Taylor” is bad? I once had a female Remington in class!

A friend of mine’s sister once had a girl in a class she taught named Female (pronounced Fee-MAL-ee).

Once met a girl named Selkie. True fact.

From the ppt slideshow:

Courts have found it impermissible to keep a Bible on the desk when it is used for other than secular purposes.

Is there a time constraint as to what determines secular purposes? I would think that 1) everyday for a year is not a secular purpose and that 2)a bible serves no secular purpose in the science classroom.

Other than the fact that this child abuser should have been fired immediately, I find the religious displays issue counterproductive for the defendent. As in - dig hole, dig deeper, dig even deeper.

Regarding dinosaurs… She did say that he said there was insufficient air pressure now for them to be that large.

Huh??? Did I miss something? Air pressure?

@KP: Partial pressure of oxygen, maybe.

JimNorth said:

From the ppt slideshow:

Courts have found it impermissible to keep a Bible on the desk when it is used for other than secular purposes.

Is there a time constraint as to what determines secular purposes? I would think that 1) everyday for a year is not a secular purpose and that 2)a bible serves no secular purpose in the science classroom.

Maybe his stack of exams keeps getting blown around by the A/C.

Maybe it was supposed to be Oxygen content of the air rather than air pressure?

Ha! fnxtr beat me to it by 3 minutes…

Henry J said:

Maybe it was supposed to be Oxygen content of the air rather than air pressure?

Nah; the dinosaurs at that time were inflatable.

So it’s a case of air today, gone tomorrow?

No, it’s ‘heir (to the earth) today, gone tomorrow.’ :)

…and a girl named Kaki (pronounced “khaki”), and knew of one named Bobuff (her parents wanted to name her for the French for “beautiful cow” [!], but didn’t know how to spell it).

Beautiful cow? How did they bobuff from belle veche?

Maybe they meant beau boeuf? “This is my daughter Beautiful Beef”

Wow!… not only did they call their daughter Beautiful Beef, they used the masculine form. Poor kid.

KP said:

Regarding dinosaurs… She did say that he said there was insufficient air pressure now for them to be that large.

Huh??? Did I miss something? Air pressure?

Ken Hovind teaches that the dinosaurs that survived the flood on the arc died out because the earth’s air pressure was greatly lessened in the absence of the hydrosphere (the vast body of water that had formerly floated on top of the atmosphere and supplied the flood water). The dinosaurs could only get oxygen to their vast bodies because of the pressure (or something equally risible).

Helena wrote:

“Ken Hovind teaches that the dinosaurs that survived the flood on the arc died out because the earth’s air pressure was greatly lessened in the absence of the hydrosphere…”

Not very good planning on Gods part. Did he get that from the Bible?

How does Ken know, was he there? Oh wait, he was in jail at the time.

I think the dinosaurs had their own ark. Noah rammed it and made it sink, thereby thwarting the plan God had set in motion that was supposed to ultimately culminate in the hit movie the Flintstones. Yubba dubba do.

Ken Hovind teaches that the dinosaurs that survived the flood on the arc died out because the earth’s air pressure was greatly lessened in the absence of the hydrosphere (the vast body of water that had formerly floated on top of the atmosphere and supplied the flood water).

Thou hast got to be kidding. But probably not. (sigh.)

I’m not a physicist, but… if enough water for 5 mile deep water to fall were sitting up there exerting pressure, it would have crushed everything living, including the dinosaurs. Or if all living things were somehow adapted to that, the release of pressure would have caused explosive decompression. Then again, if our ancestors had been adapted to air that thick, they should have been able to swim through the air…

I’ve heard that insects and their relatives were a lot larger in the past because of more oxygen in the air, because they breath through their skin, and that puts limits on oxygen intake, and more O2 in the air raises the limits. (I’m not sure if it’s the surface area of skin or the distance of the innermost cells from the skin that’s the primary limiting factor there.)

Henry

The French “boeuf” (pronounced, roughly, berf) means “beeve”, that is, the singular of cattle. “Beeve” is now archaic or very unusual in English, but there is no commonly used equivalent, since ‘cow’ means specifically the female. “Boeuf” also means the meat from cattle, and that has made the trip into English as “beef”.

Which illustrates the problem with translation. “Beau boeuf” (roughly, bo berf) would mean either beautiful beef animal, or beautiful beef (meat), depending on context. “Beautiful cow”, on the other hand, is “belle vache”, “belle” being the feminine adjective and “vache” meaning the same as the English “cow”.

That is to say, modern French and modern English, languages that are current, quite similar and very well spoken by millions of bilingual people, present difficulties in translation such that a French word has no exact common English equivalent, and has meanings that extend beyond any English word.

Spare a thought for the translators of the Bible, who are confronted with far, far more complex translations between radically different languages, usually with variant wording, always poorly documented, archaic, and involving a suite of technologies, world views, assumptions and ideas far removed from our own, and must make sense of it. And having spared that thought, wonder what has got into the fundangelicals that they are morally certain that this process, and all the other processes that went to create the Bible, is infallibly perfect.

wonder what has got into the fundangelicals that they are morally certain that this process, and all the other processes that went to create the Bible, is infallibly perfect.

