So Much For Neutral Scientific Interest
February 19, 2008 · By Matthew Campbell
A delightful little explosion in readership happened back under my watch in January with a post about the upcoming Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed documentary staring Ben Stein (I admit that I deserve no credit for it, the potty-mouthed Canadian Cynic demonstrated his talent to aid his opponents’ cause more than his own). A flustered Prof. PZ Myers sent his little minions (if this were a movie, I picture a scene from the Wizard Of Oz, around the time that the flying monkeys make their appearance — that’s what the crowd thinks they basically are anyway!) over here to tell me, American IPAs in hand, how embarrassed they were to be Canadian they were (I wish those sentiments were true, honestly!), how I had to apologize to the above-mentioned offended professor for misunderstanding a 150 year-old title of a book (oops!; I guess you guys’ll now fess up that you might have misinterpreted that whole 220-odd year-old “separation of church and state” clause now…) and one particularly amusing demand that gave me till 5:30 one day to respond to the little monkeys or else I would have all credibility banished forever (and I was looking forward to seeing that Funny Farm application go through too!).
Anyway, over at the Expelled movie website, a little tidbit was revealed today that explains that the Professor of the West might be trying to hide some skeletons of his own (much akin to the dogmatic types who insist that we acknowledge macroevolution’s reality, or else). I’m a good sport though and I’m feeling generous so here’s a proposal: Prof. PZ Myers,you have until 5:30 pm (your local time) to fess up to these accusations and explain yourself. Otherwise, you will forever be cast as having no credibility! Looking forward to hearing the response…;)
I suggest you read this and this before getting too enthused about this film.
I read the article you linked to. Twice. I couldn’t find any accusation at all, although both you and the article seemed to hint there was something.
What is the “skeleton” you’re alleging this article contained?
This post has the tone of a maturity one expects from a 12 year old…and not a very bright one at that.
Seriously, you should be embarrassed.
Posts like this make me wonder who the heck Matthew thinks he is… seriously dude, the medication will help with your delusions of grandure.
If anyone should be embarrased, Progressive, it should be Greg for letting Matthew write here.
As I see it … your first mistake was paying any attention to these ignoramuses in the first place….
Umm… no. Having actually read the writings of the founders, I know that they intended a secular government for the country. It’s that whole reading part that you fall down on. You know, knowladge.
What a dolt.
Argh! knowledge. Real smooth. Bad on me.
Maybe you should try reading the founding documents for yourself and see how devoid of religion, god, and your precious jesus they really are. Go read them all. When you can come back here and tell me with a straight face that the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence all read like a chick tract or a Sunday school sermonette, you can start tossing around bullshit about there being no separation of church and state. The fact of the matter is that these documents lack a religious tone. The constitution lacks the word God completely. In our Bill of Rights, there is mention of a God but it is in a more deistic sense, definitely not the Abrahamic God.
The founders of this nation knew that we didn’t stand a chance if we left it up to religions to get along, or to control the government. The simple truth is that religions don’t get along, you all hate each other. You see each other as infidels. 60,000 denominations of Christians in the world, and you all think the other people down the street are doing it wrong, and they’re the ones going to hell. You’re told to “love thy neighbor” but you can’t, cause their Southern Baptist, or Lutheran, or Methodist, or Catholic, or Presbyterian. You’re all batshit insane. I’m fucking elated that your kind are kept in check by the 1st amendment. Your 1600 year old book has no relevance to modern day life, so STFU and read (actually read them Matthew) some modern texts and maybe you’ll learn something you Dolt.
I’m a good sport though and I’m feeling generous so here’s a proposal: Prof. PZ Myers,you have until 5:30 pm (your local time) to fess up to these accusations and explain yourself. Otherwise, you will forever be cast as having no credibility! Looking forward to hearing the response…;)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
*gasp
AAAAAAAAHhhahaHHaaaaaaaaaa
Whew. You are hilarious.
Ok — I get it –
You’re doing the Ann Coulter thing, right? Like “I’ll be hyperbolically ignorant and stubborn to lampoon the people I claim to be a part of!”
No?
Ok, then you’ve lost me. Are you just a masochist then?
If you actually read PZ’s blog from time to time, you’d have noticed that he’s already addressed – and trashed – the claims of Expelled’s producers.
“Flustered”? FLUSTERED?
what color is the grass in your world, Alice?
from now on, I’ll just tell myself I’m hotter than Jessica Alba — and suddenly she’ll be a dog and I’ll be the hottest girl ever.
I think people generally have to actually be able to tell what the accusations are in order to consider responding to them. Randomly implying that someone has “skeletons in their closet” isn’t really specific enough for anyone to know what the heck you are talking about.
So, where is the skeleton?
Seriously, the link takes you to a complaint that PZM took too many words to respond to their article. Its an odd complaint, for had PZ chosen to simply link each point made in the article and define it as lie, misrepresentation, or just plain made up crap, with links proving his point; his posting could have been much shorter. However then he would have faced criticism that he was too lazy to actually comment directly.
I realize you have a bias here, but please actually read what was said.
They start by complaining he hasn’t seen the film, thus implying his blog posting is a criticism of the film…its not.
Next they argue he is trying to mitigate the criticism of his performance in the film. Again he makes no comment on the film, although he does make comments on who he expects will see it.
Then they complain he spent 3,000 words reviewing their editorial. Well it wasn’t just a review it was a rebuttal, pointing out with clarity and examples the lies and deceptions.
They then complain that he is tax funded (I don’t understand this complaint actually), although I bet he keeps his blog on his own time.
They then argue he is obsessing over a film he hasn’t seen…again nice attempt to confuse.
Next they argue he should embrace challenges to dogma, or as they call it reigning orthodoxy. And in truth scientists do embrace challenges to dogma, they just have to be more valid then “nanananana cuz god did it.†Do some duplicable research pointing out a flaw, I’m sure it will be embraced.
They complain he hasn’t seen the film again.
Well then release the movie and he can see it!
So, where was that skeleton????
Seriously, boys…doesn’t all the lying you engage in ever weigh heavily on your Christian consciences?
What are you even *talking* about?
