At the DI Blog, Casey Luskin is, oddly, citing me as evidence for something I actually got from him. He writes:

Darwinist blogger Ed Brayton is reporting about a conversation with Robert Pennock, where it seems Pennock confirmed that all first quarter UCSD freshmen were required to attend his anti-ID lecture at UCSD last week. This corroborates my prior post reporting the same, based upon the fact that the home page of UCSD’s main student website, Tritonlink, stated, “All first-quarter freshmen are required to attend the event…”

No, Casey. Not only did I not “report on a conversation” with Rob about that speech, nowhere in my post do I even mention any conversation with him about it, nor have I ever had a conversation with him about it. I actually didn’t know that he wasn’t flying home from San Francisco until I read on the DI blog and at Dembski’s blog about his speech at UCSD a day after I returned home. And my information about freshmen being required to attend came from your report, not from Rob. I just assumed it was correct that all freshmen were required to attend.

The IDers seem to be making a big deal over whether all freshmen were required to attend, or just a portion of incoming freshmen, or whether they were just encouraged to attend. I frankly couldn’t care less, since I’m not the one trying to paint a ridiculous picture of “indoctrination” (isn’t it funny how no one is ever “indoctrinated” into beliefs that one shares? That word is only used if someone is being taught something one disagrees with) regarding this speech.

But to cite a mythical conversation that never took place and was never mentioned anywhere in my post as confirming something I actually got from you guys and just repeated on the assumption that it was correct is quite absurd. I suggest brushing up on those reading comprehension skills just a bit. I also suggest retracting the claim that Rob Pennock had “reportedly confirmed” it based upon a post that never says a word about anything Rob has said on the subject.