<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>insignificant thoughts - Latest Comments in links for 2006-12-14</title><link>http://insignificantthoughts.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://insignificantthoughts.disqus.com/links_for_2006_12_14/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2006 06:53:05 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: links for 2006-12-14</title><link>http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2006/12/14/links-for-2006-12-14/#comment-34213484</link><description>&lt;p&gt;subscribe&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">mariannna</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2006 06:53:05 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: links for 2006-12-14</title><link>http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2006/12/14/links-for-2006-12-14/#comment-34213483</link><description>&lt;p&gt;It wasn't a press release Judge Jones copied from.  And it wasn't "most of his decision".  It was 20 pages of a 139 page decision.  It was the "proposed Findings of Fact" filed by the ACLU.  Both sides submit these documents in the same fashion and base their arguments from them.  And from what I understand, judges are not allowed to rule on facts outside of these documents, so one of them was going to end up in his decision.  The evidence simply supported the ACLU.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Spencer</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2006 06:24:16 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>