…and this is a 
There is a rich, deep kind of irony that must be shared. I'm blogging this from the Apple store in the Mall of America, because I'm too amused to want to wait until I get back to my hotel room.
I went to attend a screening of the creationist propaganda movie, Expelled, a few minutes ago. Well, I tried … but I was Expelled! It was kind of weird — I was standing in line, hadn't even gotten to the point where I had to sign in and show ID, and a policeman pulled me out of line and told me I could not go in. I asked why, of course, and he said that a producer of the film had specifically instructed him that I was not to be allowed to attend. The officer also told me that if I tried to go in, I would be arrested. I assured him that I wasn't going to cause any trouble.
I went back to my family and talked with them for a while, and then the officer came back with a theater manager, and I was told that not only wasn't I allowed in, but I had to leave the premises immediately. Like right that instant.
I complied.
I'm still laughing though. You don't know how hilarious this is. Not only is it the extreme hypocrisy of being expelled from their Expelled movie, but there's another layer of amusement. Deep, belly laugh funny. Yeah, I'd be rolling around on the floor right now, if I weren't so dang dignified.
You see … well, have you ever heard of a sabot? It's a kind of sleeve or lightweight carrier used to surround a piece of munition fired from a gun. It isn't the actually load intended to strike the target, but may even be discarded as it leaves the barrel.
I'm a kind of sabot right now.
They singled me out and evicted me, but they didn't notice my guest. They let him go in escorted by my wife and daughter. I guess they didn't recognize him. My guest was …
Richard Dawkins.
He's in the theater right now, watching their movie.
Tell me, are you laughing as hard as I am?
Comments
Posted by: benjdm | March 20, 2008 8:42 PM
That's awesome.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 20, 2008 8:42 PM
a policeman pulled me out of line and told me I could not go in. I asked why, of course, and he said that a producer of the film had specifically instructed him that I was not to be allowed to attend. The officer also told me that if I tried to go in, I would be arrested. I assured him that I wasn't going to cause any trouble.
WTF?
a POLICEMAN?
as in actual law enforcement, paid for by the city?
If so, that's the real story here, no offense to your being snubbed, PZ.
Posted by: minusRusty | March 20, 2008 8:42 PM
ROFL ROFL ROFL!!!!
Absolutely Classic! I suppose you didn't happen to capture it all on a video phone or somethin'?!? That would make wonderful YouTube!
-Rusty
Posted by: pedro bungoton | March 20, 2008 8:43 PM
I LOVE IT! Absolutely brilliant! I'm almost rolling on the floor right now. What an amazing coup for the side of reason. It would be even better if it was captured on video.
I hope you call a press conference after Richard comes out of the theater.
Posted by: Beth B. | March 20, 2008 8:45 PM
Yep, must concur with benjdm: that was a belly laugh right there. Also: spending the evening with Dawkins? That makes the whole thing at least half again as awesome.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 20, 2008 8:45 PM
They told us ahead of time that no recording devices would be allowed, so no, nothing was captured.
I don't know if the officer was a local security guard or an official, real policeman -- I didn't look at his badge carefully. But they did have several of these big burly guys in uniform standing by the entrance.
Posted by: David Lee | March 20, 2008 8:47 PM
That's too funny. You'll have to wait until it's shoveled onto the DVD market.
Oh, and you tell Prof. Dawkins that he can be seen in 3D now at his Madison press conference at 3D Science News. That ought to make his day.
I wonder how many Christian not-wanted posters you're on?
Posted by: F.Jardim | March 20, 2008 8:48 PM
I would have waited a bit longer before posting this, just to be safe. I would not be surprised if some fundy sneak reads this, makes a few calls and send the guard back inside for Dawkins.
But yes, it is hilarious. :)
Posted by: Winter Toad | March 20, 2008 8:48 PM
Yes, I laughed out loud. I believe the term for this is "awesome".
Now, I realize that a theatre is private property, and you can be forbidden entrance for any reason or no reason at all. It's not surprising you were thrown out. However, I'm a bit curious. This policeman who threw you out. I presume he was there in uniform, and so was officially there. Did you get the impression that it bothered him to be kicking you out? The theatre owner, the producers, I can see them ordering your expulsion with glee, but I'd expect that to stick in the craw of a disinterested third party, particularly when he's being asked to do the dirty work. Did it seem that way to you?
Posted by: cory | March 20, 2008 8:48 PM
Ye Gods*, man...have you no GROUCHO GLASSES????
*sorry...the god-punchers have all the god oaths.
Posted by: Quidam | March 20, 2008 8:48 PM
Should give you bragging rights over that Dawkins chap. "Oh Richard - who did they recognise trying to see eXpelled? The 'famous' Richard Dawkins or the instantly recognizable PZ? Huh Huh."
Posted by: TTT | March 20, 2008 8:48 PM
Probably from Blackwater.
Posted by: sashas | March 20, 2008 8:48 PM
HAHAHAH! thats classic! OMG thats hilarious!
Posted by: Nick K | March 20, 2008 8:48 PM
My wife is looking at me right now in wonderment. She is trying to figure out why I'm laughing so hard.
..............That ............
..............was .............
............brilliant!
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 20, 2008 8:49 PM
I'm actually wondering how they knew it was me -- I'm not that recognizable, and I was standing next to Richard Freaking Dawkins.
Speaking of which, I should probably head back to the theater. If the creationists spot this post, they might be frantically calling the local organizers right now, telling the police to rush in and grab suspicious British looking characters from the audience.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 20, 2008 8:49 PM
I didn't look at his badge carefully
you're still there.
seriously, if they are actual police officers, they are not acting legally in any sense I am aware of.
It needs to be an issue if the producers of Expelled can buy actual cops to act as enforcers.
OTOH, if they are just "mall security guards" it still probably exceeds their authority, but I wouldn't see it worth making an issue of.
This is actually kind of spooky, if you ask me.
Hired thugs to keep out "undesirables"?
sounds like a GW "town hall meeting" to me.
Posted by: cory | March 20, 2008 8:49 PM
Ummm...good OATHS, I was supposed to type. Must be the two Hoegaardens I just had at dinner typing.
Posted by: Greta Christina | March 20, 2008 8:50 PM
Oh...
my...
Loki.
That is completely hilarious. I wonder if the people sitting next to him at the theater will recognize him from the movie. You have to keep us updated.
And yes, I'm also irritated by the use of an actual public law enforcement officer to kick you out. But technically, it's probably legal. Private property, "we reserve the right to refuse service to anybody," etc. Using cops to keep people out a movie because they may say mean things about it is rather an abuse of the principle... but it's probably not actually illegal.
Posted by: Cyde Weys | March 20, 2008 8:50 PM
Not even letting someone who was in the movie attend the movie pretty much tells you all you need to know, doesn't it? Could they be any more dishonest?
Posted by: afterthought | March 20, 2008 8:50 PM
That is really, really funny. These folks seem to be incompetent at everything they do. I do hope they don't see this post before the movie ends as they might go after Richard. Then again, stopping the movie, turning on the lights, and tossing out a nice gentleman might be bad press, no?
Posted by: JStein | March 20, 2008 8:51 PM
That's hilarious, PZ. I know that Dawkins doesn't run a weblog and so he's not actively satirizing every juicy piece of creationist propaganda shoved in his face, but this is just ridiculous.
I mean, you're a big name, PZ, but the fact that they let the face of atheism in to see the movie and made a point of kicking you out... just what the fuck?!?
Oh well, I guess fundies will be fundies.
Posted by: xailith | March 20, 2008 8:51 PM
That's like the creme brulee of comedy. Rich, decadent, and absolutely sinfully delicious.
Posted by: Bob | March 20, 2008 8:52 PM
Outstanding, PZ. I laughed so hard I still hurt.
Hypochristianity in action, again.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry | March 20, 2008 8:52 PM
That is a hoot, PZ. I'm glad that there was no Mirecki-style rough stuff to go with the disinvitation.
Please tell us that Dr. Dawkins will have a guest post here telling us of his experience this evening.
I was kicked out of the 2002 RAPID conference, but at least I was treated to dinner by the conference organizer as a consolation prize of sorts. It sounds like the IDC community has gotten grumpier with the passage of time.
Posted by: Carlie | March 20, 2008 8:53 PM
That's what I wondered - did they put out an APB on bearded professor-looking types? And letting Dawkins in but not you will have me laughing for DAYS.
Wait, everyone who went to see it had to SIGN IN AND SHOW ID? Where was this being shown? I totally would want to throw a massive fit in line about identity theft and how they weren't entitled to my personal information just to see a movie.
Posted by: Reed Braden | March 20, 2008 8:54 PM
Holy hell!!! That's the most hysterical thing I've ever heard!
Posted by: Greg | March 20, 2008 8:54 PM
Laughed OUT LOUD
Posted by: James F | March 20, 2008 8:54 PM
This will be the theater security's reaction.
Posted by: glopk | March 20, 2008 8:55 PM
Man, if it was an intentional diversion you've earned your Intelligence Tradecraft Badge of Merit right there.
Thanks for the laugh, can't wait to hear Mr. Dawkins review of the projection.
Posted by: Schmeer | March 20, 2008 8:55 PM
Oh I can't wait to hear more from Richard about the rest of the event.
Did these doofuses even realize that Richard Dawkins was in the US right now? You'd think if they put up PZ wanted posters they might have told the ID-checker at the door to look for Dennet, Hitchens, Harris or Dawkins. Wow, how's that for not thinking things all the way through?
Posted by: Barry | March 20, 2008 8:55 PM
Nicccce! I can't wait to hear what he has to say about it.
Posted by: Nerdette | March 20, 2008 8:56 PM
I want to know if Dawkins managed to keep a straight face as he entered the theatre. Oh, my belly hurts from laughing so hard!
Posted by: minusRusty | March 20, 2008 8:57 PM
PZ!! CALL THE PRESS AND HAVE DAWKINS INTERVIEWED AFTER THE MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: paul | March 20, 2008 8:57 PM
Priceless. I'll have to head over to Dawkins' site in the next couple of days. It's gonna be entertainment.
Posted by: syntyche | March 20, 2008 8:57 PM
Epic. Fail.
Posted by: Josh | March 20, 2008 8:58 PM
I second minus' comment - call the press. Right. Now. TV, radio, newspaper. This is tooooooo good to let go. Call Richard on his cell.
Posted by: Cafeeine | March 20, 2008 9:00 PM
On that point, wasn't Richard interviewed for Expelled? by what right can they keep him from seeing a movie he appears in?
Posted by: Julie K | March 20, 2008 9:01 PM
That is totally awesome. Hysterical. I laughed so hard I scared my cat.
Posted by: Dude | March 20, 2008 9:01 PM
That is pure awesome PZ!
Posted by: Nick K | March 20, 2008 9:01 PM
As an aside.... Ummm... How long was the line??
Posted by: Candy | March 20, 2008 9:02 PM
I think you should contact someone from the Minneapolis papers - preferably someone you have reason to believe might be sympathetic - and give him or her this story. It would be great press!
Posted by: LK | March 20, 2008 9:02 PM
LOL, nice work. Can't wait for tomorrow.
Posted by: Rich | March 20, 2008 9:03 PM
One of the producers? Lives here:
http://kevinwrites.typepad.com/otherwise_known_as_kevin_/
Nomad went to see it:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=5152;st=540#entry100826
Posted by: Carlie | March 20, 2008 9:03 PM
Could you stand just outside theater grounds to greet people as they come out? "Hi, I'm PZ, and I was in the movie..."
I would dearly love it if Dawkins started yelling back at the screen during his parts. "That's not what I meant!!!"
Posted by: Monado, FCD | March 20, 2008 9:05 PM
Priceless!
They'll be so sorry they fixated on "anyone with tentacles and a beard" instead of recognizing different varieties of reality-based humans.
Posted by: Pete | March 20, 2008 9:05 PM
Congratulations! Getting barred from Expelled must be much better than seeing it.
This is almost like a Seinfeld episode.
Posted by: Buffybot | March 20, 2008 9:06 PM
That's hysterical. I can't wait to see how the Expelled and DI numpties try to put a positive spin on this later.
Posted by: Mike Crichton | March 20, 2008 9:07 PM
You Win Teh Internet. :-D
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | March 20, 2008 9:08 PM
Priceless! Absolutely priceless!
You have to tell us, was this a cunning plan or a brilliant piece of improvisation?
Posted by: Josh | March 20, 2008 9:08 PM
I'm wanting to know how it is that the producers were able to convince the theater to expel PZ? Is this not a public screening? And, if this was a real cop, on what legal grounds did he order him off the premises? Seriously, something's not right here. But boy, it will make for GREAT publicity against those asshats.
Posted by: Pete | March 20, 2008 9:09 PM
Damn you, PZ! I almost choked on my Guinness!
Brilliant!
oh wait... no. The opposite of that.
Posted by: HalfMooner | March 20, 2008 9:10 PM
This is as wonderful as it is hilarious! Thanks for running interference for Richard Dawkins, PZ!
(ROTFL! Imagining the Expelled flacks keeping tabs on your site, then sending their compliant police through the theater with bright flashlights, looking for the atheist Brit!)
Posted by: rmp | March 20, 2008 9:12 PM
There is absolutely no other response to this but
OMG
Posted by: Barry | March 20, 2008 9:14 PM
Even if they didn't recognize his face, how did they miss the name "Richard Dawkins" on his ID or passport?
Posted by: Alex | March 20, 2008 9:15 PM
That's awesome. Remember to give us an update when you have a chance. :)
Posted by: BB | March 20, 2008 9:16 PM
More than 50 posts post-posting? Awesome! And: ... Dawkins? Someawe!!! I dearly hope he enjoys the movie, and takes it with a crumb of salt. (A bit of dry humor might help.)
Posted by: devin rankin | March 20, 2008 9:16 PM
They could be real police officers. Police often work "off duty" in full uniform when they are hired by a private company or person to provide security. Most departments require the job to be aproved by the department. But not all do. I was a police officer here in Phoenix for 22 years and it is something that is quite common here and, talking to officers from other parts of the country, quite common other places.
Devin
Posted by: Triphesas | March 20, 2008 9:16 PM
How I would have loved to see that. :)
Posted by: Candy | March 20, 2008 9:17 PM
Theatres are not generally "public" in the First Amendment sense of publicly owned. They are privately owned businesses and can refuse service to anyone, as long as they don't violate laws prohibiting specific discrimination against classes of citizens. They can and do refuse to allow people in who violate dress codes such as no shirt no shoes no service. Chances are the cop is an off-duty policeman moonlighting as security, which is also legal. That being said, who the hell has a movie screening and wants to keep people out? The way these idiots are going about their "marketing" is simply stoopid.
Posted by: miller | March 20, 2008 9:19 PM
Oh, Expelled! Ever the source of comedy!
Posted by: Kimpatsu | March 20, 2008 9:19 PM
Expelled from "Expelled", but Dawkins was admitted?!
Not exactly joined-up thinking from the doffuses, is it?
Posted by: Cafeeine | March 20, 2008 9:20 PM
I truly cannot imagine how they thought that whatever commentary PZ had on the film would be worse then this. It is really amusing, and I second the idea that getting it on video would have been awesome.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 20, 2008 9:21 PM
I'm actually a bit stuck as far as alerting the media -- no cell phones, remember?
If any locals in the twin cities want to call the area news and let them know that the infamous atheist Richard Dawkins got in to see this creationist movie, and he's at the AMC 14 at the Mall of America, please do. The movie started around 7:30, I imagine it will be over around 9 or 9:30.
I'm just going to hang around outside the theater. I'm sure any reporters who show up will recognize me, and I'll point Dawkins out to them.
Posted by: extatyzoma | March 20, 2008 9:21 PM
oh heck, you should have BOTH beeen wearing a burka.
Posted by: Shaggy | March 20, 2008 9:22 PM
The strategy of keeping the skeptical and rational sectors of society out of preview screenings of this movie makes a lot of sense. If we can't see it we can't destroy it's credibility before it is widely released, and it follows that they will be able to blindside uninformed people much more easily.
As far as this situation goes... this is a total lollercaust!
Posted by: J-Dog | March 20, 2008 9:23 PM
Congratualtions - It's for a good coause.
But how did they not bust ALL the Irony Meters in the Minn-St. Paul are with your"expulsion"?
And Double Irony Points for them letting in Richard! If Kristine is with you say Hi!
Posted by: pcrthis | March 20, 2008 9:24 PM
First time poster, long time lurker:
This is so full of win, I can't stand it
Posted by: extatyzoma | March 20, 2008 9:24 PM
PZ, if what you are saying is true its just so funny. It must have been incredibly exciting, a bit like being underage and getting caught trying to go in a nightclub when all the while your underage buddy has got in there....with all the drugs!!
Posted by: Cafeeine | March 20, 2008 9:25 PM
Shaggy,
I completely understand this, however the manner this was executed was so shoddily done that was a proverbial bullet in the foot.
Posted by: Sastra | March 20, 2008 9:25 PM
I don't understand why this was done -- how is this going to be spun from their point of view? I mean, what the heck was the purpose?
"The atheist establishment is so dangerous that we had to keep them out of this movie for YOUR PROTECTION because -- what?"
You will yell things at the screen?
You will write down the names of all the Christians who came to see this movie?
You will allow demons into the theater, and they will cause people to become possessed?
You will spill your popcorn and drinks, because atheists have no moral sense -- and their balance is bad, too?
