Freshwater: Playing fast and loose with the truth

| 36 Comments

John Freshwater has embarked on a mini-media campaign to discredit Zachary Dennis, the student whose arm was burned by a Tesla coil in a classroom demonstration in December, 2007, and his parents. Based on his representation of the testimony of other students on April 29 and 30, Freshwater is claiming publicly that Zachary is lying. But Freshwater’s story has some pretty significant holes and in important respects misrepresents the testimony. Moreover, it is a transparent attempt to deflect attention from the actual matters at issue, including Freshwater’s inconsistent sworn claims about whether the Tesla coil even marked students and whether the display of religious materials, including multiple displays of the Ten Commandments, in Freshwater’s classroom was appropriate. Freshwater played fast and loose with the facts of the matter in the interview, and I’ll detail some of those offenses below the fold.

I recorded most of an interview Freshwater gave on local talk radio yesterday, May 6, and I’ll describe some of Freshwater’s claims and their problems below the fold. The full interview ran about 24 minutes; I have about 20 minutes of it recorded, punctuated by dogs barking (apparently at phantoms) and radio transmissions from my fire department pager that make it occasionally hard to hear the interview. I call it an “interview” but it was really an infomercial. The host, Dave Bevington, is a strong Freshwater supporter and served up softball questions that had clearly been briefed before the show began. [See note below.] Out of character for the “Open Debate” name of the show, no calls were accepted from listeners. (Remind anyone of the comment policy at an ID “blog” we know and cherish?)

The informercial interview is a target-rich environment, and I am going to have to work to keep this post to a reasonable length, under 3,000 or so words. I’ll try, but there are many temptations there.

Note added in edit May 13 The host of the talk radio show, Dave Bevington, denied on the air on May 11 that he bad discussed his questions with Freshwater before the show. That may be, but it still had the distinct feel of an infomercial rather than a journalistic exercise.

Disagreements over choreography

I missed the opening few minutes of the interview. When my recording starts, Freshwater is discussing the testimony of the 10 students I described in my “Exploiting kids” post five days ago. He starts with the claim that

It was very clear that .. uh .. that Zach Dennis .. uh .. was not .. is not being truthful.

Recall my description of how R. Kelly Hamilton, Freshwater’s attorney, elicited testimony from the students concerning how the Tesla coil demonstration was carried out:

4. Hamilton would question them about the Tesla coil incident. As part of that, he put on a heavily over-dramatized re-enactment of Zachary’s description ). Hamilton’s re-enactment misrepresented Zachary’s testimony in important respects. For example, in October 2008 Zachary testified that he put his hand on the surface of the overhead projector and that Freshwater held his hand down and drew the cross shape on his arm with the Tesla coil. In his re-enactment, however, Hamilton, playing the role of Zachary, stooped and held his whole right forearm, fist clenched, on the overhead projector’s plate. Playing Freshwater, Hamilton then laid his left forearm, again with fist clenched, on top of the arm already on the overhead. His motions were large, abrupt, and dramatic.

Hamilton is an imposing man, an ex-Columbus Police Department sergeant who is about 6’1” and weighs (my guess) around 210 or 220. He was dressed in a dark suit, making his exaggerated motions more striking. Zachary is of relatively slim build and at the time of the incident in 8th grade was likely on the order of 5’6” and 130 or so pounds (my guess extrapolating back from his appearance when he testified in late 2008, roughly a year after the incident). The two are in no way comparable figures. Visualize the posture of a 5’6” kid bent slightly with his open hand and/or forearm on the plate of an overhead projector, and contrast that with a 6’1” man bent double at the waist with his whole forearm, fist clenched, on the plate and you’ll have an image of the misrepresentation of Hamilton’s re-enactment for the witnesses.

And in fact Hamilton did not actually ask students whether Zachary lied, but rather he asked them a hypothetical question: “If Zachary Dennis said that’s what happened, what would you say?” A number of them, sometimes after being pressed by additional questions from Hamilton about the scenario, answered that they’d say Zachary was not telling the truth, or he was lying.

