PZ Myers is expelled from Expelled
Jason Spaceman
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php
J. Spaceman
Cheezits
> But PZ's guest got in. And you'll never believe who his guest is --->
> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php
No way. :-D
Sue
--
"I haven't done anything to you!"
"You will! This is PREvenge!" - The Simpsons
Paul Hands
wrote:
> But PZ's guest got in. And you'll never believe who his guest is --->http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php
>
> J. Spaceman
FANTASTIC IRONY!
Brilliant - and on so-called good Friday!
max maypo
news:t336u3lu07ohu76i1...@4ax.com:
> But PZ's guest got in. And you'll never believe who his guest is --->
> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php
>
deliciously delightful :^D
--
max
Boikat
wrote:
> But PZ's guest got in. And you'll never believe who his guest is --->http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php
>
Too cool, Uber Dude! :)
Boikat
John Harshman
raven1
ROTFLMAO! Thanks!
Gary Bohn
news:u866u3t3pp3ucncm8...@4ax.com:
I read it half an hour ago and I haven't been able to stop laughing.
I can't wait to see the spin DI puts on this. I really hope it's Luskin who
gets the job, it should increase the fun enormously.
--
Gary Bohn
Augray
<t336u3lu07ohu76i1...@4ax.com> :
>But PZ's guest got in. And you'll never believe who his guest is --->
>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php
My keyboard only narrowly escaped being drenched with coffee.
Tom McDonald
> But PZ's guest got in. And you'll never believe who his guest is --->
> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php
God is laughing his ass off, right along with us.
Glenn
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 21:18:31 -0400, Jason Spaceman
> <t336u3lu07ohu76i1ir9sf1ieimnhor...@4ax.com> :
>
> >But PZ's guest got in. And you'll never believe who his guest is --->
> >http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php
>
> My keyboard only narrowly escaped being drenched with coffee.
Why? Would there be no possible reason that Myers would be expelled
and not Dawkins? Other than the typical "Creationists don't know their
butts from a hole in the ground" kind of thing? I'd rather let a hole
in the ground in than a butt.
VoiceOfReason
Shane
> On Mar 20, 7:40 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 21:18:31 -0400, Jason Spaceman
>> <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in
>> <t336u3lu07ohu76i1ir9sf1ieimnhor...@4ax.com> :
>>
>>>But PZ's guest got in. And you'll never believe who his guest is --->
>>>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php
>>
>> My keyboard only narrowly escaped being drenched with coffee.
>
> Why? Would there be no possible reason that Myers would be expelled
> and not Dawkins?
Quite possibly, however tickets had to be requested on-line, and
*apparently* PZ requested 4 tickets for himself wife, daughter and
guest. Only he was asked to leave, in spite of him appearing in the
film, so it is quite possible the powers that be never considered that
someone like Dawkins would be the guest. I understand that in some cases
any publicity is good publicity, but I cannot think of a publicity gain
out of this scenario that doesn't end up with the films promoters
looking like hypocrites, and it actually driving potential viewers away.
> Other than the typical "Creationists don't know their
> butts from a hole in the ground" kind of thing? I'd rather let a hole
> in the ground in than a butt.
That's okay if the showing was held at the Albert Hall, but other venues
may not know their hole capacity so readily.
John Locke
<papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>Never underestimate the stupidity or the religious right. :-D
>
What's scary is that there are a whole lot of them.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe
as it really is than to persist in delusion,
however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
Augray
wrote in
<43ded0f7-310c-4089...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com> :
>On Mar 20, 7:40 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 21:18:31 -0400, Jason Spaceman
>> <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in
>> <t336u3lu07ohu76i1ir9sf1ieimnhor...@4ax.com> :
>>
>> >But PZ's guest got in. And you'll never believe who his guest is --->
>> >http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php
>>
>> My keyboard only narrowly escaped being drenched with coffee.
>
>Why? Would there be no possible reason that Myers would be expelled
>and not Dawkins?
Of course there are lots of possibilities, but which ones do you think
are likely?
