Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
On Friday, the marketing company for Expelled held a teleconference "press junket." I got an invitation to my personal email and they sent an invitation to the entire Panda's Thumb crew. So some of us took part in the call; after all, they explicitly invited us (I listened for about 15 minutes and it was clear that they were screening the questions by requiring that they be sent by email; I hung up when I couldn't stand listening to Ben Stein make a fool of himself with idiotic pronouncements. And here they are lying about it yet again, as told by Denyse O'Leary at UD:
I was in a press conference this afternoon for the Expelled documentary (about scientists who are persecuted for questioning Darwinism and other materialist evolution theories). Ben Stein, the film's lead, producer Mark Mathis, and others were there.Mathis confirmed that he kicked PZ Myers out of the film to make a point (Myers endorses the destruction of the careers of those who question Darwinism, yet he was really upset about getting booted from a film).
And ... Myers apparently somehow got into the press conference itself! - "under false pretences" according to the moderator.
Sorry, Denyse, but this is pure bullshit. PZ was invited to the teleconference. So was I. So was the entire crew of the Panda's Thumb. I can only assume that the PR company arranging these things is ridiculously incompetent and doesn't know how to keep the "bad guys" out of things. But rather than owning up to that, the producers of the movie would rather lie and say he "snuck in" under "false pretenses." And remember, this is from the people who keep telling us how evolution causes immorality. Another irony meter bites the dust.
Comments
You should see a comment that Davescot's left on a recent post of his own.
Comparing PZ to a rapist and the conf call as the victim.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 29, 2008 10:13 AM
Ack. Poorly edited that comment after changing it mid stream. Sorry.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 29, 2008 10:20 AM
ID/Creationism/Teach the Controversy (or whatever it calls itself this week) can only survive when it is isolated in a tightly controlled medium. The lies are necessary to insure that the message remains pure as it can never survive scrutiny -- which is exactly why science does not now, nor ever will, accept the muddle-headed "alternative theories" it purports to embody.
What they're left with are tactics that necessitate exactly the same kinds of information control techniques that are typically employed by totalitarian governments. If anyone has ever wondered why the IDiots are so utterly obsessed with Nazis and Stalinists, this is it. They've learned everything they know from such groups, and the best way to deflect that understanding away from their followers is to lay it at the doorstep of science. They must forever engage in propaganda like that cooked up by Joseph Goebels 65 years ago. Thus, PZ Myers "breaking the rules" about who could speak and who couldn't is more important to their argument than is the validity of what he actually said. Form is more important than function, as it were, because when it comes to function there's simply nothing supporting either neo-Creationism nor the notion that an argument can be discredited on the basis of the forum in which it was delivered.
If these people had been in power during times of social change in America, women would still be unable to vote and segregation would still be legally sanctioned because any protest not specifically permitted by the ruling classes would have been at least discredited, and likely crushed by force.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | March 29, 2008 10:42 AM
ED!
great new picture....have you lost weight?
Posted by: Kevin | March 29, 2008 11:10 AM
Myers was "really upset about getting booted" from expelled?
um... I'd say Myers couldn't have been more pleased with the way the whole thing went down.
Posted by: Dr X | March 29, 2008 12:34 PM
Well... this is splitting hairs. You and PZ and the Panda's Thumb were invited to listen to the press conference, Ed. As PZ himself recounts, you were not invited to say anything. But PZ dialed in early and one of the idjits on the Expelled team happened to mention the number for the speakers, so PZ logged out and logged back in with the new number, one that allowed him to talk on the line.
They could well make hay of this. Actually, I know they will. Yes, the Expelled folks are mindbogglingly stupid, and I take PZ's prank in good favor. But let's not mince words; this time PZ did crash a party to which he wasn't invited.
Posted by: Elf M. Sternberg | March 29, 2008 12:47 PM
If you tell people over an open line how to call in and talk, can you really claim they did something wrong when they follow your instructions?
Posted by: QrazyQat | March 29, 2008 12:59 PM
I hope nobody succeeds in convincing these people to stop lying -- they're just too funny.
Posted by: weemaryanne | March 29, 2008 1:16 PM
I agree. Unless PZ overheard them say "Here's the number, but make sure you don't give it to any of those evilutionists, it's not for them to use", which is apparently not the case.