Instead of whinging about PZ’s “little monkeys”, have the courtesy and, indeed, the stones to respond to what was actually said in the post to which you rather ineptly refer here. Until you do so, no one need make any further comment on your illiterate, dishonest, and pointless ramblings – aside, of course, from pointing out yet again that your ramblings are illiterate, dishonest, and pointless.
As I said Avekid, I’m feeling like I’m in a good mood today so I’ll let you guys get all this stuff off your chests before making my observations. Just be cautioned though: you’re probably not going to like what I have to say!
This should be hilarious.
Wow, I just came over here from Pharyngula, where the response to Matt’s challenge appears to be a resounding “meh.”
Also, this blog needs a preview button.
Shorter Matthew:
“I’m giving that PZ guy until 5:30 to ‘fess up to … some things. I’m not going to say what things, but if you go to this web site, you won’t find any hints there, either. And if he doesn’t ‘fess up, then I’m going to win by default with my as-yet-unannounced accusations and observations, which is how things work here in Idiot Matthew Retardoville. Neener neener neener.”
Did I get that about right?
As I said Avekid, I’m feeling like I’m in a good mood today so I’ll let you guys get all this stuff off your chests before making my observations. Just be cautioned though: you’re probably not going to like what I have to say!
No no. I love what you have to say. So far everything I’ve read of yours has caused me to break out in fits of uncontrollable muscle cramping laughter.
I can’t wait to see how you position yourself as some sort of important whohave challenging PZ this time. As if anything you’ve spewed on these pages shows any grasp of the subject matter or reality for that matter. Please, give us more.
Matthew, that was a civil and serious question. The title of your post, as well as its general tone and reference to “tidbits revealed” and “skeletons”, suggest that the article you link to will reveal something discreditable about PZ.
I read the article, and I frankly can find nothing.
So what are you talking about?
Dalton, you’re a troll and have lost any privileges to make any demands of any sort.-M
“I’m in a good mood today so I’ll let you guys get all this stuff off your chests before making my observations.”
Maybe I can save you some time: were they going to be “whaaaaaaah, people are criticizing me that’s so horrible it just means that I’m right after all!”
PZ has “skeletons in his closet”? Which closet? When you define the closet as the world, then yeah. PZ and all the evolutionists have billions and billions of skeletons. Each bone in these skeletons supports The Theory. What’s your bone?
What’s your bone?
Judging by his ego, I can guess.
And no Matthew that’s not really a bone. Did you not pay attention in biology class?
Another minion, checking in. First time at Mathhew’s. Yuk. I won’t stay long because I feel my intelligence ebbing. I find it curious that he doesn’t even have his own minions to dilute the comments section down a tad. I make him losing like 20-1, with nothing but a couple of “just you waits” against 12 solid arguments, fourteen stinging rebuttals, and a nice spectrum of insults: half a dozen dolts, seven retards, and a sprinkling of other inventive gibes against a nice backdrop of cutting sarcasm. It might be the medium, brother, but I think not. You’ve been soundly defeated.
Bad at #23 – obviously you’ve been here before. No doubt Matthew is hard at work on his “Hate Speech v.2.0″ post in response to all the meeeaaaannnnn people calling him on his crap.
Dalton, you’re a troll and have lost any privileges to make any demands of any sort.-M
The only troll I can see is you, lying your ass off and dancing about the facts.
Matthew:
I’ve really nothing to get off my chest here. I do have some issues with your methods – namely, refusing to answer at least the constructive criticisms/responses you received in your original post re: the Origin of Species and, instead, “threatening” Dr. Myers. I gather, from other comments, that this is not an entirely new strategy for you so enough about that.
I wait with bated breath for your Ever-So-Important Revelation.
Preview button, plz.
Matthew,
Perhaps Dr. Myers might respond if you actually had the cajones to say what he’s responding to. From what I can see, he seems to have his stuff together. He states his premises, and he makes a clear, concise argument.
You have done none of this. You make vague references that hint at some kind of skeletons in his closet (is this research, or is it blackmail? Blackmail isn’t the same as fact). And if you have something that can actually disprove what he’s saying, you are more than welcome to state your case. Not dance around like some 8-year-old child bragging about having a secret. You’re more grown than that. Also this bit about the supposed deadline–that again ranks of immaturity. Adults simply do not make demands like this in discussions.
So perhaps if you’d state your allegations, lay your facts and your argument on the table, and learn how to be patient or cordial (or at the very least, polite), you may actually get a response from him.
Otherwise, the only thing that will be proven before your 5:30 shift at Burger King is that neither rudeness nor immaturity is conducive to discussions, and do not prove you right.
As I said Avekid, I’m feeling like I’m in a good mood today so I’ll let you guys get all this stuff off your chests before making my observations. Just be cautioned though: you’re probably not going to like what I have to say!
Might like it, might not. The fact is we don’t know if we like it or if we don’t (or more important than whether we like it or not, whether it’s true since fact takes priority over preference) until we actually hear it.
Now if you’re just trying to get attention, then that’s okay but it’s much easier to just announce that’s what you want.
Preview. Button.
Sweet, creeping zombie Jesus, is it THAT HARD?
PS: Chiming in with woot, please do arrange for a preview button. It would be a useful addition to the site.
Matthew, I’m fascinated by you and your apparent ability to function without learning anything new whatsoever. Have you got some sort of syndrome that prevents new stimuli from entering your brain? Are the impediments at the sensory level (eyes, ears, etc.), the level at which stimuli are processed in the brain, or somewhere in between? What’s the prognosis? Can you be treated, or is this a chronic condition that at best can only be managed through some sort of home care aide or other assistant to process new information for you?
With your permission, I’d like to film a short documentary piece detailing how you manage to get through your day. If possible, my film crew and I would like to spend a week with you, following you around as you go about your daily business as a learning-impaired adult barely functioning in a modern world.
Should this request be beyond your capabilities, then I’d just like to say thanks for hearing me out and all the best to you. But I’d like you to consider how sharing your story might make a big difference in the lives of others like you. Your courage in the face of what must be massive daily tribulation has, at the very least, inspired me greatly.
It’s been an honour to write to you, and I wish you well.