If English was good enough for Jesus, then it’s good enough for Archie Bunker.

Henry – Insects breathe through a system of internal tubes – their circulatory system doesn’t carry oxygen to tissues the way ours does. The limiting factor on the size of the insect is therefore a structural one – as the insect gets bigger, the proportion of the animal that is composed of tubes goes up. Eventually, the weight exceeds the strength of the tissues to hold them up. So a higher oxygen content to the air means thicker and therefore stronger tissues, and a lower proportion of the volume taken up by tubing.

It might also be noted that these giant arthropods (including spiders, millipedes, etc.) existed in the Carboniferous period – and terrestrial vertebrates were just starting to show up. These days, the limit on terrestrial arthropods may well be ecological – they have to deal with a lot of larger insectivores.

DS said: How does Ken know, was he there? Oh wait, he was in jail at the time.

Kent Hovind is still in prison, and will be for quite a while yet - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

And Helena, Kent Hovind is not a scientist, but a severely scientifically illiterate creationist. His ignorance of even creationist pseudoscience is so bad that he has been criticised by both Young Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists - and that’s really saying something. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_H[…]creationists

Dave Luckett said:

Spare a thought for the translators of the Bible, who are confronted with far, far more complex translations between radically different languages, usually with variant wording, always poorly documented, archaic, and involving a suite of technologies, world views, assumptions and ideas far removed from our own, and must make sense of it. And having spared that thought, wonder what has got into the fundangelicals that they are morally certain that this process, and all the other processes that went to create the Bible, is infallibly perfect.

Which is why the KJV-only crowd has a following. Folks like Hovind believe that God cause the Bible to come to perfection in the King James (some require the 1611 version), and that the Greek and Hebrew should be translated and “mended” according to that translation.

I’ve heard laments that English is being corrupted so that The Bible can’t be properly understood.

With that kind of logic, do you think you can ever engage them in a constructive conversation about science?

Helena Constantine said:

Ken Hovind teaches that the dinosaurs that survived the flood on the arc died out because the earth’s air pressure was greatly lessened in the absence of the hydrosphere (the vast body of water that had formerly floated on top of the atmosphere and supplied the flood water). The dinosaurs could only get oxygen to their vast bodies because of the pressure (or something equally risible).

Freshwater had a Hovind tape in his room and according to several witnesses testimony he taught, or at least mentioned, the hydrosphere notion in class.

I’m not a physicist, but… if enough water for 5 mile deep water to fall were sitting up there exerting pressure, it would have crushed everything living, including the dinosaurs.

Actually, you don’t have to wait to be crushed. Any serious scuba diver can tell you that nitrogen becomes toxic above partial pressures of about 4 atmospheres and even oxygen becomes toxic above pp 1.4atm. Both these gasses concentrate in the bloodstream and impairs nervous transmission, affecting judgment, and eventually causing hallucinations. This is why divers working below 150 feet for any extended length of time are supplied with exotic gas blends instead of just plain air.

( Before the creationists start whining, the demonstrable “working window” for mammals is about .6 to 3 atmospheres (given the current o2/n2 mix). This allows plenty of room for a somewhat denser ancient atmosphere, but not nearly enough for an kind of “hydrosphere” fantasy )

bk wrote:

“Which is why the KJV-only crowd has a following. Folks like Hovind believe that God cause the Bible to come to perfection in the King James (some require the 1611 version), and that the Greek and Hebrew should be translated and “mended” according to that translation.”

What, God couldn’t get it right the first time? And if the KJV is perfect, why have there been so many translations since then? Doesn’t everyone agree that it was already perfect? Why not?

Oh well, one of our resident trolls has already “explained” why tranlsation problems are not important. Apparently they already knew what the Bible was supposed to say without even reading it, just like they decided what they would find in the fossil record without ever looking at it. Does anyone see a pattern here?

Even Ken Ham and his AiG bunch don’t think much of the ‘canopy model’ http://www.answersingenesis.org/art[…]canopy-model

If the dinosaurs died for lack of air, why didn’t the blue whale also succumb?

DS said:

Apparently they already knew what the Bible was supposed to say without even reading it, just like they decided what they would find in the fossil record without ever looking at it. Does anyone see a pattern here?

Sure there is a pattern, but most of them consider science influenced, if not led, by Satan. There isn’t a meeting ground for discussion about science. They don’t really bother me that much (okay – the fact that some would be okay with bringing back stoning bothers me). The ones I have trouble with are the “same data – different interpretations” charlatans. AiG, Hovind, ICR and the like are the ones that convince the relatively rational scientific illiterate that creationism (whether called ID or poofism) should be taught.

bk wrote:

“The ones I have trouble with are the “same data – different interpretations” charlatans.”

Yea, I know the guys you mean. The 2 + 2 = 5 crowd. Now exactly why is it that these guys accept the results from scientific experiments but not the conclusions? Oh right, they never read the paper. Makes perfect sense.