You will plant a bomb?
You will use the information in the movie to plan counter attacks for your own movie?
You will blog about the movie -- and goodness knows we can't have that?
You have "atheist cooties?"
I don't get how they plan on spinning this for their public. What the heck are they going to tell people they were afraid of?
Or are they just afraid you would enjoy yourself?
Dumb.
Posted by: gir | March 20, 2008 9:26 PM
HA! That is absolutely hysterical. Love it!
Posted by: olivermcrae | March 20, 2008 9:27 PM
Unbelievable. These hucksters couldn't have shot themselves more directly in the foot.
I'd also like to repeat the call for a Richard Dawkins guest post...
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 20, 2008 9:27 PM
Kristine is here, as are my wife and Skatje, as well as a few people from the RDF, including Josh Timonen. I saw a few other atheists in line, too. It's like they let the whole gang in while trying to intimidate li'l ol' me!
Posted by: Amadán | March 20, 2008 9:27 PM
Pleasepleaseplease let some fundie see this post and have Dawkins put out. The irony (fundies, look it up...)
Oh, my sides hurt.
I am ... honoured to have been virtually present at this pwning. Bravo.
Posted by: Hank Fox | March 20, 2008 9:27 PM
This is too good.
Now Ben Stein has something in common with the Scientologists -- shadowy spies keeping tabs on a list of designated enemies.
I'd love to know the sequence of events behind the curtain of their organization that managed to single you out for special treatment.
And if this was a public showing, I think you have the basis for a serious lawsuit.
Posted by: Bee | March 20, 2008 9:27 PM
That is the funniest thing I've heard in weeks.
And... these Expelled people are really insane. It's a movie, ferwhutsake!
Posted by: Summer Squirrel | March 20, 2008 9:27 PM
Lurker here, first time comment. That post was GREAT! My little atheist heart is laughing so hard! Please let Richard post his review of this movie.
Posted by: Milo Johnson | March 20, 2008 9:27 PM
I was actually getting pretty indignant until I got to the "Richard Dawkins" part, and then the laughter came. Now I have to go see if this sudden pain is actually a hernia or not...
Posted by: Jennifer | March 20, 2008 9:29 PM
I may not be laughing as hard as you are, but I am laughing out loud.
Posted by: Paul Hands | March 20, 2008 9:30 PM
OH YES!!!!
That has brightened up an otherwise dismal (good) Friday. Here in Ireland the hypocrisy is at fever pitch, and this news is just brilliant.
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 20, 2008 9:30 PM
Best post EVER!!!!!!!
Awesome!
Posted by: CanadianChick | March 20, 2008 9:32 PM
bwahahahaha....
can't...
breathe...
laughing...
too hard...
Posted by: Mark P. | March 20, 2008 9:32 PM
RRRROOOOOFFFFFFFFFFFLLLLL
I'm sorry that you were "Expelled," PZ, but this is the FUNNIEST thing I've EVER heard! LMAOOOOOOOOOO
I can't wait to hear Dawkins' response to the film!
Posted by: Bronze Dog | March 20, 2008 9:33 PM
I was quite amused.
Posted by: Rich | March 20, 2008 9:33 PM
GAWD that's funny! You can't make that kind of stuff up!!
Posted by: Godzilla | March 20, 2008 9:33 PM
Long time lurker, first time poster. Hilarious post!
Posted by: B. Dewhirst | March 20, 2008 9:34 PM
Tell me, are you laughing as hard as I am?
We are.
Posted by: Bob L | March 20, 2008 9:34 PM
I am in awe. You're the man Dr Myers.
Posted by: extatyzoma | March 20, 2008 9:35 PM
hysterical. next time make sure hitchens is there too, pushing his way in, really drunk with 'were on the bloody guest list you know'.
its like a friggin comedy act round here at the moment, excellent.
Posted by: Epikt | March 20, 2008 9:35 PM
Getting barred from a movie in which you appear, because the producers are afraid you'll call them out on misrepresenting your position. Magnificent.
I think your sfik is pretty much infinite now.
Posted by: Cyde Weys | March 20, 2008 9:35 PM
I guess I shouldn't be surprised by the hypocrisy of creationists anymore, but then again, they are always one-upping themselves. From what I've heard from the write-ups in the movie, they allege a huge conspiracy on the part of science whose goal is to keep all of the non-"evolutionists" out. In other words, there's all this evidence against it, but anyone who dares speak truth to power is expelled.
So how do they possibly justify using the exact same tactics here? Surely sunlight would be the best disinfectant against what they allege the scientific establishment is doing, not copying it wholesale?
Of course, this is really just projection. They're claiming that the scientific establishment is guilty of the Orwellian thought control tactics that really only they are using.
Posted by: Jessa | March 20, 2008 9:37 PM
Ah, delicious! This story made my day!
BTW, does anyone have info on where advance screenings will be taking place? The Raleigh, NC area in particular - I would love to get a sneak peek.
Posted by: Sastra | March 20, 2008 9:38 PM
Could they have kicked you out so that they could play up the "Now he knows how we feel" angle? Revenge -- the worm finally turns, and now the atheist biology professor gets it? Creationists rejoice, because we finally have a chance to do to them what they do to us? See how HE likes it! This is what THEY do -- in our science labs and classrooms! We're still fighting for the Little Guy, and for Jesus.
I mean, this is just so dumb from their own point of view. I keep trying to figure out what their spin is. They want to be seen as victims. Removing someone who wants to sit quietly and watch the movie makes no freaking sense if you're playing into a narrative of being oppressed.
Maybe they think fellow creationists will get a sense of justice satisfied? This is some kind of 'pay back?'
Posted by: Puneet | March 20, 2008 9:39 PM
My roommate showed me this two minutes ago and I literally burst into laughter.
Hopefully Dawkins gets to stick around for the entire thing; then he can spread the word about how the people who made Expelled are the most hypocritical people ever.
Posted by: raven | March 20, 2008 9:39 PM
You should have thought ahead. Get someone with a video camera to record you being evicted. Then on to YouTube.
Geesh, PZ, you missed your chance to be a movie star. I'm sure some of the frames would look good on T shirts, mouse pads, and coffee mugs. Think of the tie ins. PZ action figures, lunch boxes, and Holiday cards.
Academics are so clueless. I bet you don't even have an agent.
Posted by: Michael X | March 20, 2008 9:40 PM
That was beautiful.
Posted by: Brigit | March 20, 2008 9:41 PM
ROFL sooo hard my cat ran away! I wish there was some magical live video feed of this. Beyond awesome.
Posted by: Monad | March 20, 2008 9:41 PM
Hey PZ :)
http://www.rantsnraves.org/showthread.php?p=283621#post283621
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | March 20, 2008 9:43 PM
Dawkins was with PZ and family. It could be that someone told the theater manager that the evil Richard Dawkins was about to enter his cinema to watch Expelled, and he took a wild guess has to which of two men was the nefarious fellow. :)
Posted by: RBH | March 20, 2008 9:44 PM
Man, I can't imagine how those guys have any toes left, they shoot themselves themselves in the foot so often.
Posted by: Bad | March 20, 2008 9:44 PM
PZ: can you tell us a little more about the nature of the screening?
Was it more open than previous carefully selected audiences? Was it a test screening that they opened in an area they just hoped would be almost universally religious? What's the deal with even allowing random people into the screening at all, given their past behavior?
Posted by: Bruce | March 20, 2008 9:44 PM
This may be the most awesome post ever!!! I can't wait to hear from Dawkins and the others.
Posted by: gbusch | March 20, 2008 9:44 PM
This has the hallmarks of mileage. Press, cartoons and blogs abound will relay their gaff and the irony for a long time to come.
Posted by: cognitive dissident | March 20, 2008 9:45 PM
Yes, I'm laughing as hard as you are...and so is my spouse, ever since I pointed out your post as the source of my merriment.
This is a classic story, and "Expelled" is *so* p0wned!
Posted by: Ivan A D'Mocracy | March 20, 2008 9:45 PM
Tell me, are you laughing as hard as I am?
Yes. YEs. OHH YEESS!!!
(almost better than sex!)
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry | March 20, 2008 9:45 PM
I tried contacting several of the TV stations in the area, and only got a "maybe" from KTCI.
Can somebody light up the newspapers?
Posted by: RBH | March 20, 2008 9:45 PM
Man, I can't imagine how those guys have any toes left, they shoot themselves in the foot so often.
Posted by: Jackson | March 20, 2008 9:47 PM
there aren't even words for this. absolutely made my night...
Posted by: tonyx | March 20, 2008 9:48 PM
This is awesome! XD i cant wait to read the review!, i hope skatje would make one as well :P
Posted by: Carlie | March 20, 2008 9:48 PM
Wesley, you are awesome. I'd try to help, but I doubt they care about what someone several states away thinks. :)
Posted by: Zarquon | March 20, 2008 9:49 PM
Of course Dawkins has an Oxbridge English accent so they were compelled to let him through.
Posted by: Hank Fox | March 20, 2008 9:49 PM
Some contact info I ferreted out, for somebody on the ground there in the Twin Cities:
Minneapolis Star Tribune Newspaper
News Tips / Story Ideas
General News 612-673-4414
St. Paul Bureau 651-227-0656
WCCO AM 830 Radio
Newsroom, 612-333-9181
Main:(612) 370-0611
Toll Free Studio:1-866-989-9226
Listener Studio Lines: 612 or 651- 989-9226
news@wccoradio.cbs.com
KNOW FM 91.1
MPR News
Newsroom telephone: 651-290-1424
Newsroom fax (for press releases, etc.): 651-290-1295
WUCW TV
Phone: (651) 646-2300
Fax: (651) 646-1220
WCCO TV 4
1-800-444-WCCO
KTCA TV 2
Twin Cities Public Television
Tel: 651-222-1717
Fax: 651-229-1282
KSTP TV 5
Switchboard: (651) 646-5555
Newsroom phone: (612) 5TV-NEWS (612-588-6397)
Newsroom fax: (651) 642-4409
KARE TV 11
Switchboard: (763) 546-1111
Tipline: (763) 593-1111
Posted by: Dentarthurdent | March 20, 2008 9:50 PM
Allow me to list the things these people did wrong,
Also Known As "4 steps to epic fail"
1. Create ridiculous propaganda film
2. Use hired muscle to prevent entrance of critics thus showing everyone the blatant hypocrisy of your production.
3. The guards you hired are so ignorant that they let the critics attend in droves.
4. You marketing pitch is about different viewpoints being censored.
Posted by: Bobby | March 20, 2008 9:51 PM
*Falls down on the ground in praise*
I AM NOT WORTHY, I AM NOT WORTHY!
I seriously spent five minutes laughing after I read this.
Posted by: extatyzoma | March 20, 2008 9:51 PM
I suppose pz got expelled as he has a FSM shirt on or something equally offensive. RD got in as he may have been wearing a rather more subtle 'galapagos holiday' type shirt.
seriously though, when people start dictating who can and who cannot see a film you just know who is on the 'right' side.
Posted by: 386sx | March 20, 2008 9:51 PM
That is great. It couldn't have turned out better! Hilarity.
Posted by: toomanytribbles | March 20, 2008 9:52 PM
uncontrollable... hysterical... laughter......
Posted by: Eclectic | March 20, 2008 9:52 PM
Oh, wow. That had me not just laughing out loud, but howling out loud. They make a big show of stopping Beelzebub and let Satan himself walk right in.
Is is illegal for a generally public facility like a mall or movie theater to discriminate against a class of people without good reason, but generally a private property owner can refuse to admit against a particular person pretty much arbitrarily. "He married my brother's ex-wife" or even less.
Posted by: eewolf | March 20, 2008 9:53 PM
Creationists: pulling embarrassment from the jaws of defeat for 150 years.
Posted by: Tainted Bill | March 20, 2008 9:53 PM
I am laughing so hard right now. Stupid creationists.
Posted by: SteadyEddy | March 20, 2008 9:53 PM
I'm amusing Dawkins will somehow fit this into his talk tomorrow. :) Can't wait, it's going to be a Great Friday.
Posted by: Escuerd | March 20, 2008 9:53 PM
Oh the multiple ironies.
This is truly one of the funniest posts in a while.
Posted by: Simon Owens | March 20, 2008 9:53 PM
Oh, that's too good.
Posted by: extatyzoma | March 20, 2008 9:53 PM
post #110.
they may have thought RD was actually prince charles so let him in without question.
Posted by: Eric | March 20, 2008 9:53 PM
So wait a sec... they ID'd people at the door... and Dawkins still got in? How did that work? "Excuse me, you - bearded fellow, you need to leave. Oh Richard Dawkins, how are you doing? I've heard a lot about you, it's nice to finally meet you. Right this way, sir."
Posted by: bfish | March 20, 2008 9:54 PM
I just e-mailed an editor at the Star-Tribune who is a childhood friend of my wife. No way to know if he is online - it's well after work hours in the Twin Cities. Someone local should call the paper, using the contact info above.
Posted by: mayhempix | March 20, 2008 9:55 PM
Too fucking funny.
Right out of a movie, figuratively and literally.
Maybe there is an Atheist God after all.
Just kidding... but "Atheist God" is a great oxymoron.
;^ )
Posted by: FireforScience | March 20, 2008 9:55 PM
I never post here, but this was best thing I've read all week so I had to.
Creationist really are the most asinine people on the planet.
Posted by: Scrofulum | March 20, 2008 9:55 PM
I expect they let Prof Dawkins in as they hope he'll be swayed by their arguements into accepting creationism . . er . .ology as a valid sceintific theory.
Obviously they harbour no such feelings about you, PZ!
Posted by: Tony | March 20, 2008 9:55 PM
While I think we are all able to appreciate the irony of it, I do think you relented too easily.
Imagine the headlines had you not played along with their pettiness: Local Theater arrests athiest for wanting to watch Creationism movie.
That news headline would have spread like wildfire.
Posted by: James F | March 20, 2008 9:56 PM
#98
For the next screening, send in Sam Harris with Ben Stiller as the decoy.
Posted by: Marita | March 20, 2008 9:56 PM
You're in a giant mall, right? At the very least you should be able to pick up a cheap disposable camera, so you can get a shot of your family and Dawkins coming out of the screening and giving it a big "thumbs down".
Your adoring public would be ever so appreciative..
Posted by: patrick | March 20, 2008 9:56 PM
Absolutely hilarious!
Posted by: Patty | March 20, 2008 9:57 PM
Funny, funny, really funny!
Posted by: Hank Fox | March 20, 2008 9:57 PM
Forgot to say this:
Someone call those news organizations. Seriously, this is a major story for that area.
The idea that nice Christian anti-evolutionists are actively EXPELLING people from the line (with armed guards/cops! - if that's what it was) to see their phony-baloney movie should be trumpeted around the world.
Don't just suggest they cover it. Tell them who and what this is all about. Convince them that they'll regret it if they just let this slide, because if they do it right, this story will be picked up on the wire and repeated all over the world.
Ben Stein and his cronies can't take the heat, so they have to preached to picked audiences. I seem to remember a certain president who follows the same strategy.
Posted by: Chayanov | March 20, 2008 9:58 PM
No, I'm not laughing. I'm pissed because I totally forgot today was the 20th, and I completely missed my chance, being a short drive from MOA. Ah well.
Posted by: Janus | March 20, 2008 9:58 PM
Bwahahahahahahahaaaaaa! Those IDiots! Unbelievable.
Posted by: Joe Albietz | March 20, 2008 9:58 PM
Oh oh, I think we may be in trouble. This is the best evidence for a god I have ever heard...
Luckily, this god appears to favor atheists, squid, and hardcore irony. So I guess we're still good.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | March 20, 2008 9:58 PM
That's what you get for reserving your tickets under the name PZ Myers. They were looking for you.
If someone else in your family reserved them, then it would have been fine.
But still, this is the best out come we could have hoped for. The frauds of Expelled played right into our hands.
Posted by: Spook | March 20, 2008 9:59 PM
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
*deep breath*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I can't wait to hear how this one pans out... not to mention, what Dawkins has to say about the farce.
Posted by: Candy | March 20, 2008 9:59 PM
emailed a Minneapolis T.V. personality who used to be in our area and who had an open mind and great sense of humor. We'll see. She may be in the studio this evening. Be a shame if no one caught this.
Posted by: phat | March 20, 2008 9:59 PM
Holy cow!
That's perfect.
phat
Posted by: Andrew | March 20, 2008 10:00 PM
This is unbelievable....
Posted by: Zeno | March 20, 2008 10:01 PM
A splendid story. And think how great the "explanation" from the Expelled flacks will be when they try to brush this aside.
Fun, fun, fun!
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry | March 20, 2008 10:01 PM
You can stop calling the Star Tribune. They know about it now.
Posted by: Larry Schanzenbach | March 20, 2008 10:03 PM
All I can say is, "Sweet". Who the hell are these people anyway? I live about 15 miles from the MOA and find these morons to be an embarassment. Minnesota nice? Hmmmmmmm? Stay the course, PZ.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | March 20, 2008 10:03 PM
I called the Strib. They don't have anyone on right now whose beat this would be, but I did mention that the conference goes on all weekend. Someone at WCCO is reading the blog right now but doubts they'll get anyone down there.
Posted by: Bad | March 20, 2008 10:03 PM
"You can stop calling the Star Tribune. They know about it now."