Zachary testified twice about the incident in the hearing. The first occasion was on October 28, 2008, when the Board was putting on its case. This was my summary of that first occasion:

Zach described how he placed his hand on the plate of an overhead projector. According to Zach’s testimony, Freshwater held his hand down and made two vertical passes with the Tesla coil and two horizontal passes. Zach testified that Freshwater told him that “It was like a temporary tattoo and those crosses would last a while.” When specifically questioned about it, Zach affirmed that “those crosses” was Freshwater’s phrase.

Note the use of “hand.” The second time Zachary testified about the incident was during Freshwater’s presentation of his case in May 2009.

Unfortunately, I did not write up that day for PT–other commitments ate me up and it never got written. I have reviewed the official transcript of the hearing for that day, though, and Zachary did say in that testimony that his forearm was on the plate of the overhead projector, that he made a fist, and that Freshwater held the arm down, his right arm over Zachary’s right wrist, and that Zachary felt like he could not pull his arm out if he wished to. So there are some discrepancies about the precise choreography of the incident in Zach’s testimony on October 2008 and May 2009.

Most of the 10 students agreed that the Tesla coil left a mark on students’ arms, and they differed in how long those marks last. We’ve heard testimony from other students who said that the mark on their arms lasted over a week, several described the marks as a cross or an “X”, and one testified that his mark looked just like that depicted in photographs of Zachary’s arm. (See my quotations from this student’s deposition in the federal case.)

So the witnesses, including Zach Dennis, Taylor Strack, the deposition of another student, and the students heard this week differ on the exact choreography of the incident, but all agree on the fact that Freshwater used the Tesla coil on students’ arms, many agreed that it made marks on the students’ arms, and many agreed that the marks lasted for some time, in the days to a week or two range. The only disagreement among the witnesses is about the specific choreography of the incident with Zachary, and not about the fact of its occurrence or (in general) its effects.

Dancing around the truth

Contrast that agreement on the basics among the students with Freshwater’s sworn testimony. On the several occasions when he has testified under oath about the Tesla coil incident and about marking (or not) Zachary’s arm with the Tesla coil Freshwater has

1. Conceded that he did so, but said the mark was an “X” not a cross (see here).

2. Denied that the Tesla coil left marks on students’ arms. (Again, see here.)

3. Suggested that the Tesla coil did not leave a mark on any students’ arm but only on his own arm (And again see here.)

3. Declined to answer whether he did so, invoking his 5th Amendment right against self incrimination. (Again, here.)

Blowing it out of proportion?

Freshwater said in the infomercial interview:

There was one student that even said that they texted Zach and that Zach said … uh … because they just found out [unintelligible] year, so she said ‘Zach is it true about you?’ Text came back to her and said that ‘My mother, she blew this all out of proportion.’ And that would be referring to [unintelligible].

I can help Mr. Freshwater here. The student had heard in 9th grade, the next year, that Zachary had been the person who complained about Freshwater (non-specific about what complaint was being referred to), and texted him asking whether he was the one. According to my notes of her testimony, he responded to her by texting ‘yes but my parents blew it all out of proportion.”

The only possible response to that is So what? Whether Zachary thought, or thinks, that his parents blew the situation out of proportion is irrelevant. The questions at issue in the administrative hearing are whether an adult teacher in the course of his classroom behavior (a) willfully or neglectfully injured a child, (b) was insubordinate toward the administration, (c) violated the guidelnes for his behavior in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and/or (d) violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in his display of religious items and posters, including multiple instances of the Ten Commandments, in his classroom. Those are the questions, not whether Zachary’s parents were too concerned about the safety of their child and other children in Freshwater’s classroom. The choreography of the specific incident is irrelevant to the grounds on which the Board of Education voted its Resolution of Intent to Terminate Freshwater’s employment. Kelly Hamilton is trying the wrong case here, frantically building straw men and burning them during the hearing in the hope that the smoke gets in the referee’s eyes..