>Other than the typical "Creationists don't know their
>butts from a hole in the ground" kind of thing?
You don't see any irony in the situation?
>I'd rather let a hole
>in the ground in than a butt.
So, all those who were admitted to the movie were holes in the ground?
hersheyh
Hmmmm. Is there a reason to expel someone from a film which is
supposedly making an argument for "academic freedom" merely because
you know he is an opponent of the film? The irony! Oh, the irony!
That they let in R.D. says something about the problems involved in
trying to 'expel' all those that might be capable of critical
viewing. Sounds to me like some fanatical religiously based group is
trying to expel all thought that would be critical of their view.
Did the film directors think that PZ was going to explode a 'suicide
vest' at this 'blasphemous' film? Why would an atheist do that?
There are no virgins of God awaiting him. Or that he was going to
take names in order to later mark the members of the audience for
extermination in gas chambers? Or did they think he would later point
out that the film is (from what I have read) propagandistic drivel by
paranoid, scared cultists who have to believe in scientific nonsense
and who think that they are being persecuted by everybody who doesn't
agree with all the cultish nonsense (the horror! the horror!)?
Tom McDonald
John Bode
It's because Meiers has been publicly flogging the makers of
"Expelled" pretty regularly at his blog, whereas Dawkins probably
hasn't said more than two words about the film publicly.
I suspect that's about to change.
Stuart
wrote:
> But PZ's guest got in. And you'll never believe who his guest is --->http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php
>
> J. Spaceman
I find it a bit odd that although he was interviewed for the
movie, they wouldn't let him preview it.
Stuart
Robert Grumbine
Jason Spaceman <re...@usenet.com> wrote:
>But PZ's guest got in. And you'll never believe who his guest is --->
>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php
This is just spectacular, start to finish.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Greg G.
wrote:
> But PZ's guest got in. And you'll never believe who his guest is --->http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php
>
> J. Spaceman
Here's what Christianity Today says about Dawkins crashing the
Expelled party:
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2008/03/dawkins_crashes.html
It gives two links to PZ's blog.
--
Greg G.
Interstellar matter is a gas.
Tiny Bulcher
> In the category "Come for the irony; stay for the nostalgia":
No, no, it's in the category "I read the news today, oh boy:"
John Wilkins
> Thus cwaeth Tom McDonald :
> > In the category "Come for the irony; stay for the nostalgia":
>
> No, no, it's in the category "I read the news today, oh boy:"
No, it's the "You want 4000 what?" category
>
> >>> Other than the typical "Creationists don't know their
> >>> butts from a hole in the ground" kind of thing? I'd rather let a
> >>> hole in the ground in than a butt.
> >>
> >> That's okay if the showing was held at the Albert Hall, but other
> >> venues may not know their hole capacity so readily.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Tim Tyler
> I understand that in some cases
> any publicity is good publicity, but I cannot think of a publicity gain
> out of this scenario that doesn't end up with the films promoters
> looking like hypocrites, and it actually driving potential viewers away.
If Richard Dawkins an P. Z. Myers thought it worth their time
visiting this movie, maybe other atheists ought to go and see it...
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
VoiceOfReason
> Shane wrote:
> > I understand that in some cases
> > any publicity is good publicity, but I cannot think of a publicity gain
> > out of this scenario that doesn't end up with the films promoters
> > looking like hypocrites, and it actually driving potential viewers away.
>
> If Richard Dawkins an P. Z. Myers thought it worth their time
> visiting this movie, maybe other atheists ought to go and see it...
Nah, why give them the money. Wait 'til the bootleg comes out. ;-)
Greg G.
> > I understand that in some cases
> > any publicity is good publicity, but I cannot think of a publicity gain
> > out of this scenario that doesn't end up with the films promoters
> > looking like hypocrites, and it actually driving potential viewers away.
>
> If Richard Dawkins an P. Z. Myers thought it worth their time
> visiting this movie, maybe other atheists ought to go and see it...