You got to wonder what the poor guy at the breaking tip desk has to be thinking: it probably took him a couple of minutes to sort out what the heck anyone was talking about.
"They put a Dawkins in a what now?"
Posted by: Gary | March 20, 2008 10:04 PM
Ah... Altruism leading to the survival of the fittest
Posted by: Jon Voisey (the Angry Astronomer) | March 20, 2008 10:04 PM
Added this to the summary of how dishonest Expelled is over at my blog.
Posted by: Steve Ulven | March 20, 2008 10:05 PM
Un-fucking-believeable!!! This is truly the most hilarious thing ever. I do not possibly think I will get over the fact of how funny this is.
Posted by: Geral | March 20, 2008 10:06 PM
I can't believe they singled you out for the boot? I can't wait to see what Dawkins says on this.
Posted by: mutability | March 20, 2008 10:06 PM
Those unfortunate people that watching the movie..... I hope their decompression back into the reality is swift. Best wishes!
Posted by: Hank Fox | March 20, 2008 10:08 PM
Maybe someone could submit this to Digg or some of the other bookmark sites?
Posted by: extatyzoma | March 20, 2008 10:08 PM
post #124
RD may have said said 'im Prof Dick Dawkins'.
whos going to question that??
Posted by: wildcardjack | March 20, 2008 10:08 PM
I laughed so hard it hurt.
Posted by: BillW | March 20, 2008 10:09 PM
Hey! This gives me an idea borrowed from some civil rights folks. What if we got people to pledge a certain amount of money for everyone who went to a screening of Expelled, counted people who went in to see it, and then use the money collected to fund a movie about the truth - say an anti-Expelled movie. Hmmm. What would the title be? Admitted? Saved? Enlightened? :-)
Posted by: Despard | March 20, 2008 10:09 PM
That is absolutely brilliant. :-)
Posted by: Heather | March 20, 2008 10:11 PM
Absolutely brilliant! I don't believe in god, but karma's a bitch!
Posted by: Elise | March 20, 2008 10:12 PM
That is completely awesome! :D
Posted by: _Arthur | March 20, 2008 10:12 PM
Of course, there is material for a Civil Rights lawsuit right there, if you was the suing type, PZ.
The same laws that prevent cinema owners no deny access to Blacks or Jews, also protect you, PZ, no matter what bogus reason they thought they had for refusing you entrance.
Posted by: thalarctos | March 20, 2008 10:13 PM
Just when I think my heuristic for what posts I can drink while reading is sufficiently sensitive, I go and read this one--tea out my nose!
Monad, I liked your artwork, and I really appreciate your cutting it off at the waist like you did. I swear, if I see those legs in those shorts one more time, I'm going to have to take an icepick and put out my mind's eye.
Posted by: merkin j pus_tart | March 20, 2008 10:13 PM
You upstart . . . this must be a blow to Dawkin's ego
Posted by: Geral | March 20, 2008 10:14 PM
I'm sorry PZ. I'm still laughing about the "No Intelligence Allowed" tagline plastered all over this guy's website.
Posted by: Sangy | March 20, 2008 10:14 PM
That is, I have to say, one of the most brilliant things I've ever heard of.
Posted by: Zeno | March 20, 2008 10:14 PM
If PZ had shaved his beard, they would have never caught him! (Or, judging from their general competence, they would have thought he was Dawkins.)
Posted by: Ian Maddox | March 20, 2008 10:15 PM
So, I went over to the Expelled website, and you'll never guess what quote I saw at the top of the screen:
"It's (EXPELLED) going to appeal strongly to the religious, the paranoid, the conspiracy theorists, and the ignorant -- which means they're going to draw in about 90% of the American market."
-Atheist blogger and fabulist PZ Myers, on a film he has not yet seen.
It's asinine beyond belief, like watching the Three Stooges run a media campaign. PZ, this was the best laugh I've had in days, and I thank you from the bottom of my heart. I'd love to hear what RD has to say about this... be sure to pass along the good bits.
Posted by: David Smith | March 20, 2008 10:15 PM
That's completely hilarious and deeply infuriating all at the same time.
It's also a completely perfect story for tonight, the eve of the Jewish holiday of Purim, a night when reason and logic are supposed to get turned upside down and silliness is suppose to triumph! One is actually commanded to get drunk, so drunk that one cannot tell Mordechai (the hero) from Haman (the villan). Perhaps the goons at Expelled were caught up in the spirit(s) of the holiday and could not tell Richard Dawkins from Henry Morris.
David Smith, not godless, but definitely a liberal, and a scientist (geologist)
Posted by: Duke York | March 20, 2008 10:15 PM
Thank you, PZ. It's always nice to have some confirmation I'm on the right side.
Duke
Posted by: Kell | March 20, 2008 10:16 PM
This is sweet. So very very sweet. I enjoy it now, the sweetness. Oh yes.
Posted by: Andrew | March 20, 2008 10:16 PM
There is no grounds for a lawsuit. The theatre was rented out to the producers of the movie for the private screening. That makes it a private event, and they can refuse whomever they please.
Now, if this was just a regular showing of the film, then that would be a different story.
Posted by: steadyeddy | March 20, 2008 10:17 PM
At 8:55pm, I left a message on the cell of a buddy of mine who is a reporter at the StarTribune. Haven't heard back from him yet... He lives 10 minutes from the MOA.
Posted by: The Flying Trilobite | March 20, 2008 10:18 PM
Well, I wonder if a photo of Professor Dawkins will appear on a question on America's Most Smartest Model? Y'know, to raise public awareness of this menacing chameleon who can infiltrate God's Army.
Maybe they will try to pull strings and have him 'expelled' out of the U.S.A. for seeing a movie under false pretenses. Man, that's like, so militant of him.
Posted by: Martin | March 20, 2008 10:18 PM
And in any event, suing would be silly. The whole event is such an embarrassment for the Expelled clods that the public hilarity and ridicule it generates will provide enough schadenfreude power to light the Twin Cities for the next 300 years.
Posted by: JJ | March 20, 2008 10:18 PM
Too fucking funny !!!! I heard Dawkins speak last night in Austin, Tx. He briefly responded to a question about the film. Can't wait for the reviews PZ !!!! Is it leagl to escort you out of a public theater ?????
Posted by: Michelle | March 20, 2008 10:18 PM
That was a rent-a-cop for sure. :P No policeman would enforce such a silly thing.
Hilarious. So. Darn. Hilarious. Apparently you are more harmful to their cause than DAWKINS!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 20, 2008 10:19 PM
Oh that is just too damn good. Incompetence in all areas.
I think my wife is in for a rough night of sleep. I have a strong feeling I'll be giggling all night.
Posted by: Dennis | March 20, 2008 10:20 PM
Funniest thing I've read in a week!
Posted by: George Cauldron | March 20, 2008 10:20 PM
Since Ben Stein's motive in expelling you from the movie was to keep you from writing about it, maybe you should have Dawkins write something up about it for you and post it here? That would have the advantage of REALLY backfiring on that little shit Stein.
Posted by: Susan Brown | March 20, 2008 10:21 PM
Gosh, the behavior of the "Expellers" is what you'd expect from the Soviets during the Lysenko era.
What an awesome story, PZ!
Posted by: Ian Maddox | March 20, 2008 10:22 PM
Meh. Who needs legal action? Getting our undies in a bunch and running off to the courts isn't particularly dignified.
It's better just to make sure all of the ID goofballs know what kind of morons they're following. Digg it up, give the MSM a chance to take a look around, and we'll see what happens.
Posted by: Martin | March 20, 2008 10:22 PM
JJ, yeah, I'm down here in Austin too, and have been blogging about last night's talk (click my name). At the Austin lecture, RD waxed harshly upon Expelled, saying that if the online trailer were any indication, no one would be persuaded by it who wasn't already a dishonest, ignorant fool. Now that he's actually seen it...wow, I can't wait to hear how he really feels!
Posted by: RamblinDude | March 20, 2008 10:22 PM
Hank, and all you diggers out there, it has been dugg.
Posted by: Tea | March 20, 2008 10:23 PM
Dawkins who?
Posted by: Clan:Rewired | March 20, 2008 10:24 PM
Come on PZ, don't say you guys are going straight for a Guinness laughing yourselves under the barstool! You dropped this bomb, now tell us what happened next!!!
Posted by: Lulu | March 20, 2008 10:24 PM
I think this is funny enough to be shared with digg. And someone submitted it already.
http://digg.com/general_sciences/Expelled_from_Expelled
Posted by: ngong | March 20, 2008 10:24 PM
For the creos to pull something like this, it would require a negative IQ. That's impossible. One can then only conclude that the guard was an atheist conspirator.
Posted by: Doc Bill | March 20, 2008 10:25 PM
Spewed coffee, wine, brandy and broke a rib.
Dawkins? Holy mother of Tiktaalik save us all.
Posted by: Kevin L. | March 20, 2008 10:26 PM
Funniest thing I've read in a while. I can't wait to see what Dawkins has to say about this. Thanks for posting, PZ :)
Posted by: Lulu | March 20, 2008 10:26 PM
Oh, jeez, RamblinDude, we must be spiritually connected.
Or fortuitously coincidentally acting.
Posted by: disownedsky | March 20, 2008 10:27 PM
This is the ultimate cool - getting thrown out of Expelled. I wish I had enough notoriety and cred to get thrown out, but alas...
Posted by: ScottH | March 20, 2008 10:27 PM
Does anyone know how you would get this story to The Daily Show? I should think Stewart & Co. would love this story as much as we do. And it deserves national exposure.
Posted by: Hank Fox | March 20, 2008 10:27 PM
Everybody who Diggs, go there and vote the story up. This is something Diggers will laugh out loud to know.
Posted by: JJ | March 20, 2008 10:28 PM
Martin
Thanks for the link to the blog. I am actually in the Dallas area. Spend quite a bit of time in Austin fighting the evolution battle. Will be back to hear Ken Miller on April 4. Maybe we can catch up then.
Posted by: Justin Moretti | March 20, 2008 10:30 PM
These stupid ID/Creo bastards are full of epic fail. If there is a God, he is by now so disgusted with their hypocrisy and dishonesty that he has arranged a skip-the-queue function for them in Hell.
Happy being-kicked-out-day, PZ. But if I've read aright, Skatje's almost as dangerous as you are anyway, so they are even more full of epic fail. Be fun to know how the whole thing played out.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | March 20, 2008 10:31 PM
I can see it now. Fresh headline on AiG and DI tomorrow morning: PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins cause scene at screening of Expelled in a Twin Cities mall.
I bet $1,000,000.00 in Monopoly money that's where they go with this. They are going to try to carpet-sweep this thing something fierce.
Posted by: ChrisGose | March 20, 2008 10:31 PM
Wow.
This is epic win and epic fail all at the same time.
It's ingenius I tell you.
Posted by: DustPuppyOI | March 20, 2008 10:32 PM
Can someone submit this story to fark? I think there is a photoshop opportunity here too.
Perhaps there's a fundraising opportunity too - maybe a custom crafted t-shirt with "I was expelled from expelled" signed by both PZ and Richard Dawkins?
Posted by: Michelle | March 20, 2008 10:33 PM
I absolutely DUGG this thing!
Come on diggers! Let's rise this story to the top where it rightfully belongs!
Posted by: Eric | March 20, 2008 10:33 PM
I wonder if the office at the mall was The Mall Ninja!
Posted by: The Flying Trilobite | March 20, 2008 10:33 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp, I'm right there with ya. I almost woke my wife up just to laugh about it with someone...Oh I hope someone's reporter friend covered this.
Can we make a holiday? "Sabot Day" or something? We all go to the local art-house theatre wearing Richard Dawkins masks and leave a token friend with a squid-t-shirt waiting outside. Yeah. Has a feeling of ritual about it.
(Basically I want to laugh about this on an annual basis.)
Posted by: Jen | March 20, 2008 10:34 PM
Brilliant! This is hilarious beyond reason! P.Z., you are officially completely awesome. I totaly need graven image of you to put in a place of prominence in my home!
Posted by: John | March 20, 2008 10:34 PM
Too Funny!
MONAD made this:
[IMG]http://i28.tinypic.com/rhq1zk.jpg[/IMG]
Posted by: Jackie Stone | March 20, 2008 10:34 PM
This is fantastic. Yes, I actually did fall off of my bed from laughter...I'm just glad my roommate wasn't in the room.
Hopefully Dawkins will post his account of the movie on his website. I bet somebody is going to be in a load of trouble when the producers find out Dawkins got in.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 20, 2008 10:34 PM
Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day.
Posted by: Richard | March 20, 2008 10:35 PM
I wanted to comment on this because this is going to go down in atheist history as one of the greatest moments ever. This is truly a sweet moment. Thank you PZ.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | March 20, 2008 10:35 PM
pwn3d
t0atal pwn3d
Posted by: Martin | March 20, 2008 10:35 PM
JJ, that could work. Will be nice to meet you.
Posted by: Buzz Parsec | March 20, 2008 10:35 PM
I haven't read all 185 posts yet, so maybe someone else has already told you this, but I would contact the ACLU immediately. This is a clear civil rights violation. A theater is a place of public accommodation, and can't deny service to *anyone* solely for reasons of religious denomination (or lack thereof). All the people who have been posting that "it's private property, they can kick anyone out for any reason" are just plain *WRONG*.
(It's real hard typing this, I'm laughing too hard. So please ignore any typos.)
So how's it feel to be the Rosa Parks of invertebrates? :-)
Posted by: phantomreader42 | March 20, 2008 10:36 PM
The movie is just most creationist "arguments". A masterpiece of projection.
Do they not even notice that they're doing EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE ACCUSING TEH EBIL DARWINISTS OF?!!11
I mean, we know they're stupid, dishonest, and completely incapable of self-examination. But which of those characteristics should this massive asshattery be attributed to?
Posted by: impirius | March 20, 2008 10:37 PM
I guess they don't know much about "ID" after all.
Jessa (#91) - if you find any information on a Raleigh/Durham area screening, please pass the word along!
Posted by: Pantufla Milagrosa | March 20, 2008 10:37 PM
I have no words to say how good this story makes me feel.
!!!
Posted by: Shadow | March 20, 2008 10:37 PM
Oh my betentacled overlord. I thought I was already having the best day ever, and now I come home to a little sugary rose on on the icing on my cake.
Priceless. Mastercard-commercial priceless.
Posted by: Martin | March 20, 2008 10:38 PM
Buzz, no no! Suing these guys would be like swatting a fly with a howitzer. They're their own worst enemy! They're already crushed! Let the tide of hilarity wash them away.....
Posted by: John | March 20, 2008 10:38 PM
Digg it!
http://digg.com/general_sciences/Expelled_from_Expelled
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 20, 2008 10:38 PM
PZ Myers is THE ATHEIST TROJAN HORSE! This is going to be a story worth telling for many years.
I have to say it, both PZ and Richard Dawkins are my heros.
HA HA but that story makes me feel good.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 20, 2008 10:38 PM
But which of those characteristics should this massive asshattery be attributed to?
why be divisive about it?
all of the above works.
Posted by: Michelle | March 20, 2008 10:38 PM
Would I be wrong if I said this is one of the fastest comment threads I ever seen? I mean, they just PILE UP right now!
...Rightfully so mind you
Posted by: Reed | March 20, 2008 10:39 PM
One might wonder if they have and actual cause to expel you specifically, or whether they were discriminating on the basis of your previously expressed religious views.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00002000---a000-.html
emphasis added.
You might want to have one of your "Guests" get the officers name, badge number and affiliation. If they can get a reason for your expulsion, so much the better.
Posted by: ndt | March 20, 2008 10:40 PM
Damn, that's funny.
Posted by: firemancarl | March 20, 2008 10:40 PM
All I could say is holy shit!
Posted by: Berto | March 20, 2008 10:40 PM
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Posted by: Kseniya | March 20, 2008 10:41 PM
"Tell me, are you laughing as hard as I am?"
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: chancelikely | March 20, 2008 10:41 PM
Predicted IDiot spin angle: they'll whine about all the posts here suggesting legal action by PZ. Just a guess, seeing as how the alternative is deny and ignore.
Well, maybe deny and ignore will be the tack they choose.
Posted by: Kevin L. | March 20, 2008 10:42 PM
I should add that I am incredibly jealous of you and Skatje for the fact that you're keeping company with Richard Dawkins.
Great stuff :)
Posted by: silence | March 20, 2008 10:42 PM
Reed: Sure, but they could have decided that PZ Meyers was likely to pan them in his review of the movie, and decided to try to keep him out for that reason. Unless somebody is willing to take the case to discovery to try and find out if they were dumb enough to write down their reasons, I'd be astonished if you could win that one in court.
Posted by: Greg N. | March 20, 2008 10:42 PM
Brilliant.
Posted by: RamblinDude | March 20, 2008 10:42 PM
Oh, jeez, RamblinDude, we must be spiritually connected.
Or fortuitously coincidentally acting.
Serendipitously synchronous? :-)
I don't know, I'm kind of dissapointed that you didn't make a scene PZ. I have this wild image of the keystone cops chasing you and Professor Dawkins around the mall. :-)
Posted by: Amers | March 20, 2008 10:42 PM
Not to take the wind out of your sails, but do you think that the cop took you out when he was supposed to take Dawkins out?
Posted by: Mytho | March 20, 2008 10:42 PM
BWAHAHahahahahahahaha!
Posted by: gabriel | March 20, 2008 10:43 PM
Priceless! This makes my month! Oh, this is beautiful!
Posted by: Sharilyn | March 20, 2008 10:43 PM
Movie ticket to Expelled, $9.00
Popcorn and pop $10.50
Being thrown out of a movie you actually appear in, PRICELESS
Posted by: impirius | March 20, 2008 10:43 PM
Alright, this is up on Reddit now... spread the word on whatever social media sites you use! This is way too hilarious to keep to ourselves.
http://reddit.com/r/atheism/info/6cuym/comments/
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | March 20, 2008 10:43 PM
Someone needs to spin Hitch up with a 5th and point him at the movie. Make sure you capture the explosion on video.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 20, 2008 10:44 PM
I don't know, I'm kind of dissapointed that you didn't make a scene PZ. I have this wild image of the keystone cops chasing you and Professor Dawkins around the mall. :-)
ala Benny Hill?
yeah, I can just picture it...
Posted by: Kevin | March 20, 2008 10:44 PM
post #200: Seconded!
I almost feel sorry for the cop.
Posted by: ERV | March 20, 2008 10:44 PM
**high fives everyone in the room**
Epic win. EPIC!!!! YAAAAAAAY!!!
Posted by: Angus | March 20, 2008 10:45 PM
On the last episode of Real Time With Bill Maher I seem to remember the end credits displayed who was going to be on the next episode (the one airing this week). If I recall correctly Richard Dawkins will be on Real Time with Bill Maher. Perhaps we should all tune in!
Posted by: Steve | March 20, 2008 10:46 PM
Ha Ha! Dawkins for teh win!!!111!!!
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | March 20, 2008 10:46 PM
This is History in the making! And it's hilarious, ironic, revealing and, well, lots of stuff about it lends infinitely increasing credibility! Everybody chalk up another point on the tally board. YEEEEE-HAAAAA!
Posted by: Ctenophore | March 20, 2008 10:46 PM
OMG. Thanks to that producer for accidentally creating the most hilarious circumstance that i would never have imagined!
Posted by: Shaw Kenawe | March 20, 2008 10:47 PM
Best, best laugh I've had in many a day. Oh gawd.
Posted by: gabriel | March 20, 2008 10:48 PM
reminds me of the verse "strain out a gnat, swallow a camel." no offense, PZ, of course.
Hilarious! We're all waiting for the post-movie interviews!!
Posted by: John | March 20, 2008 10:48 PM
I'm glad you all think that HATE CRIMES are funny.
Once PZ calms down and thinks about being thrown out of a public theatre, in front of his wife, kids, and Richard Friggin Dawkins - PZ WILL BE PISSED!
This is some serious shit.
I would be LIVID.
Hell, I'm livid right now.
Posted by: Hank Fox | March 20, 2008 10:48 PM
47 Diggs as of this moment. By morning it should be gold.
http://digg.com/general_sciences/Expelled_from_Expelled
They threatened with arrest a man THEY put in the movie, after interviewing him under false pretenses.
Posted by: Aaron | March 20, 2008 10:49 PM
Oh my dear science that's hilarious.
Posted by: RamblinDude | March 20, 2008 10:49 PM
Sastra 92#, You may be on to something. They may have done this on purpose knowing the controversy would raise ticket sales.
Posted by: Doug | March 20, 2008 10:49 PM
PZ should send a thank you note to the folks at Expelled. They saved him from having to wade through two hours of BS.
Posted by: James F | March 20, 2008 10:49 PM
"No, you idiot! I said watch out for Richard Dawkins, not Stephen Hawking! Dawkins!"
Posted by: Boosterz | March 20, 2008 10:49 PM
I *heart* creationists getting pwned. Please tell me that when this was all going on there was some kick ass Trans Siberian Orchestra playing in the background. Like maybe Beethoven's 5th or something along those lines. I'd even settle for Ride of the Valkyries. lol
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/funny-pictures-cat-pwns-dog.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2061/2048486208_43f04098cc.jpg
Posted by: nystagman | March 20, 2008 10:49 PM
PZ, you are truly a professor non gratis.
Posted by: Jules | March 20, 2008 10:49 PM
#240 - Don't you mean OMFSM?
Posted by: Calilasseia | March 20, 2008 10:50 PM
HAHAHAHAHA!
You can't make this up.
As if the movie itself wasn't totally retarded in its premise, they NOW HAND AN ABSOLUTE PR GIFT TO PZ.
PZ, If I were you, I'd call CNN. They'd HAVE to interview you about this!
Posted by: Chris Harrison | March 20, 2008 10:50 PM
Hahahahahahaha.
Hearty laughter abounds!
MY Myers, I applaud you.
Posted by: Danny | March 20, 2008 10:50 PM
You should have allowed yourself to be arrested. You were to commit no crime at all. Please don't show courage on the web only to show cowardice in real life. Is this how you stand up for what you believe?
Posted by: Stripe | March 20, 2008 10:50 PM
I am a lurker over on Phil's site, came over to take a look at the fun and games over here to see what the BadAstronomer was writing about. This is hilarious, have to hang around to find out how this turns out. :)
Posted by: SteadyEddy | March 20, 2008 10:51 PM
Still haven't heard back from my StarTrib reporter buddy... is there a limit to how many voicemails I can leave?
Unless the fundies roped everyone into a post-movie group hug/donation session, I'm guessing the movie is already out.
Posted by: Chris Harrison | March 20, 2008 10:51 PM
Hahahahahahaha.
Hearty laughter abounds!
Mr Myers, I applaud you.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 20, 2008 10:51 PM
Still laughing. I think i may need to grab a single barrel bourbon on the rocks to calm me down.
This is really one of the funniest things I've heard all year.
I CAN NOT wait to read the spin on this.
Posted by: Angus | March 20, 2008 10:51 PM
"On the last episode of Real Time With Bill Maher I seem to remember the end credits displayed who was going to be on the next episode (the one airing this week). If I recall correctly Richard Dawkins will be on Real Time with Bill Maher. Perhaps we should all tune in!"
Update:
Nowhere is Dawkins Mentioned on Bill Maher's HBO page. Guests get shuffled about from time to time. I'm still hoping he's on though.
Posted by: paul | March 20, 2008 10:52 PM
#237- just looked up Real Time's website on HBO.com, and it doesn't list Richard Dawkins from what I can see. That'd be entertaining though.
Posted by: Kirk | March 20, 2008 10:52 PM
I also did laugh out loud. Kind of funny, since I was in the bathroom taking care of a biological need (yay iPhone!) and my roommates have to wonder what was so funny in there.
BUT, I have a word of caution.
Do NOT start spamming the media organizations. I work in the media (no contacts in Minny who would be available right now) and nothing turns reporters and editors off a story faster than e-mail after e-mail and call after call on something like this. If dozens of people report an earthquake or severe traffic collision, etc., it makes sense that you'll get a lot of calls into the newsroom. But something that could be seen as a concerted effort by, say, an advocacy organization quickly gets annoying and may engender a hostile response.
Now, we all see this as a bit of great breaking news, and they need to know about it to be able to get to all the players who are (were) in place. But, journalists see so many spam campaigns from various groups that something like this might start to be seen as that sort of thing. And that sort of thing then starts smelling like an organized attempt to fake a groundswell reaction to something. The bulk of reporters and editors out there may not be fully aware of the back story here, so constant, repeated e-mails and phone calls could be interpreted that way. Reporters in the know, of course, will understand and have the reaction we're all having. But the odds are that you'll get someone who doesn't really know the score.
So, as long as there has been some contact with the media, I think we should be content with that. I do know some folks for whom this sort of thing could be useful later, and I'll be disseminating this within that sphere. I expect this anecdote to become a standard background paragraph in future coverage of this movie.
Posted by: Ragutis | March 20, 2008 10:53 PM
A) Fundies have been the demise of many an irony meter, but I think I'm gonna frame the remains of this most recent one. (As much as I can find, at least... it went EVERYWHERE!)
B) I'm assuming that they simply weren't expecting Dawkins in Minnesota (Nobody expects the British Biologistician!). Interesting experiment: fly to London, P.Z. and see if you can get in.
C) Shouldn't an interviewee be entitled to a screening or advance copy in order to see how they were portrayed or if their position was accurately presented? I mean, that sounds like the ethical... Oh.
Well, it would be polite... err...
Never mind. I'm obviously expecting too much.
Posted by: Joshua | March 20, 2008 10:53 PM
There's only one thing to say in this situation: PZ FTW!
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | March 20, 2008 10:54 PM
Hey, PZ, I hope that when you meet back up with your family and guest, assuming that you don't have to bail them out of jail, you'll make another blog post to update the events and post about it on PT as well.
Posted by: paul | March 20, 2008 10:54 PM
Crap, forget post 260, just searched a little more thoroughly and he is going to be.
Posted by: revmonkeyboy | March 20, 2008 10:54 PM
Lol, extravaganza! That is f-ing great. What total idiots these folks must be. No offense to you, PZ, but Dawkins has to be the most widely recognized atheist in existence. How could they recognize you and totally pass over a widely known skeptic of creationism and rampant insanity. Dawkins has written so many books on the subject. Please Utube an interview with Dawkins after the show. This could really be viral, the logical minority will rejoice with laughter. Even the fence sitters will get the humor of this! I pray to the FSM you can find the time and a camera! This is beyond comedy, it is shockingly hilarious. Thank you for the heads up, it really made my day!
Posted by: SphinctOr | March 20, 2008 10:55 PM
***********************************************
** WARNING: Impending DIGG Effect Imminent **
***********************************************
Please Mirror.
Warning - System Resources Low.
Warning - Too friggin Funny.
Warning - System Fail
Posted by: firemancarl | March 20, 2008 10:56 PM
All I could say is holy shit!
Posted by: BlueIndependent | March 20, 2008 10:57 PM
ROFL @ #248, that is PRICELESS!
Posted by: Angus | March 20, 2008 10:58 PM
Paul (#265) Where did you search?
Posted by: Colin | March 20, 2008 10:58 PM
I just wrote Seth Myers about it. He probably won't get the message in time for Weekend Update this Saturday, but it's worth a shot.
Posted by: So Larries | March 20, 2008 10:59 PM
PZ, it is meant to be a tribute to your honesty that I accept this story as the unvarnished truth, even with a punchline that sounds like an urban legend, which it may well become.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 20, 2008 10:59 PM
"You should have allowed yourself to be arrested. You were to commit no crime at all. Please don't show courage on the web only to show cowardice in real life. Is this how you stand up for what you believe?"
Well, there's always criminal trespass and disturbance of the peace. If I were in PZ's position, I know I'd be iffy about the legality of it. He wouldn't have accomplished anything by making a fuss and getting arrested, not to mention that this delicious irony wouldn't have come about if he'd done otherwise.
Posted by: paul | March 20, 2008 11:01 PM
@270, I clicked on the HBO schedule, and the listing for 3/21 lists richard dawkins. don't know if it's been updated since then though, so i don't know.
Posted by: Jesús Pineda | March 20, 2008 11:01 PM
Absolutely HILARIOUS!!!!! Can't wait for Dawkins' comments on the movie. Just goes to show how dumb you have to be to buy into the whole ID nonsense: keep the cephalopods out, but let the Babe Ruth of atheism in... Oh the hilarity!
Posted by: pshaw | March 20, 2008 11:02 PM
PZ... you are my hero for today.
Posted by: ngong | March 20, 2008 11:02 PM
I guess there was some kind of list of "likely troublemakers", and a Dawkins appearance was considered highly improbable. Yet...it happened! Evidence of design!
Posted by: Angus | March 20, 2008 11:02 PM
Don't worry Paul (See post #270) I found it.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | March 20, 2008 11:02 PM
Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!
Once again we have a fine example of why I no longer feel badly about calling cdesign proponentists stupid.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | March 20, 2008 11:03 PM
Maybe it won't make Seth Myers and Weekend Update, but Letterman perhaps, via Franken? Too bad Al was just on. =/
Posted by: The Flying Trilobite | March 20, 2008 11:03 PM
#254 Danny;
Far be it for me to answer for Mr Myers, but being arrested to "stand up for what (he) believe(s)" is not bravery.
In some cases sheer defiance could be brave, but cool intellect and galvanizing the blogging-troops is standing up for what I suspect Prof. Myers believes.
If indeed legal action needs to be taken (and I agree with Greta Christina that it may not - this could have been a pre-show screening or party and not a public event)we can all rest assured it will be worked out.
Posted by: abb3w | March 20, 2008 11:04 PM
FWIW, having cops around in anticipation of throwing out disruptive undesirables is a perfectly kosher use of the local cops. I worked at a restaurant that routinely had one around. (Mind you, the city I live in is more than a little weird; the local Barnes and Noble was the high point of local crime, including three or four armed robberies until the local cops stated an officer there full-time.)
On the other hand, I(AmNotALawyer) wonder if you have a Civil Rights case based on religious discrimination. Might be hard to prove if they let Dawkins in, though.
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 20, 2008 11:04 PM
So, where are they now? Is the movie over?
WTF is happening!!!!
Posted by: Dick Durata | March 20, 2008 11:04 PM
Come on, PZ, fess up. You were wearing your squid costume, weren't you?
Posted by: John | March 20, 2008 11:04 PM
PZ - We will post your bail!
Go back and demand to see that crappy movie!
Offer twice the face value...no wait - that would be nothing.
Never-mind.
Damn math.
Posted by: Boosterz | March 20, 2008 11:04 PM
Make sure Richard Dawkins saves his ticket stub. Ebay FTW! lol
Posted by: skidoo | March 20, 2008 11:04 PM
You don't even have to give the creationists a shovel. They dig their own graves just fine with their fingernails.
Posted by: Illucian | March 20, 2008 11:04 PM
Absolutely priceless.
Posted by: Gary Bohn | March 20, 2008 11:06 PM
Not even Hollywood could come up with a script like this.
Looks like God, god, FSM, and even Loki were all smiling on you today PZ.
Posted by: Cheezits | March 20, 2008 11:08 PM
I haven't read all 185 posts yet, so maybe someone else has already told you this, but I would contact the ACLU immediately.
Naw, that would spoil the moment. :-D
Posted by: Dan | March 20, 2008 11:08 PM
You should have told them you were there to see Horton Hears a Who with your family. You know, like a good family oriented person with strong family values.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 20, 2008 11:08 PM
FWIW, having cops around in anticipation of throwing out disruptive undesirables is a perfectly kosher use of the local cops.
the problem is:
who decides which people are "undesirable".
I'm sorry, but I completely disagree that this is a kosher use of official police personnel. I would even have an argument about using private personnel to accomplish this.
We saw GW doing the exact same thing with his televised "town meetings".
it's bullshit, and it's not good for ya.
matters not whether it is strictly legal, it's rather a slippery slope.
Posted by: noncarborundum | March 20, 2008 11:08 PM
Excellent.
I do regret that Cherryh never hired Marc Okrand to devise a complete Kifish grammar.
Posted by: Destiny | March 20, 2008 11:09 PM
CNN Bulletin: "Riot at Mall of America"
Posted by: Mollie | March 20, 2008 11:10 PM
I have to admit, I was totally shocked by that reveal.
So epic.
Posted by: Tom Woolf | March 20, 2008 11:10 PM
Take me next time, please! As a devout atheist, I can't imagine how much fun it would be to start pointing out the fallacies of the deliriously inept deranged psychopaths....
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 20, 2008 11:10 PM
...(Mind you, the city I live in is more than a little weird; the local Barnes and Noble was the high point of local crime, including three or four armed robberies until the local cops stated an officer there full-time.)
note that this is hardly the same thing. there was a demonstrable risk to public safety with what you are describing here.
it wasn't the manager of the store deciding to rent a cop in order to keep out people he doesn't like.
Posted by: benjdm | March 20, 2008 11:11 PM
Isn't the American Atheists conference in Minnesota this weekend? Dawkins was probably in Minnesota for that.
Posted by: Alan J | March 20, 2008 11:11 PM
Abso-freaking-lutely hilarious! Mr. Myers, you are made of win.
Posted by: Haate | March 20, 2008 11:12 PM
Oh. Their. god. that's just beautiful. I can't wait to see what Mr. Dawkins has to say about this.
Posted by: noncarborundum | March 20, 2008 11:12 PM
I actually learned ROTFLMAOSTC before I learned ROFL.
That's "Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Ass Off, Scaring The Cat."
Posted by: reed | March 20, 2008 11:13 PM
silence #225
I agree, and honestly, it would be a waste of resources to take to court. The usual "we reserve the right to refuse service yada yada" is broad enough that you'd have a hard time proving discrimination even if you wanted to. I don't even know if the quoted section would apply to a nominally "private" screening.
However, they know, and we know, that is exactly why they kept him out. The fact that the civil rights act specifically mentions theaters made it too funny not to post. Especially given that the movie is about the alleged discrimination against ID.
In any case it's a wonderful own goal on their part. What does it say about a film when the producers refuse to let someone who appeared in the film into a screening ? Not noticing Dawkins is just the icing on the cake.
Posted by: thadd | March 20, 2008 11:14 PM
I was all ready to get outraged and upset, now it's just too funny to do anything but laugh. I can't believe that PZ is apparently more recognized than Richard Dawkins (at least at the Mall of America).
Posted by: Diego | March 20, 2008 11:15 PM
Okay, this story had just made my evening!
Posted by: EdSG | March 20, 2008 11:15 PM
Best. Sabot.