All the other kids do it, dad

Freshwater spent some time in the infomercial interview arguing that lots of other teachers have used the Tesla coil on students in more or less the same manner over the years. The “all the other kids are doing it” plea didn’t move my father when I was 8 years old (“Would you jump off a cliff if all the other kids did?” was his rejoinder to my claim.) And at least one 8th grade science teacher, Elle Button, didn’t use the Tesla coil on students. In fact, she refused to shock Ian Watson, then President of the Board of Education, with it as a demonstration in the Principal’s office. That other people showed questionable judgment does not exonerate Freshwater of the charge that he displayed the same questionable judgment.

Dissing the Dispatch

In the infomercial interview Freshwater was very critical of the coverage of the case by the Columbus Dispatch. He went so far as to claim that an editor at the Dispatch, Paul Souhrada, is biased against him and therefore filters and otherwise alters the newspaper’s coverage to make Freshwater look bad:

I believe one of the reasons that is because the reporter, whose name is Dean Narcisco [sic; his pronunciation], his editor is a man named Souhrada, and Souhrada is local here, and he has opposed me from the beginning. He was on the witness stand last year. So everything is filtered through him. So anything gets in print in the Columbus Dispatch with my case is filtered through Mr. Souhrada. It’s slanted, it’s … uh … things are taken out of context.

Paul Souhrada, the editor in question, and his son Simon both testified in the hearing. But Souhrada has nothing to do with the Dispatch’s coverage of Freshwater’s travails. On October 31, 2008, in its reporting of the Souhradas’ testimony, the reporter, Dean Narciso, wrote

Paul Souhrada is an editor at The Dispatch, but he has not been involved in the assigning or editing of stories about Freshwater.

I checked with Narciso to see if that’s still the case. He responded

I can say that I’m still assigned to a separate editor on days I’m in Mount Vernon. The most I can tell my boss [Paul Souhrada] on those days is that I’ll be out of the office. I have no contact on the subject with him before, during or after my reporting.

So Freshwater’s claim is flatly false, made up out of whole cloth in his flailing around to find someone to blame.

Does it hurt?

This wasn’t in the informercial interview, but in his questioning of students last week Hamilton made a big deal of asking them if those being ‘zapped’ with the Tesla coil “cried out” or “whimpered” (Hamilton’s words) in pain. This is pure deception. It depends on the false assumption that there is no injury without pain. But as anyone who has had a severe sunburn can attest, one can receive a 1st degree burn (reddening of the skin) or 2nd degree burn (dermal reddening with blistering) while feeling only a sensation of mild warmth while the damage is occurring. The Tesla coil does not burn by radiative heating as the sun does, but radio frequency current can also cause tissue damage without significant pain, and the Tesla coil in question generates an RF signal at 500 KHz, just below the AM radio band.

This review summarizes pain thresholds for men and women in response to RF contact in the frequency range of interest here (500 KHz). The summary shows that the threshold for pain depends not on the voltage (ranging from 10 KV to 50 KV in the model Freshwater used), but on the current and frequency, with the pain threshold higher for higher frequencies. That is, it requires greater currents to cause pain at higher frequencies, and the curve asymptotes around 100 KHz, well below the 500 KHz frequency of the BDA10A. One can’t estimate the current likely to have been involved in Freshwater’s classroom demonstrations because the data in the referenced review was from barefoot subjects. (!) I’ve not found research on thresholds for tissue damage, but a Wikipedia article refers to tissue damage without perceptible pain due to RF and that RF current preferentially flows through deep conducting structures like blood vessels and nerve fibers:

The reason for the lack of pain is that a human being’s nervous system does not sense the flow of potentially dangerous electrical currents above 15-20 kHz; essentially, in order for nerves to be activated, a significant number of ions must cross their membrane before the current (and hence voltage) reverses. Since the body no longer provides a warning ‘shock’, novices may touch the output streamers of small Tesla coils without feeling painful shocks. However, there is anecdotal evidence among Tesla coil experimenters that temporary tissue damage may still occur and be observed as muscle pain, joint pain, or tingling for hours or even days afterwards. This is believed to be caused by the damaging effects of internal current flow, and is especially common with continuous wave (CW), solid state or vacuum tube type Tesla coils.