If I was in a movie, I would want to see it. But then, if I were in
it, the movie would probably not be in contention for a "Best Picture"
Oscar. OTOH, one should go see "Rocky Horror" just to throw stuff and
say "Meatloaf, AGAIN?!?!"
> --
> __________
> |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
--
Greg G.
I don't feel old - I don't feel anything until noon. Then it's time
for my nap.
--Bob Hope
.
richardal...@googlemail.com
You mean so that they can watch how their words are dishonesty
misrepresented by creationists?
RF
Frank J
> Tiny Bulcher <alycid...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > Thus cwaeth Tom McDonald :
> > > In the category "Come for the irony; stay for the nostalgia":
>
> > No, no, it's in the category "I read the news today, oh boy:"
>
> No, it's the "You want 4000 what?" category
4000 holes in Darwin's the-o-ry.
And though the holes are rather small, they want to teach them all.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Shane wrote:
>
>> I understand that in some cases
>> any publicity is good publicity, but I cannot think of a publicity gain
>> out of this scenario that doesn't end up with the films promoters
>> looking like hypocrites, and it actually driving potential viewers away.
>
>If Richard Dawkins an P. Z. Myers thought it worth their time
>visiting this movie, maybe other atheists ought to go and see it...
Sure, I love a good comedy.
--
Bob.
Cheezits
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 16:21:01 GMT, Tim Tyler <seem...@cyberspace.org>
> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>If Richard Dawkins an P. Z. Myers thought it worth their time
>>visiting this movie, maybe other atheists ought to go and see it...
>
> Sure, I love a good comedy.
I hear it isn't even that.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Martin Andersen
> Shane wrote:
>
>> I understand that in some cases
>> any publicity is good publicity, but I cannot think of a publicity gain
>> out of this scenario that doesn't end up with the films promoters
>> looking like hypocrites, and it actually driving potential viewers away.
>
> If Richard Dawkins an P. Z. Myers thought it worth their time
> visiting this movie, maybe other atheists ought to go and see it...
One spending time seeing this movie earns Ben Stein et al nothing.
One paying to see it, does.
Admission (or non-admission, in the case of PZ Myers) was free.
In the hypothetical event this was screened for free in Denmark I would
have gone as well. At least that way I would have taken up a seat so
that someone possibly persuaded by non sequiturs and appeals to emotion
wasn't going to see it that day.
In reality, I'm just going to keep an eye out for a torrent, which I'm
sure Ben Stein will endorse, in keeping with the spirit of the
"documentary".
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 16:21:01 GMT, Tim Tyler <seem...@cyberspace.org>
>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>[etc.]
>>>If Richard Dawkins an P. Z. Myers thought it worth their time
>>>visiting this movie, maybe other atheists ought to go and see it...
>>
>> Sure, I love a good comedy.
>
>I hear it isn't even that.
>
>Sue
Oh I bet I can find a few laughs in it :)
--
Bob.
Tim Tyler
>> If Richard Dawkins an P. Z. Myers thought it worth their time
>> visiting this movie, maybe other atheists ought to go and see it...
>
> You mean so that they can watch how their words are dishonesty
> misrepresented by creationists?
Heh. "Expelled" - starring Richard Dawkins and P. Z. Myers.
Watch as your favourite evotheists are duped by scurrulous
interviewers ;-)
Desertphile
> But PZ's guest got in. And you'll never believe who his guest is --->
> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php
Myers and Dawkins discussed the event in a video on Dawkins' web
site. There is a portion of this discussion on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlSFQ-Ae_Wg
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
The reason given by the head Creationist clown at the event was
that Myers "crashed the party" and was not invited--- which was of
course false: Myers and Dawkins got their seats the same way
everyone else at the theater did: via signing up on the Internet.
Desertphile
Apparently, based on reviews that have been written, the movie
stinks. Not as bad as "Battlefield Earth," of course, but bad
enough to not make the boot-leg worth watching.
Desertphile
> Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> > On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 16:21:01 GMT, Tim Tyler <seem...@cyberspace.org>
> > enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> [etc.]
> >>If Richard Dawkins an P. Z. Myers thought it worth their time
> >>visiting this movie, maybe other atheists ought to go and see it...