You go, Big Boy!
Matthew has until 5:30pm (his local time) to add a preview button to this blog.
Otherwise, he will forever be cast as having no credibility!
“Dalton, you’re a troll and have lost any privileges to make any demands of any sort.-M”
I beg your pardon?
I am not making a “demand”. I am asking politely for clarification of something you said that I (and clearly several others) don’t understand.
If you don’t propose to respond to polite dialogue – if that’s what you consider “trolling” – may I respectfully ask why you bother with a “comments” section at all?
Brownian: I’ll gladly accept your offer if we can work out a suitable compensation package.
Everyone else: Please, don’t let me stop the comments from coming. I am noticing though that everyone so far that has referred to the skeletons reference seems to miss the point of both the Expelled and ThePolitic posts. To clarify for your inquiring minds, let me remind you that I have not seen the movie yet nor do I know of what PZ’s contribution is. I am openly questioning though what exactly he said as his actions do suggest a vested interest in discrediting Stein’s movie. Shouldn’t he actually produce a summary of his comments (and not just offering to hollowly) to come clean on this? Try re-reading my post with that in mind as apparently it was not clear enough for your collective understanding…
Oh, and for those getting their nickers in a twist over the 5:30 thing, I agree it is mature and stupid. That’s why I SATIRIZED it (reference: http://www.thepolitic.com/arch.....nt-176768) since it was a personal favourite from January. Please note that I find most of the demands, accusations, and other such comments left by PZ’s personality cult here to be just as ridiculous but it’s simply delightful to see you guys agree when I put the shoe on the other foot!
Yes, but what about the preview button?
w00t, I am actually not owner of this site nor administrator. I understand that we just had a software upgrade, and that you’d have to speak to Greg as to whether a preview button can be set up or not. Sorry.
I’m sorry, Matthew, but let me see if I can summarize what you’ve just written above. In a nutshell:
* You’ve never seen the movie,
* You don’t know what PZ’s contribution is to said movie,
* You admit you don’t know exactly what he (PZ) said, and yet
* You openly claim that you are going to expose “skeletons” in PZ’s closet.
You ignorant, ignorant man.
I understand that we just had a software upgrade, and that you’d have to speak to Greg as to whether a preview button can be set up or not. Sorry.
I emailed Greg already and he said you’d do it this afternoon.
I think you’re stalling.
CC, you really should stay in that echo-chamber of a site you run. I never claimed to expose anything. Maybe it sounds that way once you drink your NDP Kool-Aid, but to quote myself:
“…a little tidbit was revealed today that explains that the Professor of the West might be trying to hide some skeletons of his own (much akin to the dogmatic types who insist that we acknowledge macroevolution’s reality, or else).”
Show me where I claim to expose him (direct quotes only please), or otherwise, please just do us all a favour and go back to your mimic club.
Well w00t, I can’t help you — in plain English, I don’t know how to allow for editing and to the best of my knowledge do not believe that I can create an edit button. On a more important note, you really need to learn about courtesy.
Huh?
No you didn’t. I’m not sure who you emailed, but it wasn’t me.
Matthew : Mumbling Mewling Moron.
Show me where I claim to expose him (direct quotes only please), or otherwise, please just do us all a favour and go back to your mimic club.
That’s exactly what you were implying and your little game of splitting hairs is doing nothing but exposing yourself. Zip up please.
Matthew, here is your quote:
“A little tidbit was revealed today that explains that the Professor of the West might be trying to hide some skeletons of his own.”
Please clarify (you still haven’t) what that “tidbit” is, or how it “explains that the Professor of the West might be trying to hide some skeletons of his own.”
And of course, feel free to explain why polite requests for an explanation at The Politic are viewed as “trolling.”
Dalton, polite requests aren’t viewed trolling. You have been anything but polite in the past, and have burned any bridges that you have with me. Given your actions in the past, I refuse to deal with you or your “requests”.
I’m sorry, Matthew … did you just admit that you actually have NOTHING? Is that what you just did?
All that bluster and braggadocio and snarky, contemptuous dismissal of your critics and tantalizing hints of what we can expect later today, and now you admit that you have sweet f**k all?
Wow. Just … wow. You loser.
Oh I see Cynic, you put words in people’s mouths and then when they inform you that they didn’t say said words, you come back with more vile. Again, I ask you to directly quote me doing what you accuse me of claiming. You can’t do it though, because like most of your far-left ilk, your arguments are based on straw men and emotion.
Heh. Well, Matthew, if your rhetorical strategy is to ignore folks who disagree with you, or dismiss them as trolls, I certainly commend you on a most innovative approach to blogging.
I guess I’ll just have to phrase my comments as statements. Ahem. Here goes.
Matthew, your statement was in error. There is no “little tidbit” at the specified link that “explains that the Professor of the West might be trying to hide some skeletons of his own.â€
I’m not sure whether you were lying or simply mistaken, but in the interest of accuracy, I thought you should know.
Have a great day! Look forward to our next exchange.
I still fail to see what you found on that site that might be a skeleton in his closet? He wrote a long time ago that he had been interviewed for the movie. What on earth do you find that might be some scattered bones tucked away next to his Chuck Taylors?
He’s not hiding anything. You are just pulling some fantasy out of the air that you want to prop up that he might. He is and has been writing about the film because all indications so far is that it will be a continuation of the distortions, lies and outright dumbfuckery that is part and parcel of the ID movement. It’s not a new topic for him.
If you had some point to this post of yours it was lost the minute you made some far flung assumption backed by little but your own little dark fantasies and delusions.
Matthew:
Let’s settle this the only way it can be settled. Regarding your sleazy innuendo directed at PZ Myers, what is the “little tidbit” that was “revealed today?” What are these potential “skeletons” of PZ Myers of which you speak? What are “these accusations” that you think PZ should “fess up to” by 5:30?
You’ll note, Matthew, that I put a number of those phrases in quotes since I pulled them all, verbatim, from your original post.
Now, for the last time, Matthew — seriously, for the very last time — do you have anything on PZ or don’t you? If you do, let’s see it. If you don’t, then just put a f**king sock in it and toddle off back to your sandbox.