So Hamilton’s questions about pain and whimpering are nothing but a smokescreen.

Why his lawyers bailed out

Recall that the two attorneys hired by the insurance company to defend Freshwater in the federal case petitioned the court to be allowed to withdraw from his defense on April 23. Freshwater had some less than flattering remarks about them in the infomercial interview:

I received word from my personal attorney, Kelly Hamilton. These two other attorneys, they are appointed to me, Jason and Bob, these two are appointed [to] me by the school. And on that April 23 I found out that on that federal case that was going to take place at the end of May, it’s going to be a jury trial, I found out that the eyewitnesses, my ten eyewitnesses–if not more, we have more coming–they were not put on the witness list, they never [unintelligible], they never had depositions, from these two attorneys. So they would not be able to come into the jury trial, to the hearing, the federal hearing, which would hamper the case a lot. There’d be a lot of evidence that would not have come out.

I’ll be honest, I was furious. I sat down that evening, wrote a letter, and my wife sat down and kind of looked it over, and we put together a letter and I sent it down to them and also sent it to Cincinnatti to the lady who’s the insurance lady who’s in charge of all of this, that appointed these two attorneys. And it was very pointed that the lack of effort on their part, the .. ah .. not deposing people, really causing my case at the federal level to be hampered, and not be at the level it needs to be. So it was, it was very pointed to ‘em, the poor job that they have done. Ah, they’ve missed a lot of the state hearings [the administrative hearing], they weren’t there a lot. They didn’t speak to me a lot. So whatever that happened I ended up firing them, they didn’t fire me. … The letter was very pointed. I even put the word in there .. ah .. the malpractice lawsuit against them with the lack of their abilities, what they were doing on my case. They seemed to be more interested in the insurance company that they were working for than in my personal well being.

Summary

I have the strong impression of a man flailing around trying to find some way out of an insoluble maze, and his only strategy is to strike out at those he sees as opposing him. They’re lying about him, misrepresenting him, maligning him, plotting against him. He repeated the claim that there was a target on him dating from his 2003 attempt to incorporate the Intelligent Design Network’s “Objective Origins Policy” into the science curriculum, ignoring the fact that when this most current debacle arose, only two senior people, Director of Teaching and Learning Weston and Board of Education Member Dr. Margie Bennett, were still in the school from 2003. All the other Board members and senior administrators are new since then. Were Weston and Bennett (herself an administrator at a Nazarene university) plotting against him for six years? Suuuuure they were. And if you buy that, I’ve got a good used bridge for sale. Cheap.

36 Comments

Freshwater has two different problems. One, if I recall correctly, he’s already terminated. He’s not drawing a salary from the school district. This administrative appeal hearing is not a court of law, but it appears to be coming to a close and the main facts of the case are still intact: Freshwater used a device on a student that left a mark, and he was insubordinate. I seem to recall that Freshwater, in writing, told the school district that he would not remove his personal bible from the classroom, even after required in writing. It would seem to me that nothing in this appeal process changes the narrative. We’ll see.

Two, Freshwater’s federal trial will be quite different. A real court, a real judge, real rules and totally documented. He’s going to get pinned like a bug.

“He repeated the claim that there was a target on him dating from his 2003 attempt to incorporate the Intelligent Design Network’s “Objective Origins Policy” into the science curriculum”

In any sane world, that would be a perfectly legitimate reason to target an educator for termination. That’s a bit like saying, “I think we should add Holocaust denial to the history curriculum.” If grinding your ideological axe is so obviously more important to you than doing your job, then you shouldn’t be an educator.

Also, I find it detestable that a grown man who was previously in a position of authority over a boy is being given free time on the airwaves to repeatedly defame the child. Very Christian, no?