Ever.
Posted by: Paula Helm Murray | March 20, 2008 11:16 PM
They probably didn't put Mr. Dawkins on their list because they probably assumed he wouldn't be there. Just guessing.
On the other hand, I wish I could figure out which Alaska fish organization I can complain to because every time I see B-n St--n on the wild Alaska fish commercial it raises my blood pressure. He's Just a pitchman without any kind of good guidance. But there are several organizations...
Posted by: Steven Alleyn | March 20, 2008 11:16 PM
Well... I don't know how to take that... LOL! Priceless.
Posted by: Ebonmuse | March 20, 2008 11:17 PM
This is the greatest thing I've read in a long time. The fact that the producers of Expelled, a movie whose sole purpose is to complain about nasty Darwinist censors stifling free inquiry, had guards at the door turning away undesirables, just adds another layer of sweet irony. It's as if these people don't recognize the depths of self-parody to which they're descending.
Posted by: Bruce Breece FCD | March 20, 2008 11:17 PM
Congrats and a hearty shiver me timbers PZ. Reading this particular blog entry and the comments has been the most hilarious and edifying experience I've had in quite a while. This one will be a keeper for years to come and will burn up the internets for a few days at least.
Posted by: Henwli | March 20, 2008 11:18 PM
Good grief. As I read the post the punchline was hidden just below the visible area. There's only one basic way of replying to something like this:
10 print "HA"
20 goto 10
Posted by: John Squire | March 20, 2008 11:19 PM
When PZ mentions that everyone "had to sign in and show ID," is he talking about signing a nondisclosure agreement?
Will Dawkins be prevented from publicly commenting?
Posted by: lao tzu | March 20, 2008 11:19 PM
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/chronicle.php?article=8
Disinvited to a Screening, a Critic Ends Up in a Faith-Based Crossfire
... "After Mr. Moore's review, Mr. Stein commented, "Oh well. This will probably happen a lot more times."
The above from the expelledthemovie site tells me this was probably a publicity stunt. The 300 comments above this one tell me it'll work.
I don't think Ben Stein is interested in anything but Ben Stein's money.
Hey, it's still hilarious.
Posted by: Harmony | March 20, 2008 11:19 PM
PZ!!! PLEASE READ THIS! Last night, Nightline did a segment on a science museum in Denver that allows groups to come in and give a Biblical tour of the museum! A leader takes groups of children in and tells them how all the evolution science in the museum is wrong! I was amazed that the museum head let them do this, I wouldn't. After all, they all could go in, just without the unathorized tour. But it sure shows up the EXPELLED people!
Posted by: rsquared | March 20, 2008 11:19 PM
PZ must've forgotten to get his horns trimmed and tuck his tail into his boxers before going to the mall. I'm still laughing, and living in Dallas within walking distance of a dozen churches doesn't seem as hopeless as it did an hour ago.
Posted by: Sili | March 20, 2008 11:20 PM
How I wish I coulda been there.
Reminded me of this: http://www.shortpacked.com/d/20050801.html - only funnier.
Posted by: Jet Black | March 20, 2008 11:20 PM
I'd like to see a guest blog entry from Richard Dawkins reviewing the film. That would be the height of amusement.
I can't believe though that the producers have carefully gone through the lists of names for people to evict. I wonder if there were any others.
Posted by: Dan | March 20, 2008 11:20 PM
Please SUE THEM!!!! I know this was funny, but if they get by with kicking you out they can do this to others because of religion, ethnicity or race. Your local civil rights board should be able to help. Raise hell to protect others.
Posted by: deadman_932 | March 20, 2008 11:21 PM
You should have allowed yourself to be arrested. You were to commit no crime at all. Please don't show courage on the web only to show cowardice in real life. Is this how you stand up for what you believe?
Get real, Danny. Getting busted would likely involve trying to shove past security to get arrested for trespass or creating a public disturbance -- with your daughter in tow -- leaving a guest (Dawkins)in the lurch.
Try to engage your brain before you post. Being stupid isn't brave. Being temperate isn't cowardice.
Posted by: Danny | March 20, 2008 11:22 PM
"Well, there's always criminal trespass and disturbance of the peace. If I were in PZ's position, I know I'd be iffy about the legality of it. He wouldn't have accomplished anything by making a fuss and getting arrested, not to mention that this delicious irony wouldn't have come about if he'd done otherwise.
Far be it for me to answer for Mr Myers, but being arrested to "stand up for what (he) believe(s)" is not bravery.
In some cases sheer defiance could be brave, but cool intellect and galvanizing the blogging-troops is standing up for what I suspect Prof. Myers believes."
"If indeed legal action needs to be taken (and I agree with Greta Christina that it may not - this could have been a pre-show screening or party and not a public event)we can all rest assured it will be worked out. "
Ha ha, I'm sure it indeed 'will all be worked out'. I'm certain Prof. Myers has stood up for what he believes in. Fact is, he would not need have 'made a fuss' - only stand his ground for what is his right to do - go to a movie in the MOA. Even if technically 'a crime' it is certainly NOT an actual crime and he should have had the courage to stand his ground on what he believes and potentially been arrested. That would be a far better and greater show of conviction, in real terms, of what we stand for. It's like the old adage - 'They came for the Jews/Xians/Zoasters and I did nothing...' They came for the Atheist and he did nothing.
Posted by: Tressa | March 20, 2008 11:23 PM
So, in Christian speak, while Expelled was keeping a Demon out Satan just strolled right in. I love it!
Posted by: M. Robert Bond | March 20, 2008 11:24 PM
Hee, I can't wait until Cuttlefish sees this and does a treatment! This absolutely need to be put into verse, and, and... someone by PZ a beer!
Posted by: TK Kenyon | March 20, 2008 11:25 PM
ROTFL so hard I had as asthma attack. After a couple squirts of albuterol, I read it again and dang near had to go to the hospital.
Oh, my stars, that's funny.
I'm so linking to this on my blog: http://rabidatheists.blogspot.com/.
TK Kenyon, Author of RABID: A Novel and CALLOUS: A Novel
"A science vs. religion smackdown. Guess who wins?"
Posted by: Winter Toad | March 20, 2008 11:25 PM
Well, ERV has an amusing take on this.
Posted by: Epikt | March 20, 2008 11:26 PM
noncarborundum:
So if, after this Great Moment in Creationism, I begin to refer to PZ as Mekt-Hakkikt, at least one other person will understand.
Posted by: Danny | March 20, 2008 11:26 PM
"Get real, Danny. Getting busted would likely involve trying to shove past security to get arrested for trespass or creating a public disturbance -- with your daughter in tow -- leaving a guest (Dawkins)in the lurch."
Why would anyone have to shove security personnel? That's a straw-man argument. He could have simply stood his place in line until removed. No shoving required.
Posted by: Mark | March 20, 2008 11:26 PM
I get the impression that this was not an open public screening of the film, considering that you had to sign in and show ID. The theater has every right to deny entry to any individual, unfortunately. This is the same principle that allows casino owners to ban individuals from setting foot in their establishment without due process. They don't need a reason.
Posted by: Bachalon | March 20, 2008 11:27 PM
How the hell are they gonna spin this? "No no, we meant to kick Dawkins/both of them out!"
Too damn funny.
Posted by: pradeep | March 20, 2008 11:27 PM
Bravo. Masterful. Too good to be true.
Posted by: Dahan | March 20, 2008 11:27 PM
Snort worthy! Biggest smile I've had all day. Fuck those bastards.
Posted by: DaveH | March 20, 2008 11:28 PM
Abso-fucking-lutely hilarious. Well done!
Posted by: Martin | March 20, 2008 11:30 PM
Will all you dumbasses wailing "You should sue!" and "You should have gotten yourself arrested!" please just STFU! Don't you GET IT!? PZ didn't NEED to do those things! He's already won. Fucking DUH. The Expelled tools have had the biggest epic fail since Travolta signed on to do Battlefield: Earth! Before their screening tonight even ended, the entire planet knows what these dipshits did and the ridicule will never be lived down! People will be looking back on this 10 years from now and laughing. The IDiots handed this one to PZ wrapped in a goddamn ribbon, and he didn't even have to do anything but show up.
Why is this hard to grasp?
Posted by: Danny | March 20, 2008 11:31 PM
I think it would have been ever better P.R. for him to stand his ground (not shove anyone etc. - so fucking shrill) and be arrested for his beliefs.
Posted by: rmp | March 20, 2008 11:32 PM
What Martin said!
Posted by: gbear | March 20, 2008 11:32 PM
Well when you're done laughing about the movie, get your butts OUT of the Mall of America and go somewhere decent. Go get some burgers at The Shamrock on West 7th in St Paul.
Posted by: paul | March 20, 2008 11:33 PM
Get arrested for believing that he has the right to see a private screening of a movie, when the law obviously says the opposite. I don't know, I have a little more respect for PZ's intelligence than you do Danny.
Posted by: SteadyEddy | March 20, 2008 11:34 PM
Ditto Martin #331... well said.
Posted by: JoshH | March 20, 2008 11:34 PM
I don't think there's anything funny about this. It's just so absurd I can't laugh. You know? I mean, there's an absurdity level that goes so far beyond absurd you can't help but laugh. But this goes well beyond that, even.
Posted by: Danny | March 20, 2008 11:34 PM
"Will all you dumbasses wailing "You should sue!" and "You should have gotten yourself arrested!" please just STFU! Don't you GET IT!? PZ didn't NEED to do those things! He's already won. Fucking DUH. The Expelled tools have had the biggest epic fail since Travolta signed on to do Battlefield: Earth! Before their screening tonight even ended, the entire planet knows what these dipshits did and the ridicule will never be lived down! People will be looking back on this 10 years from now and laughing. The IDiots handed this one to PZ wrapped in a goddamn ribbon, and he didn't even have to do anything but show up.
Why is this hard to grasp?"
Prove it.
Posted by: Dan | March 20, 2008 11:34 PM
I wonder if this will be included on Expelled's atrocious Wikipedia page.
Posted by: flashbazzzbo | March 20, 2008 11:34 PM
I dont think this is amusing at all!What policeman threatens a man with arrest for standing in line for a movie?Now,if the man in question is intoxicated,or making threats,or,as someone mentioned earlier, is without shirt or shoes,by all means,this individual could be turned away,with the threat of arrest being very real,if he were to resist.However,it is obvious that the orders were given from people who are not law enforcement types,but merely promoters,or even producers of this film.If so,by what authority do these individuals have the power to command a public servant to order a non-threatening,shirt and shoe wearing person to step out of line,or face arrest?I maintain that just because a certain person may be critical of an idea,that this becomes a matter of civil rights,in that,PZ,being a known critic of ID nonsense ,was singled out merely because THEY knew he was going to rip them up,and rightly so.When did this become a punishible offense?I have,over the years,heard many different critics deride many movies,some of which are among my favorites of all time.Never have I screamed in protest at their criticism,nor did I demand that they be incarcerated.SO,can I,myself, decide when and where(being in no way connected with law enforcement),a certain individual can or cannot be where they want to be,just because i dont agree with them?And what's more,could I order the local cops to look out for that certain individual,who isnt wanted by the law,and who just DISAGREES with me,and then order him to leave the premises or face arrest,without premise????I'm having a hard time thinking there is not a potential lawsuit here,and if there is not,I am very afraid for those who choose to voice their dissent.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 20, 2008 11:35 PM
Please, someone come in and tell us that we shouldn't ridicule these people. I DARE you.
Can't imagine suing them for it, though. I think the whole incident is too silly, and surely anyone suggesting the lawsuit route has never actually sued anyone and had to go through all the involved rigamrole for months and months. Nope, far better to just laugh. And laugh. And point. And laugh.
As the good Proinsias Cassidy would say, "WANKERRRRRRS!"
Posted by: KC | March 20, 2008 11:35 PM
To PZ: Sir, Bravo. This is too good to be true. I look forward to Dawkins' take down of this utter bilge.
@#331 Agreed. No arresting needed. He'd gone and done more damage than he could have possibly by raising a stink - he'd enabled a high profile individual to rip them a new one.
Posted by: Michael Lonergan | March 20, 2008 11:35 PM
Holy Crap! I just read this on the BA blog. So, they actually stopped you from attending a frakkin' movie!? WTF!!?? Can they even do that?
Geez, I know from reading Phil's blog that PZ is a Rabble rouser :) but this is beyond belief. It prompts the obvious question: Whatthe hell did you do to deserve this? I mean you must be some bad ass atheist or something?
Posted by: Martin | March 20, 2008 11:36 PM
Danny, I'm wondering who's more clueless about life -- you or Ben Stein.
Posted by: QED | March 20, 2008 11:36 PM
Sitting here sick as a dog tonight, thinking my long weekend has gone sour, then this. This is better than any medicine I could have hoped for. After I clean the Sprite off my keyboard, I'm going back to bed a happy man. If this isn't a fever dream, it's the most hilarious thing I've read in weeks!
Posted by: Sharilyn | March 20, 2008 11:37 PM
Somewhere between the irony and the hypocrisy I am laughing to hard to breath,(also reaching for my Albuterol) and irritated beyond belief! Just what did the dumb-asses who made this decision THINK was going to happen?
(I imagine in a backroom - when hearing of the immediate response to this - a Homer Simpsonesque D'oh! escaping from the lips of the brainiac who made the decision to expel PZ)
Posted by: Dude | March 20, 2008 11:38 PM
#331
Exactly!
PZ doesn't need to sue, or make a scene, or get himself arrested. Though, you could argue that by staying out of jail tonight he has enabled himself to respond in a way that makes a "scene at the mall" insignificant.
Also, if it was a private screening, then he'd have been in the wrong to create that "scene" anyway, and would have zero grounds to launch legal action.
His response was perfect!
Well done PZ!
Posted by: rmp | March 20, 2008 11:38 PM
PZ, please give us a clue when we can expect a review! Tonight? Tomorrow? I've got to schedule my sleeping.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 20, 2008 11:38 PM
Also: I'm too too envious of your daughter and your wife for getting to see a movie with Richard Dawkins. I imagine he's too staid an individual to do MST3K-style commentary, but still, wow. I hope Skatje does a nice blog post about this.
Posted by: Sharilyn | March 20, 2008 11:39 PM
#331 BRAVO, Can we have a RAMEN!
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 20, 2008 11:39 PM
.However,it is obvious that the orders were given from people who are not law enforcement types,but merely promoters,or even producers of this film.If so,by what authority do these individuals have the power to command a public servant to order a non-threatening,shirt and shoe wearing person to step out of line,or face arrest?
I completely agree, provided, of course, that there were actually on duty cops involved, and it wasn't just a bunch of thugs in mall guard uniforms.
If on duty police WERE involved in this, it would indeed be worth asking if the city supports this use of its personnel.
this takes nothing away from the gift given to PZ at all; it's an entirely separate issue from the irony that is religious IDiocy.
Posted by: Blue Gal | March 20, 2008 11:40 PM
but see? I knew you were the most wonderful there is, PZ. A bigger rock star of the atheist blogosphere than even Dawkins. He got to see the screening and he is STILL jealous. xo
Posted by: Gary Bohn | March 20, 2008 11:40 PM
PZ did precisely the correct thing by drawing attention away from Dawkins and Skatje allowing them to watch the film. Getting arrested would have prevented both Dawkins and Skatje from entering the theater.
More will come of this the way it played out than if PZ had been arrested.
Posted by: speedwell | March 20, 2008 11:41 PM
@Danny: You don't understand. There were TWO wins here. The first win was how bad it made them look to throw out someone who appeared in that very film as an interviewee, as if (probably because) they didn't want him to see the mess they made of his interview and because they feared honest and pointed criticism. The second win was when they let in the very last person they wanted to let in, Richard Dawkins.
The third win will, I think, be when Skatje, a witness to both events, covers this.
Posted by: Jules | March 20, 2008 11:42 PM
I converted Sharilyn (#350) to Pastafariansim just an hour ago. It just made sense to her...
Posted by: John | March 20, 2008 11:42 PM
Martin -> I guess some people just do not like to see discrimination. We understand that PZ "pOwned" B. Stein/Expelled after being tossed out, but it still pisses some of us off. PZ is most likely being bought multiple drinks at a local tavern, and him and Richard Dawkins are now Best Buddies. Lucky bastard.
That's all.
Posted by: DAC | March 20, 2008 11:42 PM
Don't crow too loudly, PZ. Rumor has it Dawkins made an ass of himself after the screening. "Ass Prod" Mark Mathis gave Dawkins a little bit of rope, and Dawkins was quick to start winding it around his own neck. I think you'll get a bit of egg on your face too out of this, PZ.
Posted by: Bryan | March 20, 2008 11:42 PM
Lolz.
Posted on the front page of the Myspace Atheists and Agnostics group. This story needs to go viral.
Posted by: ERV | March 20, 2008 11:43 PM
So... am I the only one sitting here, hitting refresh every ~30 seconds... luving all the comments and waiting for an official Dawkins update?
Im so not going to sleep tonight, now.
LOL Im such a loser LOOOOL!
Posted by: gg | March 20, 2008 11:43 PM
Kudos, PZ!
Down here in the Carolinas, the best I can do is get thrown out of an Applebee's...