As the saying goes, Matthew, time for you to put up or shut up. Let’s see what you’ve got.
Let’s see … Mathhew makes sly innuendos about PZ Myers, denies that he did so when called on it, periodically moves the goal posts and then denies that he moved them.
So, basically it’s just another day at The Politic.
“Matthew” … my bad. Preview button, please?
All I’m saying is this blog would be a heckuva lot better with a Preview button.
By 5:30.
Lulu/w00t: your immature behaviour aside, I would honestly give you your little Preview button if I could. Would you mind producing the email from the person you thought was Greg though w00t?-M
CC,
I expect an apology after this, particularly for that vile you post about me on your website:
1)Regarding your sleazy innuendo directed at PZ Myers, what is the “little tidbit†that was “revealed today?â€
The tidbit was that PZ was in the movie. This was news to me and hence reported as such. I’m a bit surprised that it did not come out during the escapades in January but c’est la vie I guess.
2) What are these potential “skeletons†of PZ Myers of which you speak?
As the Expelled website suggests, if PZ did say something that could potentially harm his credibility or career, his actions in blogging about the movie and particularly attacking anyone associated with or promoting the movie might come into question.
3)What are “these accusations†that you think PZ should “fess up to†by 5:30?
That he said something that could make it into the movie which won’t help his cause or him personally (this, please note, is what the Expelled site implies; I was merely waiting to see what his response on it would be). Please also see post #39 in this thread regarding the 5:30 thing.
4) do you have anything on PZ or don’t you?
As I said, no I don’t have anything solid on him. I am publicly calling for him to detail what he said in that movie which might be considered controversial.
—–
So I’ve put up, CC, perhaps I could ask that you be a little more respectful of my person/character from now on in return.
Matthew that is some shoddy attempt to backtrack.
PZ wrote about Expelled WAY before January.
In a post of his just recently he said this
“Their movie is doomed if they’re relying on my star power to draw in the audiences … and I’ve noticed that all the early reviews found my performance so unmemorable that they failed to remember what I said. (Trust me, it’s the only thing I’m looking for in the reviews, and I even wrote to ask one reviewer if he’d noticed me — he hadn’t.) And actually, I don’t remember precisely what I said in the interview, nor am I concerned about it. I get interviewed on this stuff all the time, and I say what I think without concern. If they’d like to release the complete recording of my interview, I’d be happy to host it unedited; if it’s so damning, they should be thrilled to do so.”
Yeah sounds like he’s real worried. You should really shore up your blog skills here and do a little better research on what you are babbling on about.
Really poor Matthew. Poor.
Poor original attempt at an exposure and poor attempt at coving your ass.
“So I’ve put up.”
Well, no.
You’ve explained that your ignorance of PZ’s appearance in the movie led to YOUR surprise. And you’ve then concocted a personal fantasy about why he might or might not say, and what impact that might or might not have on his career.
I’m afraid your attempt to slime PZ was dishonest, manipulative, and unjustified.
Have a terrific day!
Matthew, you insufferable twatwaffle. That was your “tidbit”? That PZ was in the movie “Expelled”? I hate to break this to you, Matthew, but you might be the only person in the English-speaking world that *didn’t* know that, as PZ has been more than forthcoming about that, blogging about it incessantly. Here’s a post of his going back to August of last year:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyn....._to_be.php
And your earth-shaking revelation is something that pretty much everyone else has known for *MONTHS*?! I’m sorry, Matthew, but overwhelming stupidity on your part doesn’t equate to embarrassing revelations on our part. I’m sure you can appreciate how that works.
In short, Matthew, you’re a stupendously ignorant and irresponsible twit. And as for that apology, well, I’m truly sorry that you’re a stupendously ignorant and irresponsible twit.
Are we done here? Yeah, I think we’re done here.
P.S. By the way, Matthew, if you truly wanted to know what PZ said in that movie, all you needed to do was wander over to his web site and search on the word “expelled”. At least, that’s what people who *aren’t* morons would have done.
Best thread ever.
I suggest that a preview button could be made readily available beside the “submit” button.
I think Matthew has somehow managed to punk himself.
Someone make sure this is on the way back machine because I have a feeling it might do what many posts on sites like these do… go POOF.
Matthew:
That’s it? We knew that. We’ve known that since at least August – and we’ve known it because Dr. Myers is open about the fact that he appears in Expelled. If you actually do your research, you will find that Dr. Myers (and, notably, Dr. Richard Dawkins, among other bona fide scientists) were *duped* into being in the movie — a fact shocking to the rest of us but likely compatible with what you and your cronies here on ThePolitic consider “intellectual honesty”.
Nice try.
Too funny… Hey Matthew, maybe you should see if Ben Stein and the expelled crowd will interview you about how all these mean “darwinists” made you feel stupid with their evil facts.
Oh, and a preview button would be nice.
I’m always amazed that you guys are able to twist any situation into an argument of your intellectual and moral superiority. That said, at least you’re admitting that you misread my post and actually read into it what wasn’t there. And no, I’m not deleting my post (it’s got way too much ammo and hypocrisies for me to rely upon later), plus here we have a testament to Militant Atheism’s over reliance on the use of straw men.
“you misread my post”
Learn to write then, idiot.
If you don’t want people to twist situations into “an argument of [their] intellectual and moral superiority“, then STOP PROVING YOUR INTELLECUTAL AND MORAL INFERORITY!
This has been an educational experience, to say the least. Matthew, I think you really have to refrain from writing about things you don’t know anything about.
Oh and, for all the “preview” people: Get Firefox. It has an inline spellchecker. Unfortunately it doesn’t have inline stupid checker.
Matthew,
I can understand the whole satire thing, but I must admit that most satire is usually recognizable as such. Nonetheless, I’ve no problem with getting back to the point.
I’m always amazed that you guys are able to twist any situation into an argument of your intellectual and moral superiority.
Well, I never claimed moral superiority. In fact, I’ve made it my life goal to discover morality–what it is, what it means, and how one goes about it. I can’t claim moral superiority if I admit that I’m trying to understand it. Likewise, I am not infallible and I recognize this fact, so I can’t claim intellectual superiority. Isn’t that the kind of thinking that Hitler and Stalin used–that their version of the state had both intellectual and moral superiority qua being?
Now if you feel this still reeks of intellectual and moral superiority, I concede that I cannot claim responsibility for your feelings, and I must come to the conclusion that you may be tilting at windmills a la Don Quixote.
I originally came to this blog because of the post on Pharyngula. I was under the impression that you had something to say, and thought that I might find it interesting–that it might even broaden my horizons and bring awareness to points that I had overlooked until now. So far, I am regretfully disappointed; so far I have found tons of namecalling but no actual content.
As far as PZ Myers’ feeling regret over anything he said in the movie, from what little I have read from the authors so far, it seems pretty evident that they will cut and paste to their hearts’ content, stitching his words into saying things that he does not in fact mean. If this is the case, then he does in fact have reason for regret–regret at casting the pearls of reason and inquiry before the proverbial swine.
In short, I don’t think he has any discomfort over what he said. He’s very upfront and quite honest with his opinions; if you kept up with his blog, you’d note that he is not one to backpedal. But if he is feeling discomfort over being in this film, it’s the same discomfort that Benjamin Franklin would have felt, had he seen his discovery of electricity being used to torture an innocent man.
Thank you for the entertainment, but it’s a big world filled with things to learn about, and I see little point in wasting any more of your time, or my own here.
Ah the old, reliable “you misread my post” routine. That just never gets tired.
Congratulations on furthering your reputation as a “sad little gomer” (to quote PZ). You deserve it!
Matthew writes:
“I’m always amazed …”
I’m sure you are, Matthew. I’m sure you are.
I’m always amazed that you guys are able to twist any situation into an argument of your intellectual and moral superiority. That said, at least you’re admitting that you misread my post and actually read into it what wasn’t there
The only one twisting things is you. You got busted for being a shoddy researcher and jumping to conclusions about something you knew shit about. Nowyou’ve picked up the goalposts and are moving them each time you get called to the carpet.
In your comment #59 you list exactly the things that you are being call out on. You thought PZ was hiding something, he is not. He has said that he is more than willing to post the entire unedited interview on his blog. He’s been wriiting about how he was tricked into the interview for the movie since August. Lied to. Something your ilk is practiced at. You’re doing a bit of it here yourself.
Set the goalposts down for a few mins, gather your breath and realize you’ve been busted. You lose.
PZ Myers is in Expelled? ZOMG!
Matthew, thank you for this startling revelation.
You might also be shocked to discover that one of Syracuse University’s history professors is a cyborg.
I agree with several commenters here. This site needs a preview function.
What time is it in Canada?
Because here it’s well past 5:30 and still no preview button.
Pwned.
What a bunch of hateful responses. Christians call members of other religions infidels? Uhhh, think you’ve got your major world religions mixed up there bud.
Can any from the lot of you bang out a sentence without several misspellings? What a hopeless, hapless, pathetic bunch.
You’ve made several brave attempts to recover what face you can from this sad debacle, Matthew. Kudos for a valiant effort.
But I have to point out…on a website which is predominantly conservative in its orientation, whose writers are all basically right wing…don’t you find it the least bit strange that:
a) basically everybody commenting on this thread thinks you’re a dishonest, manipulative idiot, and
b) even your blogmates are too embarassed to defend you?
You don’t find that odd, eh? Hmm.
Dalton, you must be kidding? Do you think any of the garbage being spewed here in these comments is by right wing members? 99% of you are left wing trolls who notified your pathetic buddies who hide out in their mother’s basements like you to pay a visit here and leave your venomous droppings. Go away, your mother is calling you, your Kraft dinner is ready.
Anon (he said kindly), you have comprehension issues. Read it again. Thanks.
(It is encouraging, however, that you feel arguing for accuracy and against dishonesty is somehow “left-wing”. That’s heartening. Thanks.)
Can any from the lot of you bang out a sentence without several misspellings? What a hopeless, hapless, pathetic bunch.
First, thanks for avoiding addressing the subject matter.
Second, a preview button would be useful for proof reading.
Dalton, you must be kidding? Do you think any of the garbage being spewed here in these comments is by right wing members? 99% of you are left wing trolls who notified your pathetic buddies who hide out in their mother’s basements like you to pay a visit here and leave your venomous droppings. Go away, your mother is calling you, your Kraft dinner is ready.
You really are a retard, aren’t you?
Right wing, left wing… whatever.
Matthew talked a load about something he knew utterly nothing about [and that's putting it politely], and he’s been throughly eviscerated for it. Politics, in this instance, is thoroughly irrelevant.
Here’s a little tip for whoever appropriated the name “Dalton” at #84.
The real Dalton doesn’t use the word “retard”, given that his stepson has Down’s syndrome.
But thanks for illustrating what a classy, sophisticated group of supporters Matthew has marshalled.
The real Dalton doesn’t use the word “retardâ€, given that his stepson has Down’s syndrome.
If only fake Dalton had access to a preview button, this could have been avoided.
Really, what’s the holdup? Is it funding?
I’ll gladly PayPal you a couple of Euros (or whatever they use in Canada these days) if it’ll help get a Preview button any faster.
I think it’s interesting that only now that Matthew has officially ran away like a cowardly child withdrawn from the conversation, has this “anonymous” individual shown up to “defend” him, with no better skills than Matthew himself.
Yes, very interesting…
Huh, looks like the strikeout tag isn’t used on this here blog. Another good use for a Preview button, so you can check your formatting.
“…even your blogmates are too embarassed to defend you?”
What’s to defend against? Can’t every dork in this combox be explained via the following?:
http://aphanitic.wordpress.com.....-blogging/
Pay special attention to quadrant 2. It speaks to you.
I remember in high school, there was this guy that we used to think was really smart, because he seemed kind of superior, and nothing he said made sense.
Aaron, did you go to high school in Petawawa?
Pay special attention to quadrant 2. It speaks to you.
BRILLIANT! That’s the best addressing of the subject matter to date in this thread. Good job.
I no longer think that Matthew is a moron who wouldn’t know the truth if it jump up off the toilet seat and bit him in the ass. Nevermind that it has been shown over and over that he was wrong wrong wrong and didn’t do even a single bit of research into the subject matter. Nevermind that he jumped wildly to basesless accusations completely missing the fact he was yelling fire into his pillowcase in an empty dark room. You win! That pointing to a comic is proof golden. All I can say is AWESOME!
I can’t wait to tell my 12 year old nephew. He’ll think that was the coolest!
Aaron wins!
I go away for a few hours (unlike most of PZ’s crew, I have things in my life that I have to do) and things actually get interesting. What’s become blazingly obvious to me is that there cannot be dialogue with such a narrow-minded personality cult. In my observations I noticed that there has been little substantive content to any of the attacks against me (most were personal, but frankly I didn’t get into this gig to be loved…) and those which did centre on my post presumed that I stated stuff which I did not.
Now, this can probably go on forever, but consider this:
1)I post a request for civility and the haters come back and tell me I don’t deserve such a luxury.
2)I don’t post anything and I’ve run away (by the way, any site author can see my IP was not used in posting since around 5:30, I don’t expect Professor Myers’ drones to believe any evidence I offer though).
3)I respond to arguments like that of Canadian Cynic (as I said, good mood today…) and my points are automatically dismissed as being a cop-out.
See, it’s not hard to “debate” as the Myers fan club does… More seriously though, is there any response that any of you would accept besides me confessing that evolution is absolute and I’m a horrible person for ever thinking elsewise? THIS is exactly the point which I understand EXPELLED is trying to make: here we have seen the grand inquisition of the internet, where no defense that strays from the script is accepted and any objection is perceived as a threat that must be quashed immediately. It’s certainly not debate though, and it’s most definately not scientific and sadly a great many scientists have been persecuted because of such xenophobic attitudes. I digress though.
In closing, I certainly hope that PZ Myers and all of you who took the time to post here come to see the power of God sooner rather than later. The only regret that I have an any of these posts is that there is such a division between God and man out there. I forgive each and every one of you though. If there is anyone who is truly interested in debating this movie, evolution or any other matter, please leave me a proper note and I will be in contact with you shortly (hopefully within a week).
For everyone else, I will continue to post on this subject because, despite your perception, I’m fairly knowledgeable on these matters, I just don’t have the time or care to post a 400-page thesis every time that I dare to tread into pseudo-scientific waters. And answer this to me honestly, would you respond to every inquiry that began along the lines of “Dear mindless idiot whose continued existence can barely be understood…”? I am forgiving, but contrary to popular belief over at “Science”blogs, I’m not stupid…and I think it’s that about creationists which strikes fear in militant evolutionists the most!
“Is there any response that any of you would accept besides me confessing that evolution is absolute and I’m a horrible person for ever thinking elsewise?”
You see, that’s the problem, Matthew. That’s the response of a four year old.
You began with a post that implied some kind of guilty malfeasance by PZ. In fact, neither your post nor your link provided any such thing.
You then began furiously splitting hairs to deny what you had implied.
And now, once again, as you’ve done again and again and again…you heave a self-righteous sigh because your cowardice and dishonesty have attracted the mockery they deserve, and announce that you’re about to flounce off in a huff.
Here’s a suggestion.
a) Don’t post something you haven’t thought through.
b) Don’t post on issues you’re lamentably ignorant about.
c) Don’t start backpedalling when your initial errors are exposed. Acknowledge them.
d) If you don’t want debate, shut down comments.
e) Have a great day, dude! REALLY look forward to our next stimulating exchange. Take care, now!
This from the man who got upset when I offered him a “complex” answer to his question. If you were truly intellectually honest Dalton, you’d acknowledge that my post makes no such claims that you give it (again, this is straw man at work!) Start working from that (instead of baseless accusations) and I will seriously consider giving you a second chance on a dialogue, seriously!
But you still haven’t made a preview button.
I think we have the opportunity to turn this into a learning experience for our friend Matthew. What other helpful suggestions do we have for him to assist him in his quest to become a useful blogger?
And you still haven’t shown me that email that you claim was from Greg. Honestly w00t, you guys are the ones who are so wrapped up about credibility, how about demonstrating some of your own…
How about giving us a preview button?
I thought Matthew indicated he was working to get a preview button up and functioning by approximately 5:30?
Wait, wait…you make an ultimatum for PZ Myers to fess up to being in a movie, which he’d already fessed up to eight months ago, and you’re lecturing people about credibility?
“Is there any response that any of you would accept besides me confessing that evolution is absolute and I’m a horrible person for ever thinking elsewise? THIS is exactly the point which I understand EXPELLED is trying to make: here we have seen the grand inquisition of the internet, where no defense that strays from the script is accepted and any objection is perceived as a threat that must be quashed immediately.”
No, there is no other correct response. And yes, we do see you as a threat. A threat to logic, science, integrity and Sanity.
You can go on preaching that you are intelligent (And forgiving, too, by gosh!), despite ‘”Science”blogs’ claims otherwise. But, like ID, that theory has absolutely to evidence to back it up, and piles and piles of evidence to the contrary.
Anyone here shouting mad at Congress over illegal immigration?
I wonder if this thread got Matthew mad enough to pose for those angry anti-immigration photos in the ads corner?
Aaron Unruh wrote:
“…even your blogmates are too embarassed to defend you?â€
What’s to defend against? Can’t every dork in this combox be explained via the following?:
http://aphanitic.wordpress.com…..-blogging/
Pay special attention to quadrant 2. It speaks to you.
Errr,…. Aaron, what does speeding have to do with any of this? Just asking
All right, sir. You don’t know me, but those who do can assure you that I’m one of the more calm, civil, kindhearted and diplomatic people they know. Yeah, yeah, horn-tooting, but there’s a reason for it if you’ll bear with me.
Now I’ve been a spectator and minor participant in the evo-creo dogfight for a long time, and even I have picked up a few scars. I’ve even bitten once or twice. But still, that isn’t my way. Regardless of how civil other commenters may or may not have been, if you want civility, I’m tellin’ ya, you’re looking at him.
So I ask a few simple, civil questions:
1. My understanding (and apparently most commenters’) of your initial set-up statement and subsequent revelation is as follows: “PZ Myers is an aggressive critic of ‘Expelled.’ I’ve discovered a reason for Myers’ criticism that he’s keeping hidden. This reason and Myers’ secrecy undermines his credibility in criticizing the film. I challenge PZ to reveal this secret.” Is this a correct representation of your position?
2. If the above is not a correct representation, could you restate your position in similarly simple terms?
3. If the above is in whole or in part a correct representation, will you directly acknowledge your errors?
See? I didn’t cast aspersions on your intelligence, appearance or bodily odor even once.
Hello rrt and thank you for your civil display, it is certainly respected and will be honoured. I will restate the correct position within the framework you have offered:
“PZ Myers is an aggressive critic of ‘Expelled.’ I’ve discovered a site (the Expelled site) which claims that Myers’ criticism might be based on what he said for the film’s interviewers. This reason and Myers’ secrecy undermines his credibility in criticizing the film.”
In addition, let me now say that while my initial calls for him to be accountable should be taken as satire (hence the demand for a response by 5:30, which references a demand of that nature made by one of Myers’ fans in January) I think this would help his cause greatly to release a full summary of what he said in the interview with the film’s crew as if he released it now, before being made aware of the contents of the film and any potential edits that it made to his words, he would be able to land a devastating blow to the film’s credibility. If he waits until after the film’s public release, it will make any claims that he had his words minced a little more questionable.
I welcome further discussion, however I should note that I will be away from my computer for the next 24 hours and hence will be unable to respond until Thursday.
Regards!
Interesting how you fail to mention that while the ultimatum was (supposedly, although only mentioned after you were called on it) satire, what you were “satirizing” was someone satirizing your own ultimatum for evolution supporters to answer your catastrophically wrong contentions about Darwin based on nothing more than the title of one of his books.
It always rings hollow when someone comes up with “it was a joke” or “it was satire” only after people have pointed out how foolish your initial words were. But I guess it beats standing by them.
“PZ Myers is an aggressive critic of ‘Expelled.’ I’ve discovered a site (the Expelled site) which claims that Myers’ criticism might be based on what he said for the film’s interviewers. This reason and Myers’ secrecy undermines his credibility in criticizing the film.â€
To what does the phrase “Myers’ secrecy” refer? Is it about Myers’ appearance in Expelled? If so, everybody already knew about that. And if it isn’t about his appearance in Expelled, then what is it you allege that he’s keeping secret?
i got the goods on pz!
KEvron
In #105, Matthew writes:
“In addition, let me now say that while my initial calls for him to be accountable should be taken as satire …”
No, Matthew, they shouldn’t; there was absolutely nothing “satirical” about them, as everyone here knows.
The Ann Coulter defense: Once it’s obvious that you’ve made a total ass of yourself, claim that it was all a joke and try to laugh it off.
You don’t *deserve* any civility, Matthew. You clearly tried to smear PZ’s reputation, and you ended up showing the world what kind of despicably dishonest hack you are.
Again.
P.S. If any of you didn’t see this coming, well, then, you just don’t know ignorant wankers:
http://canadiancynic.blogspot......anker.html
P.P.S. By the way, a “Preview” button for this site would be nice. Think you can handle that, Aaron?
I’m not sure I understand “I’ve discovered a site (the Expelled site) which claims that Myers’ criticism might be based on what he said for the film’s interviewers.” I think you’re conveying that Myers is tearing the film down because he believes he’s made embarrassing comments in his interview, and that you never made this claim specifically, only “Expelled’s” producers.
If so, I don’t see how I can agree. This strikes me as similar to Kelseigh’s observation of the “satire” defense. True, there was a satire element to your 5:30 statement, but it’s hard to see it in your direct challenge to Myers to “explain himself.” Also, an unqualified citation of another source is generally viewed as supportive, especially when the source is an ally of the author and in the context it was given. It’s a classic defensive tactic to make assertions in the way you did and later seize on rhetorical “outs” such as “I only said MIGHT have” or “I didn’t say it…THEY did! I report, you decide!”
Do you still mean to assert some version of that defense? It’s not like I have any say over what you do, but understand that I, and I think most of us here, don’t buy it. I think you “thought you had something” there, and that you meant more or less full-on the statement as I originally paraphrased.
Your post and a number of comments have focused on credibility. You repeated this: “This reason and Myers’ secrecy undermines his credibility in criticizing the film.” You also called for Myers to relate the contents of his interview. Unfortunately, this is precisely where you discredit yourself. As a great many commenters have repeatedly stated here, Myers informed us of his involvement in the film even before he knew of the producers’ misrepresentation of its nature, and he immediately informed us after he learned of said misrepresentation. What secret, then? Myers discussed it at length, repeatedly, over more than half a year. Myers already discussed his own recollection of the interview (in short: “I don’t remember much…but nothing exciting.”) Myers’ best guess is that his interview will mostly be interleaved with some of the more inflammatory comments from his site, meant to imply that he advocates anti-creationist violence or some such. Myers made it clear his interview was no different from any interview he’d have given any other person for any other film or media presentation, be it pro or anti-science, though he eagerly states he’d have tried to breathe a bit more fire for the camera if he’d known it was anti.
Most of all, Myers has himself directly called for “Expelled’s” producers to release the unedited video of his interview, stating: “If they’d like to release the complete recording of my interview, I’d be happy to host it unedited; if it’s so damning, they should be thrilled to do so.” This coming from a post responding to the same item you did, posted a day before your comment, and which has been cited by at least one other commenter in this thread already (hi Rev. BDC!) As such, your persistence in challenging Myers to “come clean” is baffling.
Which would you prefer? Did you “miss” those points via dishonesty? Or did you miss them through incompetence, failing–despite constant observations here that Myers has been trumpeting his involvement for over half a year and has directly addressed the “secrets” you wanted to believe he held–to actually go read his statements? Wouldn’t it seem appropriate to you to take such a step before issuing such challenges at all, let alone before going even deeper once clear warning had been given?
I don’t apologize for saying unpleasant things…civility isn’t diplomacy. This isn’t a rhetorical game on my part, I’m not being mean. Either “dishonest” or “incompetent” are appropriately descriptive here. I’d suggest you reevaluate your position.