> >
> > Sure, I love a good comedy.
> I hear it isn't even that.
The "movie" is crammed full of images of torture and death and
misery, with one section plagiarized from Harvard University
without Harvard's knowledged or permission.
Tom McDonald
Hey, you don't suppose Dawkins snuck in a video camera, do you?
That would be bad.
No creationist would ever film an opponent under false pretenses,
and then put out a movie that misrepresented their opponent's
views. Only a vile evilooshonist would do something so despicable.
Right?
John Wilkins
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 19:20:51 GMT, Cheezits
> <Cheez...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 16:21:01 GMT, Tim Tyler <seem...@cyberspace.org>
> > > enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> > [etc.]
> > >>If Richard Dawkins an P. Z. Myers thought it worth their time
> > >>visiting this movie, maybe other atheists ought to go and see it...
> > >
> > > Sure, I love a good comedy.
>
> > I hear it isn't even that.
>
> The "movie" is crammed full of images of torture and death and
> misery, with one section plagiarized from Harvard University
> without Harvard's knowledged or permission.
Apparently not. They redid the Harvard animation, badly. See Pharyngula.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:eeef8a76-2f4f-489e...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 21, 8:07 pm, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
>> Tiny Bulcher <alycid...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> > Thus cwaeth Tom McDonald :
>> > >>> butts from a hole in the ground" kind of thing? I'd rather let a
>> > >>> hole in the ground in than a butt.
>>
>> > >> That's okay if the showing was held at the Albert Hall, but other
>> > >> venues may not know their hole capacity so readily.
>> > > In the category "Come for the irony; stay for the nostalgia":
>>
>> > No, no, it's in the category "I read the news today, oh boy:"
>>
>> No, it's the "You want 4000 what?" category
>
> 4000 holes in Darwin's the-o-ry.
> And though the holes are rather small, they want to teach them all.
Can I chez-watt-nominate from within a chez watt nomination? Sure,
why not? If PZ can be expelled from Expelled...
In the category of "The hole truth and nothing but ..."
Ferrous Patella
j.wil...@uq.edu.au:
>> The "movie" is crammed full of images of torture and death and
>> misery, with one section plagiarized from Harvard University
>> without Harvard's knowledged or permission.
>
> Apparently not. They redid the Harvard animation, badly. See Pharyngula.
If they just changed the form without changing the content, would that not
still be plagiarism (especially since there is some reason to believe that
the original Harvard production was once in that spot of the movie.) It is
probably different enough to get around copyright issues though.
John Wilkins
Copyright for creative work is hard to defend. I once had a cartoon we
had commissioned used with one minor change by a local newspaper (a
Murdoch paper) and we were told because they modified the nose of the
figure we had no recourse.
Desertphile
Richard Dawkins thought the animation is far too good for
Creationists to have done it, as it is the only part of the
"movie" that shows care had been taken with visual effects: he
noted that Creationist propaganda had been dubbed in over what he
thinks to be the original visual. If it is the Harvard version, I
suspect we would have heard from Harvard about it by now.
Tiny Bulcher
> Ferrous Patella <Ferrous...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote in
>> news:1iebpax.1l2xw1ml64g1wN% j.wil...@uq.edu.au:
>>
>>>> The "movie" is crammed full of images of torture and death and
>>>> misery, with one section plagiarized from Harvard University
>>>> without Harvard's knowledged or permission.
>>>
>>> Apparently not. They redid the Harvard animation, badly. See
>>> Pharyngula.
>>
>> If they just changed the form without changing the content, would
>> that not still be plagiarism (especially since there is some reason
>> to believe that the original Harvard production was once in that
>> spot of the movie.) It is probably different enough to get around
>> copyright issues though.
>
> Copyright for creative work is hard to defend. I once had a cartoon we
> had commissioned used with one minor change by a local newspaper (a
> Murdoch paper) and we were told because they modified the nose of the
> figure we had no recourse.
One doubts that would have worked t'other way about, somehow.