Two lawyers arguing in a pit thread. Whooooeeee, it doesn’t get any better than this!
No, wait. That’s not the phrase I’m looking for. Actually, it’s:
Whoooooeee, I would rather have someone pound on my head with a ball peen hammer! 
Eyes glazing over, what was this thread about?
Yup. I think you’ve carved out the key issue: can the judge consider what those statements are? And of some interest, specifically: does the doctrine of incorporation by reference extend to web pages?
If I’m representing Cal, hell yeah. I’m most familiar with the doctrine of incorporation by reference as applied to things like contracts. This isn’t a contract, but the statements made in the webpage are at issue and I’d at least make a pitch that the judge could look at them. Depending on who my judge is, I think I could get it done. But you’re right: the safer route is to convert to a Rule 56 motion, then grant judgment for Cal.
Like I said, who says lawyers are no fun at parties? 
Well, to answer that, I’d need to give you some background. Before 1933, there were two different kinds of courts, law and – oh, wait. I think I’d best go back before the Revolution to England’s court system. Where to start, though? Okay – the Magna Carta!
Hey! Are you asleep?!?!? How could anyone fall asleep when we’re talking about the drafting of the . . .
Not to mention, uh, Columbia… No coffee though.
Well wait, I am interested in the Magna Carta.
Aha! - your federal Rule 12 is Saskatchewan’s Rule 188!!
It all makes sense now!
Carry on. I just had an ephiphany I needed to share. 
Of course it’s a misunderstanding, but the mass of people don’t get the distinction between the use of the word in its strict sense and in its general sense. It’s not reserved for scientific use.
I can say, “Everyone on Interstate 70 yesterday was driving like a dick because they’d been stuck in Kansas for two days. At least, that’s my theory.” That doesn’t mean I took a poll of every truck driver that almost took me out, or every car driver going 30 in the fast lane. It just means that’s my wild-ass guess.
That’s how many, if not most people use the word. The only thing that can alleviate this is to educate them on what “theory” means in its scientific sense.
Right. And that’s the whole point of teaching science in a science class. Introducing that malarkey (creationism/ID) into the class defeats the purpose, unless, of course, it’s merely to show what science is not.
Sometimes I just want to say "I don’t know which word you understand less, “theorey” or “evolution”. But you seem to have “of” right! 
Sometimes I just want to say "I don’t know which word you understand less, “theory” or “evolution”. But you seem to have “of” right!
We agree. My comment that you quoted was directed at Mr. Blue Sky. My subsequent explanation of the word “theory,” for what it was worth, was my attempt at such education, for the benefit Mr. Blue Sky* and for any like-minded eavesdroppers.
*I almost typed “Mr. Kite”