Posted by: Chris | March 20, 2008 11:43 PM
LOL
That is just spectacular, and spectacularly funny. I look forward to hearing what Dr. Dawkins has to say about the, *cough*, film.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 20, 2008 11:43 PM
I imagine he's too staid an individual to do MST3K-style commentary
I dunno about that, I recall Kristine blogging about that trip to the Galapagos that Dawkins was also on; and he had a few quips along the MST3K type.
I don't think he could resist a good poke, but he would do it quietly.
Posted by: Sastra | March 20, 2008 11:44 PM
Of course everyone "had to sign in and show ID." That's how dangerous being a Christian Creationist in America is. They have enemies all around. They have to be so careful.
It's so dangerous being a Christian Creationist in America, they even need police protection. That's what it's gotten down to. That's how bad it is. Atheists try to sneak in and disrupt their worship services. Well, okay, take notes. Or maybe just watch.
To make them nervous. On purpose.
Well, okay, it was a movie, and not a worship service. But Christians getting together. Bonding together, in a time of need, to become strong, to support each other. They were kicked out of the public schools, kicked out of the peer review magazines, kicked out of the textbooks. All they have now is the movie theater -- and each other.
And PZ tries to get in. He can't leave them alone. He can't just let them be. Dawkins, too. They want to sneer and scoff at Christian Creationists. This is persecution. Like under the Romans, or Jesus on the cross.
Is there nowhere Christian Creationists can be safe anymore in all of America? Is even the Mall of America a hostile environment? Must they undergo Darwinist eye-rolling and brow-lifting and heavy-sighing in their own movie theater? Is nothing at all sacred to these atheist evolutionary biology monsters?
PZ and Dawkins owe an apology to Ben Stein and to the producers of Expelled and above all to Christian Creationists in America. That's what. Thank God for that cop who was the only one brave enough to stand up for Christian Creationists and their America.
/sarcasm
Posted by: kwandongbrian | March 20, 2008 11:46 PM
I only read the first 20 or comments so I hope I am not repeating too many people.
In Ontario, Canada, the Provincial Police can moonlight in uniform for certain events. I apologise that i don't know all the details.
If the guard was in fact a police officer, he may well have been working entirely above board. Restricting someone's access to Expelled is funny but not criminal if the theatre is privately owned.
Posted by: The Flying Trilobite | March 20, 2008 11:47 PM
#319 Danny;
Again, I am not certain this was a public movie. You do have a point about the slippery slope of discrimination, and I know that if it had been myself, I would have been fuming. If it had been myself and my family, I would have been fuming, and assured the guard I would not cause trouble (in that moment) much like Prof Myers.
Getting arrested by standing ground is not the only option in cases of discrimination. It does work, and is very effective in many instances, you are correct about that.
Litigation, getting press involved, and creating a possibly viral media story can also work to shame the people doing the discriminating enough that they will not do it again. Approaching a police officer and the manager of the theatre together in a calm manner could also work.
With how humorous this has been to all of us, perhaps Prof. Myers is also finding it funny in the moment and gathering his thoughts.
All of us here can suggest choices of action for PZ, and he can choose to listen or not. However, I'm not there at that mall, I don't think you are either, so it is hard to say whether there was good reason for PZ to blog instead of demand.
At the moment I feel we have enough facts to find it funny and be concerned about civil rights. Perhaps we should wait for a few more facts before deciding PZ is committing an act of cowardice (your comment #254)?
Posted by: DaveH | March 20, 2008 11:47 PM
This confirms it, god's an atheist.
Posted by: Demonic Gophers | March 20, 2008 11:48 PM
359: "So... am I the only one sitting here, hitting refresh every ~30 seconds... luving all the comments and waiting for an official Dawkins update?"
Nope.
Posted by: Berserk | March 20, 2008 11:48 PM
Dawkins is on Bill Maher tomorrow, hope he mentions this to the American public.
Posted by: Beth B. | March 20, 2008 11:48 PM
ERV @ 359: You're definitely not alone. I didn't need to get that homework done, anyway :-)
This post and the subsequent discussion has definitely made my week.
Posted by: MTran | March 20, 2008 11:48 PM
Danny said: "Even if technically 'a crime' it is certainly NOT an actual crime"
Anything that is "technically" a crime, is, in fact, a crime (even if it is later found to be unconstitutional, but that is not the case here). You seem to think that if something is malum prohibitum rather than malum in se, it cannot be criminal. You are wrong.
"he should have had the courage to stand his ground on what he believes and potentially been arrested."
So, what great moral or philosophical issue is at stake here? Really, what over-arching ethical principle should over-take a rational response?
"That would be a far better and greater show of conviction, in real terms, of what we stand for."
Who is "we"? Do you mean "you"? And what do you stand for, other than dipshit arrogance? If you ever find yourself arrested, for any reason, explain to your defense attorney that you are just "felony stupid" and wanted to uphold your right to a trial by your peers.
Sheesh, I went out of my way to antagonize authority in the 60s, and got beat by the cops for it. So it's not like I don't know how to stand up for my own convictions, but your statements convict you of brainlessness. I would not want you on my side of any argument.
Posted by: paul | March 20, 2008 11:49 PM
ERV- right there with you. *sigh* you just made me aware of my nerdiness. I think i'm gonna go for a little jog, then when I come back I'll have like 100 more comments to sift through instead of 3 every refresh lol.
Posted by: Dan | March 20, 2008 11:49 PM
It's so sad when all you have are rumors and lies.
Posted by: Gary Bohn | March 20, 2008 11:49 PM
Sastra;
I have no idea who you are but from where I sit, you did that entirely too well. It was a bit frightening.
Posted by: Dave Carlson | March 20, 2008 11:50 PM
Wow, I think this thread might be in danger of bringing the SB servers down (of course, I just made it worse!).
Posted by: LionDancer | March 20, 2008 11:50 PM
What a great story! I'll probably go see this "movie", but I think I'll sit on the back of the chair and look away from the screen.
PZ for president.
Posted by: Rob | March 20, 2008 11:50 PM
An absolute classic!! Thanks for bringing some joy to the holiday weekend.
By the way, does this mean that in their eyes you are a bigger devil than Richard Dawkin's himself?
Posted by: dave | March 20, 2008 11:50 PM
That is just hilarious, can't wait to read the full account of the movie from Dawkins perspective.
p.s. see PZ thats what you get for those devilish good looks, next time keep those horns under a hat and that tail safely kept away. :)
Posted by: Randy Owens | March 20, 2008 11:50 PM
Too late, Stein & Co. already did that. It's in the projector. They do seem to like that projection, don't they, after all?Posted by: ERV | March 20, 2008 11:51 PM
PAUL DONT GO!!!
Kristine just posted a short account!!!!
I just went from 'LOL!!' to *PISSED* in 5 seconds.
Posted by: ema | March 20, 2008 11:51 PM
Right! This is so epic I say we start work on the obligatory commemorative statue/monument combo immediately.
Posted by: john | March 20, 2008 11:51 PM
PZ's quote from the past:
"
Oh, well. I have two warnings for the creationists.
One, I will go see this movie, and I will cheer loudly at my 30 seconds or whatever on the screen, and I will certainly disembowel its arguments here and in any print venue that wants me. That's going to be fun."
Ref: http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1559,Im-gonna-be-a-MOVIE-STAR,PZ-Myers-Pharyngula,page2
Posted by: Tom Zychowski | March 20, 2008 11:52 PM
I do indeed find that amusing.
I hope Richard makes his way to Winnipeg and visits one of our schools.
Take care.
Posted by: Orac | March 20, 2008 11:52 PM
Hilarious!
Here's hoping Richard Dawkins writes a review...
Posted by: Brachychiton | March 20, 2008 11:53 PM
I think we're seeing the IDiots' spin in Danny's posts.
Posted by: Lee Harrison | March 20, 2008 11:53 PM
DAC @ 357:
"Don't crow too loudly, PZ. Rumor has it Dawkins made an ass of himself after the screening. "Ass Prod" Mark Mathis gave Dawkins a little bit of rope, and Dawkins was quick to start winding it around his own neck. I think you'll get a bit of egg on your face too out of this, PZ."
Do you have a source for these rumours?
Posted by: Mus | March 20, 2008 11:53 PM
Oh man, this post made my day. That was AWESOME!
Posted by: Susan | March 20, 2008 11:53 PM
DANNY! Had PZ gotten himself arrested, he wouldn't have been able to make this marvelous post now, would he!
Posted by: Simon G. | March 20, 2008 11:53 PM
So PZ's the decoy atheist now?
Posted by: Jules | March 20, 2008 11:54 PM
Does DAC (#357) mean "Dumb-Acting Creationist"?
Posted by: Matt | March 20, 2008 11:54 PM
@ #332: I think it would have been ever better P.R. for him to stand his ground (not shove anyone etc. - so fucking shrill) and be arrested for his beliefs.
Stupid thinking at its finest. I'll bet you walk into traffic without looking just because you have the right-of-way, don't you?
It gains Dr. Myers nothing to be arrested in a situation where laughter is actually a far better weapon.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 20, 2008 11:54 PM
Don't crow too loudly, PZ. Rumor has it Dawkins made an ass of himself after the screening. "Ass Prod" Mark Mathis gave Dawkins a little bit of rope, and Dawkins was quick to start winding it around his own neck. I think you'll get a bit of egg on your face too out of this, PZ.
This sounds like a the last gasp of a man about to throw himself off a cliff.
"You'll be sorry!"
I smell napalm.
Do you have more fear and desperation from the suicide squad arm of the xian death cult for us to feed on?
Posted by: Phil Plait, aka The Bad Astronomer | March 20, 2008 11:55 PM
Blogged, and submitted to Fark as well. This may be... The Greatest Story Ever Told.
Posted by: Scott | March 20, 2008 11:55 PM
This is the best damn story I've heard all month. All fucking month!
The ID'ers are so utterly Keystone Kops.
Posted by: Martin | March 20, 2008 11:56 PM
John #356: It isn't so much discrimination as weapons-grade stupidity. Here's the deal.
Irony breaker #1: PZ is one of their interviewees, whose appearance they secured under false pretenses, and yet they refused to admit him to the film in which he himself appears, for the obvious reason that they know he'll get on his massive-trafficked blog and report every error, misrepresentation and falsehood in every frame, in encyclopedic detail.
Irony breaker #2: In the process of ejecting PZ, they somehow failed to notice that standing right next to him in line was perhaps the most famous scientist, atheist, and evolution advocate currently alive, who's wrapping up a promotional tour for a book that was a New York Times bestseller for over a year, with cumulative sales of over 1.5 million copies in English. This is reminiscent of the old joke about the actress who was so stupid about how to climb the ladder in Hollywood that she slept with the screenwriter.
Everything the IDiots did tonight raises the entire concept of stupidity to such previously undreamt heights (or depths, as the case may be), that treating it like it's some sort of act of discrimination and violation of civil rights to be taken so seriously that only legal recourse will suit, would be beyond overkill. There's no need to launch an attack on your enemy when they've already torpedoed their own submarine.
There are legitimate situations where discrimination and rights-trampling occur, that should be dealt with appropriately. This isn't one of them. This is like watching a really stupid person who's been handed a high explosive with a note saying "DO NOT PRESS THE RED BUTTON" saying to themselves, "Hmm, what's this red button do?"
Why get pissed off at this? How was PZ hurt? I wish somebody would do something this stupid to me!
Posted by: BlueIndependent | March 20, 2008 11:56 PM
#331 has it nailed. Everyone wanting to pull the Rosa Parks card calm the hell down. The Expelled tools couldn't have screwed up worse. They managed to identify a *LESS* well-known detractor (no offense PZ), while letting a globally-known and outspoken detractor with several best-selling books and an on-going tour slip by.
It writes itself.
Make a scene and get arrested? Are you kidding me? And hand the story BACK to them? Someone in line for the flick would have a picture phone, and they'd run a picture of PZ getting hauled off. The local churches everywhere would be heard cheering for miles this Sunday morning.
As offensive as the Expelled conspirators are, this is a massively bad punch in the face they gave themselves. This isn't epic fail, this is Darwin Award material.
Posted by: MTran | March 20, 2008 11:56 PM
Does DAC (#357) mean "Dumb-Acting Creationist"?
I don't think it's an act...
Posted by: Kagehi | March 20, 2008 11:57 PM
Make that two. Just don't ask me to pronounce it out loud, presuming one could even do so without something like the double set of teeth also seen in the Alien movies, to make all the proper clicks. ;) lol
Still kind of laughing over this one. Tried to tell my mother what was going on, but the rest of my family either doesn't care (or in my father's case chocks it up to, "just what happens every generation", like nothing has ever progressed or changed since the start of recorded history...), or just doesn't get it. :(
Posted by: Marek Eby | March 20, 2008 11:59 PM
PZ, you're my hero. I mean for ever and ever!
Posted by: Hank Fox | March 20, 2008 11:59 PM
F5, F5, F5 ...
Okay, when comments hit 400, I'm going to bed.
But this is soooo good.
Posted by: Heather | March 20, 2008 11:59 PM
Yup, I submitted this to Fark as well about an hour ago, and it had already been submitted at that point. I, too, am hitting refresh every so often, just waiting to hear what happens when the movie ends and Dawkins et al exit the theatre...
Posted by: larry gassan | March 21, 2008 12:00 AM
Amazing! Never underestimate the power of a closed mind to find you in complete darkness!
Posted by: PalMD | March 21, 2008 12:00 AM
I just have to add my own "HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!111!one!"
Posted by: Brian W. | March 21, 2008 12:01 AM
LLOL (Literally, laughing out loud)
PZ should have told the security guard "BTW, i'm in the movie" as he was walking away.
Posted by: Jim C | March 21, 2008 12:01 AM
It's great to know that irony is still alive in this world!
Posted by: Hairy Doctor Professor | March 21, 2008 12:01 AM
So if, after this Great Moment in Creationism, I begin to refer to PZ as Mekt-Hakkikt, at least one other person will understand.
Gods rot the Personage. And his fluff.
Posted by: Lulu | March 21, 2008 12:01 AM
You've been front-paged at Digg. You're doomed.
Posted by: Hank Fox | March 21, 2008 12:02 AM
The story just made the front page of Digg!
http://digg.com/
Posted by: Jackson | March 21, 2008 12:03 AM
Promoted to popular on digg!
Posted by: John | March 21, 2008 12:03 AM
The movie should be over by now...
They are all out drinking and celebrating the Evolutionist victory! PZ will probably have enough material to Blog for months about partying with Richard Dawkins til the Blue Laws were in effect!
Go PZ!
Posted by: William Wallace | March 21, 2008 12:03 AM
Let me offer two reasons why police officers might have stopped PZ Myers and not Dawkins:
1. PZ Myers is a known member of the PT-mafia.
2. Richard Dawkins is not.
This is how it works in the real world:
Police officers are allowed to moonlight as security guards.
Respectable establishments have a right to decline entry to the likes of PZ Myers.
The question I have is this: How did you find out about the screening? I assume this is for clergy only. When was Dawkins ordained in the church of the NCSE?
Posted by: rrt | March 21, 2008 12:04 AM
It's been a long week, so I really needed this. Thanks PZ & RD. Of course, I think I laughed myself a hernia...
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 21, 2008 12:06 AM
"Respectable establishments have a right to decline entry to the likes of PZ Myers."
Oh, most definitely. He says mean things about people! And he has a BEARD!
Wankerrrrrs...
Posted by: Kiwi | March 21, 2008 12:06 AM
WTF country is this? I guess this comes as non surprise now that BushCo has shredded the Constitution. How sad.
Posted by: Sastra | March 21, 2008 12:06 AM
Kristine wrote:
It will be interesting to know what this refers to. Evidently, after the screening the producer called on Richard Dawkins in the audience to answer questions or something. And then laughed at him (?)
Posted by: Rev. Barky | March 21, 2008 12:07 AM
Interesting coincidence is that the first question Dawkins asked the smug producer was "why did you expel PZ from Expelled?
Posted by: Bad | March 21, 2008 12:07 AM
From Kristine's account at least, it doesn't really sound like the Q&A session was particularly productive.
Given that when they control the venue, we could be cut off at any time, we need to be really good at presenting our points in ways that don't allow them their usual weasel tactics. It's very easy to come up with plausible sounding spin if a critic only gets one question, and the producers get all the last words. It's unfortunately not very easy to put them on the spot in such a situation, especially in front of a lazy, me-tooing audience.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 12:08 AM
1. PZ Myers is a known member of the PT-mafia.
whaddya know, I ask for more sounds of desperate mewling from IDiots, and I get Wallace dropping by to fulfill my request.
hey! The Secret works after all!
ah, the sweet smell of creationists on fire...
I do love a good BBQ
more plz?
remember, this is for posterity, Wallace.
Posted by: Randy Owens | March 21, 2008 12:08 AM
LOL, and now I'm imagining Dawkins in line with you: "These aren't the evolutionists you're looking for." "The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded."
Posted by: Bad | March 21, 2008 12:10 AM
"How did you find out about the screening? I assume this is for clergy only. "
Uh, it was posted on the internet, WW. And you assume wrong as far as I can tell: this latest round of screenings seem to be a bit more open than previous ones, though obviously not open to potential critical thinking.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | March 21, 2008 12:11 AM
My $0.00: http://dererumnatura.us/archives/2008/03/flunked-expelle.html
Posted by: john | March 21, 2008 12:11 AM
I'm kinda tired, and even though a Fundie just stuck his head in the den-of-lions, I'm hitting the sack.