Richard-thanks again for the information you provide. I just finished reading “The Devil in Dover” tonight and was struck by the parallels between the events in Dover and the Freshwater Fiasco. Lying fundamentalists ? Who knew? I hope you reconsider writing a book about this whole affair if and when it ever ends.

As I’ve said, Lauri has already written the book I’d write, and you’ve just read it.

For those interested, there’s a 3-segment interview of Freshwater on May 5 on a Columbus Christian radio station. Some of what I’ve described here is also in that interview. I’m not sure how long that link will stay live–it looks like only the current week’s programs are archived, so it may go away soon.

I won’t make use of your radio connection as I know I will simply end up throwing things at my computer screen.

I don’t know how you do it Richard. I suppose, as at Dover, the final verdict of ‘breath-taking innanity’ could be a sweetner, otherwise listening to this snivelling child and his wadelling lawyer would simply seem masochistic.

Plus side, the kid has a good case for slander, when the trial(s?) is (are?) over. If that ever damn happens. Whatever that means. I really can’t follow this anymore.

Lying under oath, perjury, and obstruction of justice are criminal offenses. Freshwater may yet turn a civil case into a prison term.

That is what Kent Hovind did. Tax evasion is normally a civil offense. He managed to turn it into 59 felonies and an 8 1/2 year sentence in federal prison.

The fundies at Dover perjured themselves also while someone(s) threatened to kill Judge Jones, another felony.

The claim that religion is the basis of morality is falsified on a daily basis by these sorts of people. In fact, the opposite theory that fundie religion makes people immoral is far more supported by mountains of facts.

raven said:

Lying under oath, perjury, and obstruction of justice are criminal offenses. Freshwater may yet turn a civil case into a prison term.

That is what Kent Hovind did. Tax evasion is normally a civil offense. He managed to turn it into 59 felonies and an 8 1/2 year sentence in federal prison.

The fundies at Dover perjured themselves also while someone(s) threatened to kill Judge Jones, another felony.

The claim that religion is the basis of morality is falsified on a daily basis by these sorts of people. In fact, the opposite theory that fundie religion makes people immoral is far more supported by mountains of facts.

In other words, when you use God as an excuse to sin, you become a hypocrite and a sinner, but when you use God as an excuse to commit crimes, you become a criminal.

I hate to say it but what’s next? A suicide note?

Thanks again.

I hate to say it but what’s next? A suicide note?

Naw. They usually claim persecution, tell everyone they are going to hell, and toss off a few death threats to whoever they feel like.

Already, the Dennis family has had to move out of the district for reasons not known to me but involving harassment of some sort.

They are very predictable and unoriginal.

CMB said:

Richard-thanks again for the information you provide. I just finished reading “The Devil in Dover” tonight and was struck by the parallels between the events in Dover and the Freshwater Fiasco. Lying fundamentalists ? Who knew? I hope you reconsider writing a book about this whole affair if and when it ever ends.

Don’t forget one huge difference. Despite some key DI figures backing out of testifying at Dover, hardly a day goes by even now that they don’t put their spin on it and the “activist judge”. But they have been virtually silent about Freshwater, and will probably continue long after the trial. The reason is simple; they disagree with his blatantly religious approach, but they can’t afford to alienate his fans because of their big tent strategy.

Several people have noted the underhanded tactics of the religionacs, and their tendancy to tell lies. Has Robert Byars (Biars?) ever commented on an RBH Freshwater post? My point is that maybe even he has a conscience; far fetched I know, but religionism could produce morality through religionistic teachings some day;couldn’t they?

robert van bakel said:

Several people have noted the underhanded tactics of the religionacs, and their tendancy to tell lies. Has Robert Byars (Biars?) ever commented on an RBH Freshwater post? My point is that maybe even he has a conscience; far fetched I know, but religionism could produce morality through religionistic teachings some day;couldn’t they?

Yes, he has commented on them. My current rule is one Byers comment per thread, with any more (and their responses) tossed to the Bathroom Wall.

Frank J said:

CMB said:

Richard-thanks again for the information you provide. I just finished reading “The Devil in Dover” tonight and was struck by the parallels between the events in Dover and the Freshwater Fiasco. Lying fundamentalists ? Who knew? I hope you reconsider writing a book about this whole affair if and when it ever ends.

Don’t forget one huge difference. Despite some key DI figures backing out of testifying at Dover, hardly a day goes by even now that they don’t put their spin on it and the “activist judge”. But they have been virtually silent about Freshwater, and will probably continue long after the trial. The reason is simple; they disagree with his blatantly religious approach, but they can’t afford to alienate his fans because of their big tent strategy.

Good point Frank. By the way-I know that Judge Jones referred some of the Dover testimony to federal prosecutors for investigation of perjury but I don’t know the outcome. Was anyone prosecuted for perjury related to their testimony in Dover?

CMB Wrote:

Was anyone prosecuted for perjury related to their testimony in Dover?

Last I heard they decided not to prosecute anyone. But I also read somewhere that they still have the option to do so.

Two interesting side notes to Freshwater’s interview with Bevington:

1. No one called in after the interview to claim support for Freshwater. There was no call-in support for him after his stated “version” of what is currently happening in his case.

2. The next day, Adam Taylor, on his WMVO morning program commented about the fact that no one called in about the Freshwater interview and also commented on the statements that J. Freshwater made about Paul Souhrada and his uninvolvement in Dean Narciso’s write ups in the Columbus Dispatch. He stated who is Dean’s editor on the Freshwater stories. I didn’t get the name written down. It was his thoughts that the Columbus Dispatch was a well run paper and weren’t doing anything that would taint the story one way or the other.

RBH, Just curious if you have ever had any conversations with Freshwater, Hamilton, or his pastor throughout this process… if so what where they like? Do they avoid you like the plague? And have you heard if they read this blog?

display of religious materials, including multiple displays of the Ten Commandments

That raises questions - were those multiple copies of the same version, or were they different versions? My favourite is the version in Exodus 34, which I think should be up on every classroom and courtroom wall. Here’s a sample:

[11] Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite. [12] Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: [13] But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: [14] For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: [15] Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods , and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; [16] And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.

King James Version, of course.

I agree with robert van bakel’s comments, RBH must have an incredibly strong constitution to be able to put up with this nonsense. I would have snapped a long time ago.

Hieronymus Fortesque Lickspittle said:

I agree with robert van bakel’s comments, RBH must have an incredibly strong constitution to be able to put up with this nonsense. I would have snapped a long time ago.

Who says I haven’t? :)

kevin said:

RBH, Just curious if you have ever had any conversations with Freshwater, Hamilton, or his pastor throughout this process… if so what where they like? Do they avoid you like the plague? And have you heard if they read this blog?

Sure. We greet one another before or after a session and during breaks, and talk a little occasionally about nothing substantive. It’s typically not a hostile environment. There’s been only one attempt to evangelize me, and that was by the father of one of the student witnesses a year or so ago.

I’m certain that several of Freshwater’s active supporters read PT. I doubt whether he does regularly if at all, though I know he gets reports of what’s posted here because he’s referred to it once or twice.

lso sent it to Cincinnatti to the lady who’s the insurance lady

What is he, five years old? The insurance lady?

RDA said:

I hate to say it but what’s next? A suicide note?

I JUST SAY TONIGHTS BOARD MEETING VIDEO ON YOUTUBE. WHAT A LIAR ! CAN’T SOMETHING BE DONE TO STOP THIS NUT?

Yes, it would appear that John’s desperate behavior is escalating. Here’s a link to the YouTube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE2jdVSfzoo

It’s another case where John doesn’t feel that the rules apply to him. He manipulates the 3 minute limit on speaking at the Board Mtg. He manipulates the confidentiality of any settlement talks by bringing up options presented at settlement attempts.

At this point, he appears to be self-destructing.