Posted by: xebecs | March 29, 2008 2:13 PM
Yeah, I know. The point here is that PZ essentially entered the conference early, while they were still setting up. He was there before the time when and the rest of the Panda's Thumb crew were invited, and overheard things he was explicitly not invited to hear.
I'm not saying that I disagree with what he did. He punk'd 'em again, hard, and they deserved it. After claiming that having the reviewer for the Orlando Sentinel get in because he was on a church mailing list but then chose to review the film in his role as a (gasp!) movie reviewer was a "breach of security!" I don't have any faith (so to speak) in these guys. The Good Friday Fiasco is just another in a set piece of epic fails these guys have fallen into.
But it's a hair the ID people can (and will) split. We should just be aware of it.
Posted by: Elf M. Sternberg | March 29, 2008 2:42 PM
When I first started reading some of O'Leary's writings a couple of years ago, I just thought she was loopy and stupid.
But, now I'm beginning to wonder if in addition to being loopy and stupid, she's also slightly mentally deranged. The woman just seems incapable of coherent thought and truthfulness.
Well, she's in good company with the other intellectual slags at UD.
Posted by: waldteufel | March 29, 2008 4:32 PM
For christ's sake, Elf, these folks, who the Expelled producers knew were deeply opposed to their movie, were invited to listen to the press conference, but not participate? What kind of stupid bullshit is that? I mean, I don't know that it's your stupid bullshit--if what you're saying is accurate, then it's their stupid bullshit.
But its such phenomenally stupid bullshit, so far beyond the norms of journalism (AFAIK), that it's illegitimate. And someone told PZ the number to call. It doesn't matter if he was on the line early or not.
So let the ID people split the hair--do you really think anyone who comments here is going to worry that we handed them an important piece of ammunition with this "hair"? The only reason to "be aware of it," is so that we're all prepared to laugh our asses off when they bring it up. Then you ask them why they gave PZ the number. Then you ask them why they invited PZ to be part of the press junket/conference/whatever if they were afraid to let him speak.
You're not really that afraid of these IDiots are you?
Posted by: James Hanley | March 29, 2008 5:02 PM
James:
If someone leaves the key to their home in a public place, have they thereby authorized whoever picks it up to enter their home? If someone accidentally posts a username and password into a chat room, have they given authorization for others in the chat room to access their accounts?
I say no. I think the case of the "Expelled" folks foolishly giving out the information on accessing the presenter line on their event call is analogous. They were stupid to do so, but in doing so they did not authorize Myers to do what he did. Depending on the computer crime laws in the relevant states, I think it's possible, however unlikely, that he actually broke the law by making unauthorized use of the presenter line on the event conference bridge.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | March 29, 2008 6:56 PM
James:
If someone leaves the key to their home in a public place, have they thereby authorized whoever picks it up to enter their home? If someone accidentally posts a username and password into a chat room, have they given authorization for others in the chat room to access their accounts?
I say no. I think the case of the "Expelled" folks foolishly giving out the information on accessing the presenter line on their event call is analogous. They were stupid to do so, but in doing so they did not authorize Myers to do what he did. Depending on the computer crime laws in the relevant states, I think it's possible, however unlikely, that he actually broke the law by making unauthorized use of the presenter line on the event conference bridge.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | March 29, 2008 6:57 PM
Jim Lippard wrote:
If someone leaves the key to their home in a public place, have they thereby authorized whoever picks it up to enter their home?
So you're saying that PZ, just speaking to these people, is the same as someone entering your home and, by implication, robbing you? And you actually think that by calling in and speaking when he wasn't called on, he may have committed a crime? That's just stupid, about on a par with the stupidity of the movie producers.
Posted by: tomh | March 29, 2008 7:39 PM
I don't make it a habit of reading sites like UD. Sorry if everyone else has seen the ad that reads:
It gave me a chuckle.
Posted by: Dr X | March 29, 2008 7:43 PM
I think Jim has a point. IANAL, but what I understand about the DMCA is that subverting a protection scheme, NO MATTER HOW WEAK, is against the law. I'm not sure how that might apply to a conference call, but if it went through computer control at any point, a sufficiently aggressive lawyer might be able to make something of it.