Now if they ever did bother to read a scientific paper they would see that there are always five sections:

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Results

Discussion

References

All sections are subject to peer review. All sections are subject to criticism. If you have a “different interpretation” who cares? You must submit that for peer review and demonstrate that your explanation is superior to the one offered. Of course that might mean doing an actual experiment, God forbid. No wait, God didn’t forbid that. Huh, imagine that.

DS wrote:

What, God couldn’t get it right the first time? And if the KJV is perfect, why have there been so many translations since then?

Actually, if God had wanted it in English, he could have simply left a copy in English in the first place.

How impressive would it have been for scientists to have opened the last jar of dead sea scrolls and found a copy of Genesis in 20th century English on 2000 year old papyrus, along with a note in Hebrew saying “We don’t know what these odd symbols are, but the Lord told us to copy them down very carefully and put them in this jar”?

I know I would be impressed.

Likewise, it would have been trivial for God to make the last paragraph in Revelations the value of pi to 10000 places. In binary.

Now that’s tangible proof of divine dictation. None of this vague “God guideth my hande” stuff.

DS wrote:

“And if the KJV is perfect, why have there been so many translations since then? Doesn’t everyone agree that it was already perfect? Why not?”

The actual translators didn’t think their work was perfect. They wrote a fairly lengthy “translator’s preface”, which seems to be left out of most modern printings. I suspect a lot of KJV-onlys have never read it. It’s actually rather entertaining, with a small sprinkling of dry, academic wit.

How about Taylor Swift? We could use more Taylors like that.

…paragraph in Revelations the value of pi to 10000 places. In binary.

It’s Revelation–singular, although fundies almost never know that.

Actually, the full title should be The Revelation of St. John the Divine (but fundies don’t have much truck with saints, either).

That’s a great suggestion, though. Sort of a correction of the earlier indirect statement that pi=3.

“And if the KJV is perfect, why have there been so many translations since then? Doesn’t everyone agree that it was already perfect? Why not?”

The KJV was made before a lot more of the earliest copies of the books were found. It isn’t very accurate.

That is the least of the problems with the bible. Parts of it are now known to be forged, some of the NT Pauline letters.

The OT book of Daniel is rather dubious. It pretends to have been written in 600 BC while being written in 200 BC. The prophecies in 600 BC are vague and not all that accurate, while the ones around 200 BC are clearer and more accurate. This is because predicting after the fact works well. All the future prophecies were dead wrong as usual.

Most xians sects don’t consider it inerrant for a lot of good reasons. Partly because it demonstrably isn’t.

Actually, the KJV isn’t a bad translation at all. It was accurate within its brief - to produce sonorous and felicitous prose suitable to be read aloud - and given the limitations of the documents available to its translators. To their everlasting credit, they produced one of the landmark English-language texts.

However, while its merits are considerable, it is not the directly inspired word of God, and its translators, humble men as they were despite their formidable scholarship, never claimed that it was. That was left to later and less learned persons.

John_S said:

Even Ken Ham and his AiG bunch don’t think much of the ‘canopy model’ http://www.answersingenesis.org/art[…]canopy-model

If the dinosaurs died for lack of air, why didn’t the blue whale also succumb?

The whole canopy idea is somewhat ludicrous, deriving from a completely nonscientific source (preacher Isaac Newton Vail, 1840–1912) but creationists still (perhaps because of tradition?) drag it along as their albatross. Glenn R. Morton notes that Vail’s canopy was not only water, but also gold, limestone, and other minerals.

Combien de choses nous servoyent hier d’articles de foy, qui nous sont fables aujourd’huy? [How many things served us yesterday for articles of faith, which today are fables for us?] — Michel de Montaigne (1533–1592)

Just Bob said:

You think “Taylor” is bad? I once had a female Remington in class!

Product of a shotgun marriage no doubt.

The whole idea of a water canopy ultimately derives from an “ad hoc hypothesis” that there was no rain before the Flood. This, in turn, is driven by an insistance that there was no such thing as rainbows before the Flood; because otherwise, they’re left with trying to explain a change in the moleculare structure of water, which is beyond plausibility even for YECs.

Just Bob said: You think “Taylor” is bad? I once had a female Remington in class!

I used to work with lists of insurance customers. How about a woman named “Golden Dickie” and two brothers named Orvil and Wilbur Queer?

There are many other animals which are also extincting from earth. We should come up with other web sites to protect other animals also.

Regarding unusual names, there were/are the Silva brothers on the Island of Maui, Sterling, Quick, and Hi-Ho. I was told they were written up in the non per reviewed journal, Readers Digest. I actually met one of them, when I was briefly a vice-principal at Baldwin HS; the school registrar informed me about his brothers.

non-peer-reviewed

the third name is based on a radio, film, and TV cowboy, the “Lone Ranger”, and his horse, Silver. He would mount up and say, “Hi-ho Silver, Away!”

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on November 5, 2009 10:47 PM.

Postmodernism versus Religion was the previous entry in this blog.

Don’t Diss Darwin is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter