Catch up on Kathleen

So, you all saw the motion to squash was granted and Shoemaker was ordered to show cause.

So now she has responses. I urge you to go read this mess, but I'll try to sum it up here.

1. She (Kathleen) doesn't agree with us, and that harms us. Lots of folks don't agree with me, I think it's a bit of a stretch to call it harm.

2. She used science and sense to prove us wrong, thereby making us look like we're wrong and forcing us to defend our science.

3. Her husband uses the wikipedia...oh the agony.

4. You have to post this verbatim:

Ms. Seidel states in her web site that others aid her, including her husband. That renders her activity a conspiracy to dissuade potential Federal litigants and their witnesses by intimidation and to penalize those who are not dissuaded by injury to their property interests, particularly their employment.

Others help her and somehow this turns into witness intimidation. I missed the part where it was proven she intimidated anyone. But then again, legalese confuses me.

5. My personal favorite. She claims to be a wife and mother, but she is so smart she must be getting help. Apparently us wives and mothers are entirely too stupid to look things up for ourselves and have good study skills.

6. She agrees with the pharma companies, so she MUST be getting help from them. Although you gotta love a man that puts someone else's opinion up as "beliefs" in quotes...as if they aren't real and poor little dumbass Kathleen, wife and mother, was led to a toxic well and dumb enough to drink. You guys know how much I hate pharma companies, but even I don't jump to this conclusion without a good reason.

You ought to go read this stuff..there's even testimonies as to how Kathleen's opposing viewpoint has harmed those involved. Quite frankly, if they were harmed it was due to their own behavior in objecting to having opposing viewpoints published. It's my understanding that this isn't the first time they've tried to use the courts to undermine science because they felt threatened that it didn't agree with them.

Neurodiversity

I'm not a legal person. Legalese tends to make me feel that my brain is going in circles and is not under it's own control ( can we declare legalspeak detrimental to one's health?). But this sounds like the worst kind of idiocy I've ever heard. Pretty much, this man's defense seems to be wives and mothers are entirely too stupid for this level of sophistication and there's some things I don't understand going on. Which says a lot more about him than it does about anyone else. He appears, in his response to show cause, using his own words, as a neanderthal and a whiner ("no one agrees with me, I"m going to squash opposing viewpoints so I don't look stupid"). IMO, he doesn't need outside help to look ridiculous, he does just fine on his own.