Posted by: BobApril | March 29, 2008 10:11 PM
Tomh: What I'm saying is that the presentation lines are special access to an event conference bridge, and that P.Z. Myers was not granted permission to access the bridge in that manner.
I didn't say anything about robbing in my analogy. I don't think there is anything analogous to theft here, only unauthorized access, which is more analogous to trespassing.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | March 29, 2008 10:28 PM
@Jim Lippard
So what you are saying is that if I were to overhear someone giving out their unlisted phone number and was to call that number, I would be committing a crime?
Posted by: cthulhu u2 | March 30, 2008 8:40 AM
cthulhu u2: It depends on the function of that unlisted phone number and what you did when you called. If it was a residential phone line and you just called to say hello, you wouldn't have committed any crime I'm aware of. If you called to cause disruption, and particularly if that number was used for accessing some kind of computer system for a particular function--say, a conference event bridge presenter line, or an out-of-band access line to networking equipment--then you very well might be committing a crime.
For example, Arizona's computer crime law (ARS 13-2316) prohibits unauthorized access or access beyond authorization to a computer system which causes disruption or denial of service to the authorized users of that system. Conference bridges are pretty much just computer servers these days.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | March 30, 2008 9:46 AM
I think that participating in these "Expelled" events just plays into the hands of the producers. An axiom in Hollywood is that there is no such thing as bad publicity. The "PZ Expelled" event was great for its irony, but to continue to attend the screenings and press conferences is a bad idea. Why don't we ignore "Expelled" and let it die with a wimper?
Posted by: DobyGS | March 30, 2008 10:23 AM
Posted by: James Hanley | March 30, 2008 11:44 AM
I do agree that PZ did indeed crash THIS event, but I heartily support this particular instance.
These folks are beating their chests about free expression, open debate, and lying through their teeth in claiming that no one has responded to their substantive claims. Penetrating their safety bubble isolating them from any criticism to call them on it is perfectly warranted at this point, whether it's rude or straightforward of not.
We've answered all their claims. In fact, most of their claims were answered years and years ago: virtually nothing in the movie is a new argument, or one that hasn't already faced seriously rebuttal (and the movie, criminally, simply pretends that these rebuttals do not exist). And yet the only thing they seem able to do in response to criticism is point at it, jump up and down, and insist that it proves that they are persecuted and their opponents are scared.
Such song and dance really doesn't deserve respect. It flat out cowardice, posing as heroism.
Posted by: Bad | March 30, 2008 11:54 AM
James:
P.Z. was invited to call the participant bridge number. He was not invited to call the presenter line.
In your barbecue analogy, it would be as if you had invited a group over to listen to a speech, and someone took the stage or microphone uninvited to interrupt and give their own talk. In such a situation, that person would likely be asked to leave--which is exactly what happened to P.Z. in this case.
The point of analogy of the keys and username/password is that the "Expelled" people did foolishly give out the information that P.Z. used to gain access to the presenter line. But they didn't intend to give it out to him, and they didn't give him permission or authorize him to use it. Your claim that they did give permission through their mistake doesn't seem to me remotely plausible.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | March 30, 2008 12:38 PM
audio of PZ's call
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kptr9frdlNs
Posted by: CleveDan | March 30, 2008 2:06 PM
"That's not even remotely what happened. If you invite someone over to your house for a barbeque, then mistakenly hand them your keys, then, yes, you've given them permission to enter your house."
You don't honestly believe this, do you?
If someone doesn't intend for you to enter your house, then you don't have permission, even if the door is unlocked. Permission is active, not passive.
PZ took advantage of their foolishness and broke up a staged dog and pony show. Sometimes that's worth doing. But it's pointless to deny that it was disruptive or against what the organizers had intended.
Posted by: Bad | March 30, 2008 2:20 PM
I don't buy this. If you ask me at this barbeque for a loan of my car-jack and I hand you my keys, I'm not giving you permission to go into my house, drive my car to the beach, open my locker, my safe deposit box, and access anything else (besides my trunk) my other keys might open.
Posted by: Dave S. | March 30, 2008 2:51 PM
Jim, stop beating around the bush.