Ya'll have fun with Wallace-
[Insert - William Wallace ass-whooping Here]
Posted by: Rev. Barky | March 21, 2008 12:11 AM
Dawkins was extremely brave speaking up in the middle of a very unfriendly audience. Fortunately there were a few of us to support him but I can't imagine how he could have kept quiet after the the way they butchered his interview. The air was thick with smug.
Posted by: Don Smith, FCD | March 21, 2008 12:12 AM
"Tell me, are you laughing as hard as I am?"
Y...hahahaha...Ye....hahahahahaha...ye...hahahahahaha..ss...hahahahaha
Posted by: c | March 21, 2008 12:13 AM
Now Ben Stein has something in common with the Scientologists -- shadowy spies keeping tabs on a list of designated enemies.
...or the Nixon administration.
Posted by: Sastra | March 21, 2008 12:14 AM
"PT-Mafia?" What?
Posted by: ERV | March 21, 2008 12:14 AM
Genie is commenting over at digg!!
Okay, seriously, I has to go to sleep. Must sleep! AAAAAAARG!
Posted by: Gary Bohn | March 21, 2008 12:14 AM
@382
Do you have information that Dawkins is coming to Western Canada?
It would be interesting if he did.
Posted by: Hank Fox | March 21, 2008 12:15 AM
Someone should definitely start a list of blogs covering/commenting on this story. It's gonna be big.
I'd be interested in the ID spin on it too.
Posted by: WikipediaIsControlledByGodlessLiberals | March 21, 2008 12:15 AM
If you missed the film, it was already covered by NPR a few years ago. You can listen to it here.
Posted by: Lois Willick | March 21, 2008 12:16 AM
I don't get it. What movie called "Expelled". I never heard of it, and I cannot believe there were guards posted to stop people from going into a movie. This sounds dumb!
What am I supposed to be laughing at?
Posted by: Bad | March 21, 2008 12:16 AM
Here's one of the RSVP pages. No "member of the clergy" checkbox I can see. It looks like they relied on active screening against a list of undesirables this time around rather than limiting it only to hand-picked folks.
Posted by: ExitB | March 21, 2008 12:16 AM
God help me! I can't stop laughing!
Posted by: Jeff | March 21, 2008 12:17 AM
This is too funny...but the sad part is that when I get to school tomorrow (I teach HS physics and chem) I won't be able to share this with my fellow biology teachers. They won't know who you, or Richard Dawkins, are and this is one of those things that you just can't explain to people. You either get it or you don't.
Still...funniest thing I've read all week.
Posted by: Jason | March 21, 2008 12:17 AM
Not much to say that hasn't already been said, but I live in Japan and I've been having a slow day today. I was very happy to read this. When I see ID proponents trip over themselves, it makes my day. Thank you...:)
Posted by: Ralph | March 21, 2008 12:18 AM
BWAHAHAHA How the hell did the police know who you were? Did they distribute PZ photographs? Did they put out an APB on PZ? This is outrageous!
Posted by: queg | March 21, 2008 12:18 AM
I saw Richard Dawkins just last night at UT in Austin, TX. Someone asked him about the movie, and he related that the producers lied to him about the tone, as well as the subject matter of the movie. He was pretty irate when discussing it. He basically said it's a big bag of bullshit and don't see it, even though he is in the movie.
Posted by: Thuraash | March 21, 2008 12:19 AM
*Reads post*
*Glances at copy of The Ancestor's Tale sitting around 3 inches from this computer*
*...*
http://www.hybridgraphite.co.uk/OIFY/roflcopter.gif
That was awesome! Congratulations, Professor. You win at irony.
Posted by: Bad | March 21, 2008 12:19 AM
"Dawkins was extremely brave speaking up in the middle of a very unfriendly audience"
So what did he say exactly?
I still want to know exactly what he was saying in the "I'm hostile to a rival doctrine" quote: what the rest of the quote was.
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 21, 2008 12:20 AM
Want to know what is funny? Well, not as amusing as tonight's big story but still, there are laughs to be had. A person who spends time pondering unreal things (Just visit his blog.) telling a bunch of materialists what is real.
Little Willy won't go home!
Posted by: Ron Sullivan | March 21, 2008 12:20 AM
#324:
Two.
Posted by: opusjones | March 21, 2008 12:20 AM
FAITH IS TRULY BLIND
Posted by: Nathan | March 21, 2008 12:20 AM
You've got to be kidding me.
Posted by: Matt | March 21, 2008 12:20 AM
@ #428: I'd be interested in the ID spin on it too.
I imagine it will involve Dr. Myers being there to cause trouble (that rabble-rouser!) and being lawfully and righteously removed from the premises. And Dawkins being held up to ridicule in the rigorously-controlled Q&A session afterwards.
Which was all part of their Master Plan!
You know, the usual bullshit. The real marvel is that the IDiots can walk and breathe at the same time.
Posted by: Iroc | March 21, 2008 12:21 AM
#1 post on Digg right now.
Posted by: BennyP | March 21, 2008 12:24 AM
Right on!
Please tell me you're going to sue the theater, producer and police department.
Posted by: G Felis | March 21, 2008 12:24 AM
@ Sastra (#425): "PT-mafia" presumably refers to Panda's Thumb, those infamous and scurrilous villains who gather together to criticize honest creationists like William Wallace and make the baby Jesus cry.
Posted by: Doug Brenner | March 21, 2008 12:25 AM
Lucky they didn't give you contradictory orders, knock you down from behind, tase you, and crush your eyeglasses beneath their jackboots. This is Minnesota, you know, and if you'd been trying to do something truly heinous, such as legally bike home from the airport, your luck might have been very different.
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 21, 2008 12:25 AM
Why sue? The story is great enough.
Posted by: fyreflye | March 21, 2008 12:25 AM
This story has now shown up on Dawkins' own web site http://richarddawkins.net/ top right.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 12:25 AM
DAC (many posts ago) mentioned "egg on face".
Let me be the first to wager that the creobots will claim this whole thing was planned from the start.
-they let Dawkins in on purpose, and gave PZ the boot because they knew he would blog about it.
such crafty geniuses!
I'd believe it, if they didn't have a perfect track record of shooting themselves in the head.
still, I'd be willing to bet that's what the spin will be tomorrow.
Posted by: Danny | March 21, 2008 12:26 AM
Speedwell -
"@Danny: You don't understand. There were TWO wins here. The first win was how bad it made them look to throw out someone who appeared in that very film as an interviewee, as if (probably because) they didn't want him to see the mess they made of his interview and because they feared honest and pointed criticism. The second win was when they let in the very last person they wanted to let in, Richard Dawkins.
The third win will, I think, be when Skatje, a witness to both events, covers this."
'Made them look bad'? did it really? How? In any meaningful way? Will this be broadcast over international television, such as are the christians?
The Flying Trylobite -
"#319 Danny;
Again, I am not certain this was a public movie. You do have a point about the slippery slope of discrimination, and I know that if it had been myself, I would have been fuming. If it had been myself and my family, I would have been fuming, and assured the guard I would not cause trouble (in that moment) much like Prof Myers.
Getting arrested by standing ground is not the only option in cases of discrimination. It does work, and is very effective in many instances, you are correct about that.
Litigation, getting press involved, and creating a possibly viral media story can also work to shame the people doing the discriminating enough that they will not do it again. Approaching a police officer and the manager of the theatre together in a calm manner could also work.
With how humorous this has been to all of us, perhaps Prof. Myers is also finding it funny in the moment and gathering his thoughts.
All of us here can suggest choices of action for PZ, and he can choose to listen or not. However, I'm not there at that mall, I don't think you are either, so it is hard to say whether there was good reason for PZ to blog instead of demand.
At the moment I feel we have enough facts to find it funny and be concerned about civil rights. Perhaps we should wait for a few more facts before deciding PZ is committing an act of cowardice (your comment #254)? "
You have a point, certainly. I should not have called Dr. Myers a 'coward', perhaps too extreme a term. Or not. These people that we are offending, at least in my opinion, are not deserving of such respect that a topic in their movie should walk out, without question - while being molested for their *beliefs*. It's like arguing that christians should be excluded based on thier beliefs when shown 'A god Who Wasn't There'.
MTran -
"Danny said: "Even if technically 'a crime' it is certainly NOT an actual crime"
Anything that is "technically" a crime, is, in fact, a crime (even if it is later found to be unconstitutional, but that is not the case here). You seem to think that if something is malum prohibitum rather than malum in se, it cannot be criminal. You are wrong.
"he should have had the courage to stand his ground on what he believes and potentially been arrested."
So, what great moral or philosophical issue is at stake here? Really, what over-arching ethical principle should over-take a rational response?
"That would be a far better and greater show of conviction, in real terms, of what we stand for."
Who is "we"? Do you mean "you"? And what do you stand for, other than dipshit arrogance? If you ever find yourself arrested, for any reason, explain to your defense attorney that you are just "felony stupid" and wanted to uphold your right to a trial by your peers.
Sheesh, I went out of my way to antagonize authority in the 60s, and got beat by the cops for it. So it's not like I don't know how to stand up for my own convictions, but your statements convict you of brainlessness. I would not want you on my side of any argument."
"Anything that is "technically" a crime, is, in fact, a crime" If that were actually true, we would never have been able to found the United States of America. You went 'out of your way' to antagonize authority? How? why? So you got beaten for it, does that make it any less correct? Based on your statement, it is like you don't know how to stand up for own convictions. By the way, I served two tours in the Persian Gulf on the USS AMERICA in Desert Storm and the following patrols so as far as I'm concerned I have some license in discussing these matters. Thank you.
Susan (cutie!)
"DANNY! Had PZ gotten himself arrested, he wouldn't have been able to make this marvelous post now, would he!"
Sure he would, just a matter of a bit of time and effort.
Posted by: paul | March 21, 2008 12:26 AM
this is truly excellent. thanks for the best laugh of the day.
Posted by: waldteufel | March 21, 2008 12:28 AM
Unbelievable! The DI frauds couldn't find their collective asses with all their hands and a movie theater full of flashlights.
Incompetence and Stupidity, thy name is Discovery Institute.
Posted by: RBH | March 21, 2008 12:29 AM
Genie Scott commented in the Digg thread.
Posted by: Marla Shane McCain | March 21, 2008 12:31 AM
Is PZ also in the film like Dawkins? Is there a possibility that since Dawkins was tricked into being in this film, or for other reasons, he was allowed to enter while PZ was not? I mean, everybody (who wants to) knows Dawkins is in town to do the American Atheist Conference. His "team" of personalities was standing in line - another give-away. They were checking I.D. What did Dawkin's do when it came his turn?
I am skeptical about this being such a big oversight on their part. They must know that if they HAD booted someone like Dawkin's - then that certainly would become a big deal, unlike PZ who walked away.
I hope I'm just paranoid.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 12:32 AM
Is PZ also in the film like Dawkins?
exactly like Dawkins, in fact.
Posted by: William Wallace | March 21, 2008 12:32 AM
I have not watched the preview. I do have to admit that if PZ Myers is in the film, and the film was not restricted to members of the clergy, PZ should have been allowed to enter, *if* he registered here: http://rsvp.getexpelled.com/events/events/rsvp/202
Posted by: siddharth | March 21, 2008 12:33 AM
@ Danny: 'Made them look bad'? did it really? How? In any meaningful way? Will this be broadcast over international television, such as are the christians?
Lemme tell you this. Around 100 students in a city in India are ROLFing at the stupidity of the IDiots. And this news is spreading like fire. What an epic fail.
Posted by: shiftlessbum | March 21, 2008 12:34 AM
Holy crap! Am I glad I logged on tonight. I cannot wait to hear Dawkins on this. Way to go PZ!
Posted by: Bad | March 21, 2008 12:34 AM
Folks, it's very unlikely that there was a crime here. Rented private spaces can discriminate, especially based on viewpoints. The story here is about hypocrisy, not illegality.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 12:35 AM
PZ should have been allowed to enter
why, how gracious of you.
LOL
c'mon, where's all that vitriol you save up for the "PT-Mafia"?
remember, the world is watching. It's your chance to shine as a representative of creobots everywhere!
Posted by: Robert Frazer | March 21, 2008 12:36 AM
Why is this thread in a "Creationism" category?
The author is barred from a cinema, but his British companion isn't recognised. This is natural enough, seeing as this is an American cinema in question, and I doubt that many Britons would recognise a given academic on the street either. Alternatively, they let Dawkins in because they know that he'll at least save his interminable bellyaching for his next book instead of wasting bandwidth with self-congratulatory blogs :-\
Assuming that it was an actual liveried policeman who expelled the article author, what this event raises is questions about the legality of that practice - but it doesn't say anything at all about Creationism or Atheism, except by vague association.
Posted by: Trent1492 | March 21, 2008 12:36 AM
Voltaire once wrote:
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.
...and how.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 12:38 AM
Genie Scott points out what will be the NCSE response the the "expelled" trash:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | March 21, 2008 12:40 AM
@#457 I believe that PZ did rsvp under his own name with two family members and a guest.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 12:41 AM
Why is this thread in a "Creationism" category?
assuming you aren't completely oblivious, "Expelled" is a fictional account of how "Intelligent Design" (nothing but repackaged creationism) is being "repressed" and "expelled" from educational institutions.
It's all BS, of course, but it IS the latest gasp of the creationists as they continue to drown in all other venues.
Posted by: William Wallace | March 21, 2008 12:41 AM
Exactly right.
In that case, please do take a listen to NPR's unretracted Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom by Barbara Hagerty, while noting this NPR piece has not been redacted.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | March 21, 2008 12:41 AM
Congrats, PZ. By logging in at the Apple Store, you managed to beat Kristine, who told me earlier today that something big was in the works, by a good half hour. She has pics, though!
As I said on her site, this was both hilarious and historic. I hope I hope the dreaded Dr. D points out that he was interviewed under false pretenses. God, I wish I could be a fly on that wall right now. Please tell me some of this is on video.
(fan boyish) You guys rock.
Posted by: Sue Larries | March 21, 2008 12:42 AM
Matt claims "The real marvel is that the IDiots can walk and breathe at the same time."
I have met few Creationists, but those I have spent time with most certainly can NOT walk and breathe at the same time, but rather walk, then breathe, then walk again.
Posted by: William Wallace | March 21, 2008 12:43 AM
Exactly right.
In that case, please do take a listen to NPR's unretracted Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom by Barbara Hagerty, while noting this NPR piece has not been redacted.
Posted by: Slaughter | March 21, 2008 12:43 AM
It might have been funny for PZ to stand there like a 4-year-old and ask why about everything.
"Sir, you can't see the movie."
"Why?"
"Because this man says so."
"Why?"
"He makes the rules here."
"Why?"
And so on and so on.
Since it's at the 4-year-old level, even IDiots could understand it.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 21, 2008 12:43 AM
"Alternatively, they let Dawkins in because they know that he'll at least save his interminable bellyaching for his next book instead of wasting bandwidth with self-congratulatory blogs :-\"
OHH the BANDWIDTH! Won't someone PLEASE think of the bandwidth?!
"but it doesn't say anything at all about Creationism or Atheism, except by vague association."
I think it speaks volumes about what wankers they are, but YMMV.
Posted by: Ralph | March 21, 2008 12:44 AM
"...what this event raises is questions about the legality of that practice - but it doesn't say anything at all about Creationism or Atheism, except by vague association."
-This event certainly says something about the film's producers, viz. that they're cowards and for some strange reason, terrified of the harmless, cuddly man known as PZ Myers.
Posted by: Susie | March 21, 2008 12:44 AM
OMFG.
It has been a long time since I laughed that hard..... hahahaha that's classic!!!
Posted by: Alicia Morgan | March 21, 2008 12:44 AM
It's perfect, that's all - simply perfect in its symmetry.
Posted by: jeh | March 21, 2008 12:44 AM
This might have been an excellent opportunity for civil disobedience. Just imagine the negative publicity from arresting someone conned into participating in their propaganda film. You could have then taken a cue from the disingenuous and played the role of martyr for all its worth.
Enlisting the police to try to evict you from the premises when you did not intend to challenge their stupid ban--now that's really over the top. This is still the United States of America until they pry the Constitution and Bill of Rights from our cold dead fingers! I'm glad you can laugh about this, but for many of us, this is where we would draw the line, especially given the sacrifices that have been made for these rights.
Makes you kind of wonder if they will ever really release this in April in theaters (ignoring for a moment that some fundies will not go into a theater). They obviously don't want too much scrutiny until they have whipped the true believer into a frenzy of anger.
All of this just emphasizes that the individuals behind this film have been more influenced by Machiavelli than their professed master. Not that they are as smart as Machiavelli (evidenced by Dawkin's success).
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 12:45 AM
Exactly right.
glad to see you admitting your own hypocrisy, after only the slightest nudge.
while noting this NPR piece has not been redacted.
implying they have redacted others?
do tell!
Posted by: abeja | March 21, 2008 12:46 AM
Coming out of semi-lurkdom to say way to go P.Z.! Can't wait for the update.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | March 21, 2008 12:46 AM
Well Played! Well Played indeed. I will raise a pint of Guinness in your general direction(s) at first chance.
Posted by: Carl Hutter | March 21, 2008 12:46 AM
You sound like the coolest professor ever.
Posted by: Sue Larries | March 21, 2008 12:47 AM
BTW, this is a fine example of a general principle: Creationists play to win, especially when the game is Russian Roulette: Solitaire.