A preview button is a possibility – I’ll look into it, but as Matthew has mentioned in this thread a couple of times, neither he nor Aaron can make that happen.
In the mean time you’ll just have to proof read your comments before posting them live. And really… how difficult is that?
By the way, in #93, Matthew writes:
“In closing, I certainly hope that PZ Myers and all of you who took the time to post here come to see the power of God sooner rather than later. The only regret that I have an any of these posts is that there is such a division between God and man out there. I forgive each and every one of you though.”
I’m sorry, Matthew … *you’re* going to forgive *us*? I could have sworn that *we* were right, and that *you* had been exposed as the ignorant, dishonest, Bible-whomping imbecile.
Funny how I could have misread that.
Greg:
Preview button aside, I’m going to be doing another post on my site about all of this, and I’m specifically going to be asking you a few questions.
Feel free to drop by and join the discussion, but leave the childish fuckwits at home. I actually want to have a reasonable dialogue and that just won’t happen if those idiots show up.
Matthew: “I am openly questioning though what exactly he said as his actions do suggest a vested interest in discrediting Stein’s movie. Shouldn’t he actually produce a summary of his comments (and not just offering to hollowly) to come clean on this? Try re-reading my post with that in mind as apparently it was not clear enough for your collective understanding…”
Oh, see, we didn’t get that, most likely because it’s CRAZY.
Myers has said he didn’t say anything he disagreed with, and he publicly challenged them to post the whole footage of the interview. In other words, reality is precisely the opposite of your implication that he’s the one hiding (after all, he didn’t create a phony production company).
As for a vested interest in discrediting the movie? Uh yes, and nothing secretive about it: it’s a creationist flick that makes all sorts of ridiculously dishonest claims about evolution, biologists, and so on. So people that care about honest science have a vested interest in criticizing it and its tactics. Congratulations, you’ve figured it out.
Guys, honestly… it’s like fighting with a brick wall. Now that there are enough posts to prove how absolutely ridonkulous this fiasco was, and offer the rational mind a nice buffet of back-and-forth, I think it’s time to move on to using our “internet time” for less frivolous means.
Because after all, we are godless heathens who sit at our computers 24 hours a day. Shame on us.
Never mind the bogus claim to satire while simultaneously insulting this side of the argument by indirectly calling us losers who never leave the computer chair. Real Christianly of you.
The day I see a religious Creationist/IDer conduct one of these battles in a suitable “Christian way” I will probably keel over and die of shock.
CC wants “reasonable dialogue” at her “site” with no “childish fuckwits” around. Yeh, the Cyntie Round Table beckons all fucktards, cunts, douchebags and short ass monkey’s. And as an added bonus/feature of the C.R.T. we’ll tell you what we really think of “Wanda Watkins”…go ahead you short ass, ask us. Bwahahaaa…the level of discourse is sooo high at Cyntie’s dump you have to go snorkling in that cesspool to find it…good luck and good drowning.
At least CC’s site has a preview button.
Yup, it’s got a button but it’s fucked-up.
[...] of getting lost in the clutter here or there, I have decided to create a separate post because I am presenting a slightly different [...]
Attaboy, mahmood … someone who’s incapable of using a preview button isjust the person who should be lecturing me on intellectual discourse.
Matthew, you might find this interesting. Probably not, but you migh. http://www.stageleft.info/2008.....ical-blog/
Who’s lecturing my dear cyntie, I’m justsaying, as for #118, I guess that one didn’t make it past your filter…oh well.
Whoa! Sweet Jesus! just read the latest/greatest from the Cyntie Round Table, now that’s a lecture…bwahahaaaaa…unfrigginbelievable…and then some. That’s right out of the “YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME” file…bwahahaaaa and heh heh.
Can we please get back to the topic? Is Matthew ever going to admit what a gigantic blunder he just laid out for all the blogworld to see or is he going to continue to split hairs, move goal posts and distort? Will he admit that he was utterly ignorant, confused and woefully underskilled in his research on this post or will he continue to wander about the intarwbs bumping into walls and babbling incoherently in some weak attempt to redefine and backtrack?
Prove you have some shred of honesty and integrity Matthew and admit you were 100% wrong in both your accusations and your premise.
Forgive me if this point has already been raised, but a preview button might be a good idea here.
Ah, if only Matthew had bothered to check to see if PZ had responded to the Expelled post, he would have have been spared the embarassment of writing such an ill-informed post.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyn.....m_rulo.php
Note that the timestamp of PZ’s post predates Matthew’s post by over half a day.
Hey Matthew I don’t have much to add to the comments, seems everyone has already covered all the bases. I’m mainly posting here because I think it’s fun to post on a blog that’s run by a mentally ill person.
And I could care less about PZ Myers or Ben Stein! You’re a mental case with or without “Expelled” Thanks for the laughs.
Miles
One more thing Mental..err I mean Matthew, you wrote you want us to see the glory of god. Where might that be exactly? Oh, is that a new movie also, the “Glory of God”? Where is it showing? It’s not one of those christian snuff films like the one mel gibson made is it? I won’t watch vulgar, foul movies like that. So if “The glory of god” is another christian snuff film I won’t be seeing it.
Your pal!
Miles
Now if we could get Ben Stein to go after the National Post for it’s reprehensible pro-porn “position”, we’d really have something.
And by something, I mean a preview button.
mahmood writes:
“Whoa! Sweet Jesus! just read the latest/greatest from the Cyntie Round Table, now that’s a lecture…bwahahaaaaa…unfrigginbelievable…and then some. That’s right out of the “YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME†file…bwahahaaaa and heh heh.”
And you thought wingnuts couldn’t address the issues. Don’t you feel silly NOW?
P.S. You know what this site could use? A preview button. I’m just sayin’.
Cyntie is like a blind man trying to wipe his ass…doesn’t know when to stop.
are we done here?…yeah we’re done here.
“is there any response that any of you would accept besides me confessing that evolution is absolute and I’m a horrible person for ever thinking elsewise?”
Of course not. The truth is always best.
The problem with an audio is that only the producer has it.