Posted by: Bachalon | March 30, 2008 5:59 PM
OK, nobody likes my analogy. It must be as bad as Jim Lippard's, which, of course, was the bad analogy I was operating off of. I guess I just should have left it alone. The "taking the stage and microphone" analogy is very weak, also. It's not like PZ engaged in a long monologue that monopolized the event. If you invite me to sit on stage and listen, then some idiotic stagehand hands me a microphone, then, yes, I would believe it was legitimate for me to speak, even if I knew you were a gutless coward (like the Expelled producers) who was afraid to let me speak, and had only invited me to listen in hopes of humiliating me.
I'm surprised at how many commentors here think PZ did something wrong. I don't, plain and simple. And I've yet to see a compelling argument (or analogy) that says he did.
Forget my analogies--apparently they aren't any good, either--and think the situation through. Don't start at PZ asking a question--analyze the whole situation, the Expelled producers unprofessionalism, the stupidity of their errors, and PZ's decision that he was in a position to fuck up their juvenile little game.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 30, 2008 6:28 PM
James, look.
I support what PZ did. But let's just be clear about what it was: it was a bit of rabble rousing: jumping into a private little backpat-fest and disrupting the planned program (i.e. no dissent from the party line allowed). It did involve him lucking out and hearing an access code they never meant to give him. He didn't have permission.
On the other hand, it wasn't illegal. It was their own stupidity, both in handing out the code on an open line, and also not having a way to remute his line when they heard him talking. No one should be sorry that a bunch of cowards got called out, that someone burst their little bubble of carefully protected PR spin.
Posted by: Bad | March 30, 2008 6:54 PM
I would agree that PZ should not have used the number they gave out. My objection is to the claim that he "snuck in" to a conference call he was not invited to. He was invited, as we all were.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 30, 2008 7:25 PM
As I see it, Jim Lippard is talking lawyer talk. Don't blame him for the law, he's just the messenger. I think we can mostly agree that PZ rocks, and the IDiocy is hilarious - but that doesn't mean that it was technically legal. Especially given the lunacy of the DMCA, who knows? Well, maybe Jim knows, he seems pretty cluey.
Posted by: Cath | March 30, 2008 7:35 PM
But there's no question of legality. IANAL but I'm pretty sure there's no relevant law against calling a number for a press conference and asking a question, even if they didn't want you to. If there is, please let me know, because I need to know just how much of a police state I'm living in.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 30, 2008 9:20 PM
Yep. There's nothing illegal about using a conference call code you weren't supposed to get that I've ever heard of. People have been punking each other back and forth like this in political campaigns for years with no lawsuits I'm aware of.
Posted by: Bad | March 30, 2008 11:14 PM
All well and good for entertainment, but this is far closer to politics, religion and science (in that order) and I doubt you could say that all publicity is good in that realm; just ask Spitzer, Haggard, and Dr. Hwang Woo Suk.
Posted by: pough | March 31, 2008 1:34 PM
Pough, OT. I have to ask this. Is it pronounced "pow" or "poe"?
Posted by: Leni | March 31, 2008 1:45 PM
Pough, OT. I have to ask this. Is it pronounced "pow" or "poe"?
Posted by: Leni | March 31, 2008 1:45 PM
Part of the reason I chose the name is it can be pronounced 6 ways (though through trough thought tough bough) but I myself prefer pooh, as in Winnie Ther.
Posted by: pough | March 31, 2008 3:24 PM
An axiom in Hollywood is that there is no such thing as bad publicity.
Gigli
Posted by: JT | March 31, 2008 3:55 PM
Thanks for the link CleveDan. It's already attracted at least one IDiot. They think slow but swarm fast.
Posted by: tincture | March 31, 2008 4:44 PM
Oh, I'm entirely on PZ's side as far as the ethics go. And I'm pretty sure Lippard is, too. Let's not fight. Big warm fuzzy hugs all round. :)
Posted by: Cath | March 31, 2008 7:57 PM
Pough
That's funny. I actually think "pooh" when I read it, but it occurred to me that this might insult you, since it could be easily taken the wrong way. I intentionally left that one off. I never even thought of puff or pawf, though.
(I don't think "thought" counts though. I think the "aw" sound only happens with a "t" at the end, doesn't it?)
Posted by: Leni | March 31, 2008 8:22 PM