Of course not. The truth is always best.

The problem with an audio is that only the producer has it.

are we done here?…yeah we’re done here.

“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’.

And by something, I mean a preview button.

Your pal!

Miles

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

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyn.....m_rulo.php

Note that the timestamp of PZ’s post predates Matthew’s post by over half a day.

Prove you have some shred of honesty and integrity Matthew and admit you were 100% wrong in both your accusations and your premise.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

P.P.S. By the way, a “Preview” button for this site would be nice. Think you can handle that, Aaron?

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?

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.

“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?

KEvron

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?

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.”

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!

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.

“…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.

Errr,…. Aaron, what does speeding have to do with any of this? Just asking

I wonder if this thread got Matthew mad enough to pose for those angry anti-immigration photos in the ads corner?

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.

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!

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!