Frank J said: Don’t forget one huge difference. Despite some key DI figures backing out of testifying at Dover, hardly a day goes by even now that they don’t put their spin on it and the “activist judge”. But they have been virtually silent about Freshwater, and will probably continue long after the trial. The reason is simple; they disagree with his blatantly religious approach, but they can’t afford to alienate his fans because of their big tent strategy.

We will have to see. My money is on a DI public statement within a week of the administrative board ruling, citing it as another terrible example of a fine christian scholar being ‘expelled’ or lauding them for doing the right thing (depending on the ruling).

I think the main reason they’ve been silent is because their public announcements favoring Jones, saying they were going to win, etc… during Kitzmiller backfired. This time around I expect them to wait and see how it turns out, then make a statement.

Eric, I think the DI is steering clear of this, period, because Freshwater is so overtly religious, and the DI is still trying to divorce ID from creationism. They KNOW they’ll get beaten down on the Establishment Clause angle, so Freshwater isn’t doing them any favors by pushing ID while being a fundamentalist nutjob. My hope is that, unlike Kitzmiller et al., Freshwater (and others) will be charged with perjury.

eric said: This time around I expect (the Dishonesty Institute) to wait and see how it turns out, then make a statement.

…about how they knew all the time exactly how it was going to turn out.

Somewhat off topic, but here’s another “poor persecuted creationist being expelled” story readers here might have fun with: http://stkarnick.com/culture/2010/0[…]dia-ignored/ - read the article at the top and then start reading at the bottom for the comments. I’m holding my own, but I would appreciate some help…

Mike in Ontario, NY said: Eric, I think the DI is steering clear of this, period, because Freshwater is so overtly religious, and the DI is still trying to divorce ID from creationism.

As I said, we will see. Here’s a sad thought: if you want know who’s right, you’ll probably need to bookmark this page. Otherwise by the time the case is completed we both will likely have forgotton our predictions.

seabiscuit said:

Yes, it would appear that John’s desperate behavior is escalating. Here’s a link to the YouTube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE2jdVSfzoo

It’s another case where John doesn’t feel that the rules apply to him. He manipulates the 3 minute limit on speaking at the Board Mtg. He manipulates the confidentiality of any settlement talks by bringing up options presented at settlement attempts.

At this point, he appears to be self-destructing.

The local paper reports that Steve Dennis addressed the board saying that Freshwater’s comments were inappropriate and that he also advised the board that the settlement proposals discussed by Freshwater were supposed to be confidential. I guess “AccountabilityInTheMedia.com” forgot to include that part of the controversy.

“I’m holding my own, but I would appreciate some help…”

I’ll be the bad cop to your good cop. :D

That Mike D’V__ is a piece of work. It took about one minute to come to the conclusion that the whole publication is a disgrace. (Article on Anthony Flew’s “conversion” without a mention of his dementia.)

Richard, Good coverage as always. Freshwater’s continued ‘lying for jesus’ seems to resonate less and less as time passes and costs mount. I do hope he and Hamilton will not end up as martyrs over this. Fools, liars and losers, yes but not martyrs. Oh, and of course, gone.

CMB said:

seabiscuit said:

Yes, it would appear that John’s desperate behavior is escalating. Here’s a link to the YouTube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE2jdVSfzoo

It’s another case where John doesn’t feel that the rules apply to him. He manipulates the 3 minute limit on speaking at the Board Mtg. He manipulates the confidentiality of any settlement talks by bringing up options presented at settlement attempts.

At this point, he appears to be self-destructing.

The local paper reports that Steve Dennis addressed the board saying that Freshwater’s comments were inappropriate and that he also advised the board that the settlement proposals discussed by Freshwater were supposed to be confidential. I guess “AccountabilityInTheMedia.com” forgot to include that part of the controversy.

Steve Dennis did not address the school board during the public comments portion of the meeting. Although I did leave that particular meeting before it ended, I was there for the entirety of the public comments portion.

It is board policy to only allow comments from school district residents. Dennis no longer resides within the school district.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on May 7, 2010 5:31 PM.

Steve Katt was the previous entry in this blog.

Modern humans may have inherited some Neanderthal genes 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