I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me the legal justification applied by the judge.

Let's try it this way, shall we?

A judge orders you to do X and your attorney doesn't object (assuming one is even present). This is legal.
Define conditions of X.

My suggestion would be getting in touch with the EFF...

Having a judge involved, and the defense attorney not objecting, is due process.

So, with that logic, if a judge orders you to pee on the floor and your attorney doesn't object, that's fine too?!

With due process.

There was no due process here, at least none I saw. Just a judge going, "Take it down."

*groan*

Touché, sir. Touché.

Well, at some point the citations actually do matter. Takes a while and it's a ways up the educational ladder, but eventually they do matter.

At least, I think so. I've never made it that far myself.

"...if you're writing a report on The Human Stain, you should be reading The Human Stain, not Wikipedia."

Writing a report on David Copperfield and NOT reading a biography on Charles Dickens in addition to that is practically only doing half the work.

Meh, Philip Roth just doesn't understand Wikipedia.

Imagine that you're writing a report on The Human Stain. You see Roth's direct edit to Wikipedia, but since that's the only place he made the change, that's the only source. How would you cite that in your bibliography, knowing that any cite of Wikipedia is immediately scored an F? How do you know Roth personally made the edit?

Wikipedia is, by design and definition, unreliable.

How would one cite Roth's direct edit on Wikipedia...without citing Wikipedia?
"Personal knowledge of Author, 07 September, 2012"?

This is where the argument of "why can't he just change Wikipedia?" falls apart.

You're still you though. You still have to give statements, make yourself available for depositions, be put on the stand.

There's more than just 'Release the Nazgul!' and then you go about your life.

Personally, I think they need to leave Lance alone. Maybe he did it, maybe not -- I don't know. But all their "witnesses" have been given strong incentives to testify against Lance, even if they have to make stuff up, and the only real science in this witchhunt -- the actual blood tests -- have all show him to be clean.

I'll drink to that.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence though, and barring said evidence, the simplest solution still tends to be more likely.

I mean, which is more likely to be possible?

A ten-plus year coverup effort assisted by who knows how many people, being able to fool labs in how many different places at how many different times, your life being put under the microscope for years on end
OR
Lance Armstrong is a very talented, able cyclist.

I read a story about the 1992 USA Olympic basketball Dream Team, and one bit I remember was none of them wanted to be the top scorer for a game, because that meant a mandatory drug test (they hated the inconvenience). The more you win, the tighter the scrutiny becomes, and to keep it up for so long in Armstrong's case, I cannot imagine it *not* being leaked earlier (considering it appears practically anyone who's ever been a part of USA cycling was in on it...they're *all* that altruistic?) and to bring it up now reeks of being a witch hunt and farming for publicity.

But everyone seems to accept the conspiracy, so why not?

You. Stupid. Naive. Moron.

Says the person taking everything coming out of the USADA at face value.

You just want to see someone legitimately successful fail, because the only story we like better than an underdog overcoming obstacles to triumph is to watch someone highly regarded fall from grace flat on their face.

Occam's Razor is so dull these days, using it makes hair grow back...

He's been fighting this for over ten years.

What sort of life do you have if you have to spend all your time defending it?