Posted by: Protobiochemist | March 21, 2008 12:48 AM
I will come out of lurking just to say this:
PZ: YOU WIN BEN STEIN'S MONEY!!!!!!!!
Funniest Blog Post EVER!
PBC.
Posted by: October Mermaid | March 21, 2008 12:48 AM
This shouldn't be much of a surprise to anyone. The producers of this movie are just, I mean, wow. They're stupid as hell. I feel embarassed for them. Heck, I feel embarassed for their families. Can you imagine being related to that sort of thing? Obviously someone took a piss in that gene pool.
Posted by: Matt | March 21, 2008 12:49 AM
@ #461: but it doesn't say anything at all about Creationism or Atheism, except by vague association.
Neither does your comment. But I'm glad you deigned to join us anyways, Bobby. Glad you came all this way (and wasted a little more precious bandwidth) to complain about a possibly-misused (but not really) label. Well done, sir.
Posted by: wtfwtf | March 21, 2008 12:50 AM
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/intelligent-design-research-published-in-nature/
Have you seen this bullshit, btw?
Posted by: uknesvuinng | March 21, 2008 12:51 AM
What will the world do without irony meters now that they've all been overloaded?
Posted by: John Pieret | March 21, 2008 12:51 AM
I suppose you might as well have a look at this. It's a report of the incident by one of the Kool-Aid drinkers ... er, invited guests ... at the screening. According to this person, our mild-mannered professor was "hustling and bothering several invited attendees, apparently trying to disrupt the viewing or sneak in."
But he also thought:
... so judge his objectivity accordingly.
Posted by: Harmony | March 21, 2008 12:51 AM
PZ, TRY TO GO TO ANOTHER SCREENING IN A DISGUISE!!!
Posted by: Ferrous Patella | March 21, 2008 12:52 AM
I never ever have typed this on the web before but yes, literally:
LOL
Posted by: MTran | March 21, 2008 12:52 AM
Danny continues to delude himself into believing he can think cogently and says: "Anything that is "technically" a crime, is, in fact, a crime" If that were actually true, we would never have been able to found the United States of America.
WTF? The colonists who initiated and fought in the American Revolution were criminals under British law. They were traitors to the crown. The US was able to continue as a separate sovereign entity because it won the war, not because the actions leading to it were not criminal under British law. Have you heard about "hanging together or all hanging separately?"
Danny then tries to make sense, but cannot, saying: "Based on your statement, it is like you don't know how to stand up for own convictions."
Are you really an idiot or did you just have an idiot do your writing? You clearly don't understand what a "conviction" is and the difference between deliberately standing up for one's own moral convictions and insisting that others act like idiots in order to satisfy your own dimwitted world view.
Danny claims: "I served two tours in the Persian Gulf on the USS AMERICA in Desert Storm and the following patrols so as far as I'm concerned I have some license in discussing these matters."
Why do you think that? What sort of license? Serving as part of an authorized military in support of a governmental action is the opposite of challenging that same authority in the capacity of a mere individual citizen.
You may have been exposed to some brain damaging chemicals or head trauma during your tour of duty. Try to get some help before the damage becomes untreatable. Though given the way the VA "treats" veteran's physical and mental health problems, you may be better off in a private facility.
Finally Danny said: "Thank you."
Hey, don't mention it.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | March 21, 2008 12:53 AM
@321--
When reinventing history
It's best to keep the mystery;
If witnesses are noticed, it is best to take them out.
And although the act is telling,
You'd be better off expelling
Doctor Myers, if you see him, just because the man's a lout.
You see, PZ is a witness
To the movie's lack of fitness--
He is one selection pressure that would render it extinct.
So, with "WANTED!" posters printed,
To the cinema they sprinted,
And they passed around the mugshots just as soon as they were inked.
The policemen, at the ready,
Kept the ticket-takers steady
While they watched with eyes like eagles for the devil in disguise.
Yes! They spotted Dr. Myers,
Looking just like in their fliers!
The policemen, quite correctly, gave the doctor a surprise.
When they said he'd be arrested
If their actions he protested,
He complied at once (that should have raised suspicions, don't you think?)
Once his actions had been thwarted
And he left the line, escorted,
Looking back to his companion in the line, he gave a wink....
So this little movie trip is
Like a Trojan Eohippus
That delivered Richard Dawkins deep within the fortress walls
I can't wait to read the story
Of the battle and the glory--
Cos the trailer to this feature shows the hero's got some balls!
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2008/03/trojan-myers.html
Posted by: Danny | March 21, 2008 12:53 AM
Jeh -
"This might have been an excellent opportunity for civil disobedience. Just imagine the negative publicity from arresting someone conned into participating in their propaganda film. You could have then taken a cue from the disingenuous and played the role of martyr for all its worth.
Enlisting the police to try to evict you from the premises when you did not intend to challenge their stupid ban--now that's really over the top. This is still the United States of America until they pry the Constitution and Bill of Rights from our cold dead fingers! I'm glad you can laugh about this, but for many of us, this is where we would draw the line, especially given the sacrifices that have been made for these rights.
Makes you kind of wonder if they will ever really release this in April in theaters (ignoring for a moment that some fundies will not go into a theater). They obviously don't want too much scrutiny until they have whipped the true believer into a frenzy of anger.
All of this just emphasizes that the individuals behind this film have been more influenced by Machiavelli than their professed master. Not that they are as smart as Machiavelli (evidenced by Dawkin's success)."
Exactly my point. Thank you.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 12:53 AM
hey, wallace-
just for you, I give you the real skinny on whether this was a "private" screening or not, from someone who was there:
Kristine:
damn, you guys never fail at an opportunity to shoot yourselves in the head.
btw, since Scott's link to the pictures doesn't seem to work, here it is again:
http://amused-muse.blogspot.com/2008/03/expelled-from-expelled.html
Posted by: aiabx | March 21, 2008 12:53 AM
Oh-my-lack-of-god!
Absolutely amazing!
Posted by: Tom Farrell | March 21, 2008 12:55 AM
So, some thoughts.
You should contact the theater - politely, and from a distance - to ask *why* you were refused entry and ordered off the premises. (By letter is best, because it would lead them to reply in writing.) If the answer is something like "we just don't like your hairdo", that's the end of it. If however the answer is because you're a famous athiest, if they were selling tickets to the showing, then you have grounds for a civil rights complaint against the theater for discrimination on the basis of religion; I'm pretty certain it would be illegal in all 50 states to refuse to serve you to a showing of a movie for which tickets are being sold to the public on the basis of your religion (or lack thereof). And it would make them look REALLY bad to be "discriminating on the basis of religion".
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 12:55 AM
Enlisting the police to try to evict you from the premises when you did not intend to challenge their stupid ban--now that's really over the top.
we're still not clear that actual, on duty, police were involved.
that caveat said, I agree 100%
Posted by: Gary Bohn | March 21, 2008 12:56 AM
Ferrous, you've never ROTFLMAO or LOL at t.o.?
Wow.
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 21, 2008 12:57 AM
Will someone please "expel" Danny and the other concern trolls? They're undermining perfect hilarity with their machosturbation.
Posted about here and I must say this was a lovely anniversary present. :3
Posted by: Calladus | March 21, 2008 12:59 AM
I can't wait to hear how the fundies spin this to not be their fault. Oh my!
Oh, and I nominate cuttlefish to write any non-holy Atheist texts!
Posted by: Bachalon | March 21, 2008 1:00 AM
Cuttlefish, that was magnificent; I had a smile the whole time while reading that to one of my room mates.
Posted by: Zeno | March 21, 2008 1:00 AM
I can't recall. Has any previous Pharyngula post hit the 500 mark in comments before? Certainly not in one short evening.
We have been virtually present at a historic event.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 1:00 AM
... so judge his objectivity accordingly.
how do we judge:
This is also not a movie that bashes Evolutional Theory
other than what it is?
Posted by: Dr. Drang | March 21, 2008 1:00 AM
Most evil-doers get put on a watch list. PZ gets put on a do not watch list.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 1:01 AM
I can't recall. Has any previous Pharyngula post hit the 500 mark in comments before? Certainly not in one short evening.
oh yes, many times.
not this fast, maybe.
Posted by: October Mermaid | March 21, 2008 1:02 AM
#489 We don't say this nearly enough, but.. but.. we love you, Cuttlefish. We honestly love you.
Posted by: Hemant Mehta | March 21, 2008 1:02 AM
As hilarious as this story is, I think it just goes to show the power that bloggers can have, even over a 1,000,000+ copy bestselling author!
Posted by: Chris | March 21, 2008 1:03 AM
That is hilarious and amazing. I keep reading this post over and over to keep appreciating how great that is.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | March 21, 2008 1:04 AM
btw, since Scott's link to the pictures doesn't seem to work, here it is again:
That's what I like about this place. Quality control. Thanks, Icthyic!
Posted by: Heather | March 21, 2008 1:04 AM
Cuttlefish, that is beautiful! Trojan Eohippus - brilliant!
Posted by: Scifi Saint | March 21, 2008 1:05 AM
H-O-L-Y S-H-I-T! That's funny. Great read.
Posted by: jeh | March 21, 2008 1:07 AM
Re: Enlisting the police to try to evict you from the premises when you did not intend to challenge their stupid ban--now that's really over the top.
--we're still not clear that actual, on duty, police were involved.
Granted, maybe it was one of those fake "policeman," sometimes hard to tell with the costumes the security people wear.
I'll rephrase my statement: "Enlisting some thug to try to evict you from the premises when you did not intend to challenge their stupid ban--now that's really over the top."
I'm sure they would have no trouble getting one of their own to play this role. Some of them would have willingly taken PZ outside and given him a wicked beating as well, if they thought they could get away with it.
Posted by: Sue Larries | March 21, 2008 1:07 AM
Re: #485
Note that his review allows no comments. Cowardly fuckwit.
In other news, water is wet to humans in ordinary baths.
Posted by: M | March 21, 2008 1:08 AM
Wow. Stupid doesn't even begin to describe these people.
Posted by: Axel Muller | March 21, 2008 1:08 AM
Quite funny indeed!
510 comments, that doesn't happen that often either,
A.
Posted by: DaveX | March 21, 2008 1:10 AM
Well played, PZ!!
Posted by: ExitB | March 21, 2008 1:11 AM
I sent a note and link to Al Franken's Minnesota senate campaign email. I hope he gets it soon. He interviewed Prof. Dawkins once on his Air America radio show. I'd like to hear a comment from him. Hmmm... maybe I should send it to Sen. Coleman too just to be fair.
Posted by: Tom | March 21, 2008 1:11 AM
This is the funniest thing I've seen all day. They are so incredibly stupid to be even trying to control who sees this junk. Assuming it is junk, no one until tonight with any credibility has seen it...
:-))) and they let RD walk right in! Ha ha ha ha! ( Thought I was done giggling... I guess not!)
Posted by: SonOfLiberty | March 21, 2008 1:12 AM
Proof #947 that Theists are idiots:
They expel PZ Myers at the Expelled premiere, yet let Richard Dawkins slide right on by.
No wonder why they think the world is 6000 years old :)
Posted by: Corey | March 21, 2008 1:13 AM
Thanks for sharing that ... it's so absurd and hilarious that it makes me dizzy.
With all due respect, that's like politely kicking a nun out of an anti-catholic movie showing BUT LETTING THE POPE IN!
I hope Richard enjoyed the movie. Or at least the popcorn.
Posted by: Dr Benway | March 21, 2008 1:13 AM
O hai!
PZ n Dawkins can haz cookies uf teh Ceiling Cat, who NO WANTS bad moovie.
kthxbai!
Posted by: MikeM | March 21, 2008 1:13 AM
To #503, I would add.
We're not trying to make you feel uncomfortable.
We're not trying to make you anything at all.
But these feeling doesn't come along every day.
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 21, 2008 1:13 AM
Time for Ben Stein to hit that blackboard again:
I will not expel PZ from Expelled.
I will not expel PZ from Expelled.
I will not expel PZ from Expelled.
I will not expel PZ from Expelled.
I will not expel PZ from Expelled.
I will not expel PZ from Expelled.
Posted by: Sue Larries | March 21, 2008 1:14 AM
Dear M (#511),
I disagree, since I believe "stupid" IS where one should "begin to describe these people" although I would stop there for only a small, misinformed - big-ass lied to, actually - fraction of them.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 1:15 AM
I'm sure they would have no trouble getting one of their own to play this role. Some of them would have willingly taken PZ outside and given him a wicked beating as well, if they thought they could get away with it.
ahh, memories.
:p
Posted by: zer0 | March 21, 2008 1:16 AM
Way to go PZ! Way to have a more recognizable face than one of the "horsemen"!
Posted by: Chris | March 21, 2008 1:17 AM
I was searching to see if Richard Dawkins had posted any sort of reply yet, and I stumbled upon an account by one of the attendees of that screening (http://lookingcloser.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/richard-dawkins-crashes-the-party-at-a-screening-of-expelled/). While he admits that "[Expelled] is the Best Documentary of 2008," he accounts:
"I just happened to be standing directly in line behind Dawkins' academic colleague. Management of the movie theatre saw a man apparently hustling and bothering several invited attendees, apparently trying to disrupt the viewing or sneak in. Management then approached the man, asked him if he had a ticket, and when he confirmed that he didn't, they then escorted him off the premises. Nowhere was one of the film's producers to be found, and the man certainly didn't identify himself."
Is this true? Still, kudos to you, Dr. Myers.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 1:20 AM
Is this true?
would you take a serious the word of someone who called 'expelled' the "best documentary of 2008"?
well?
Posted by: Joshua Arnold | March 21, 2008 1:20 AM
@524
It's not what PZ himself said. And if he didn't have a ticket, how'd his family get in?
Posted by: dave | March 21, 2008 1:20 AM
so, i looked up "irony" in the OED, and found a link to this blog post.
Posted by: Danny | March 21, 2008 1:20 AM
********************************************
MTran -
Danny continues to delude himself into believing he can think cogently and says: "Anything that is "technically" a crime, is, in fact, a crime" If that were actually true, we would never have been able to found the United States of America.
WTF? The colonists who initiated and fought in the American Revolution were criminals under British law. They were traitors to the crown. The US was able to continue as a separate sovereign entity because it won the war, not because the actions leading to it were not criminal under British law. Have you heard about "hanging together or all hanging separately?"
Danny then tries to make sense, but cannot, saying: "Based on your statement, it is like you don't know how to stand up for own convictions."
Are you really an idiot or did you just have an idiot do your writing? You clearly don't understand what a "conviction" is and the difference between deliberately standing up for one's own moral convictions and insisting that others act like idiots in order to satisfy your own dimwitted world view.
Danny claims: "I served two tours in the Persian Gulf on the USS AMERICA in Desert Storm and the following patrols so as far as I'm concerned I have some license in discussing these matters."
Why do you think that? What sort of license? Serving as part of an authorized military in support of a governmental action is the opposite of challenging that same authority in the capacity of a mere individual citizen.
You may have been exposed to some brain damaging chemicals or head trauma during your tour of duty. Try to get some help before the damage becomes untreatable. Though given the way the VA "treats" veteran's physical and mental health problems, you may be better off in a private facility.
Finally Danny said: "Thank you."
Hey, don't mention it.
***********
"WTF? The colonists who initiated and fought in the American Revolution were criminals under British law. They were traitors to the crown. The US was able to continue as a separate sovereign entity because it won the war, not because the actions leading to it were not criminal under British law."
Well then, I suppose they shouldn't have broken the law - is that what you are suggesting? Perhaps the 'traitors to the crown' should NOT have stood up for their convictions, or so it seems to you. You really are out of your tree.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | March 21, 2008 1:21 AM
The only people that PZ could have been bothering in that line were his friends and family. The UMN-TC student didn't think that PZ may have been in a group and interpreted the cops removal of him as evidence that PZ was disruptive. The removal of PZ is what disrupted his friends and family, not his presence.
Posted by: Bad | March 21, 2008 1:22 AM
How could that be accurate if the movie's own RSVP page does not mention anything about tickets, and in fact, apparently, the email you get when you RSVP says that tickets are not required? In other words, the claim about not having a ticket is bogus.
I do find it an amusing image that PZ was supposedly "hustling." What, was he trying to pawn off zebrafish on unsuspecting theatergoers to make a quick buck? Was he dressed up in a purple zoot suit with dark sunglasses?
Posted by: Drinker | March 21, 2008 1:22 AM
I'm dying for more news.
PZ wouldn't leave us hanging for hours like this, would he?
Posted by: articulett | March 21, 2008 1:24 AM
Gosh, is this more fun than Haggard's Gay Meth Scandal or what??
What a glorious day for smart people every where.
If only PZ would have gotten arrested... documentation or something that he was "forbidden" from seeing the movie...
Don't worry, PZ, I'm sure a bootleg copy will find you.
Posted by: GrondramB | March 21, 2008 1:24 AM
There's a limit to how many faces they could have asked an off duty cop to memorize - so its worth asking why do this. They've got to be a little irony impaired in the first place to stop anyone from reviewing a movie that is supposedly about suppressing free expression.
I think Elmo Zoneball of Darwin Central got it right
So PZ, you were either brilliant or lucky or both to bring such good backup.
Posted by: The Flying Trilobite | March 21, 2008 1:24 AM
#496 Azkyroth;
I don't know about that. I totally disagree with Danny on the point of Myers being a coward; I know it would have taken me a lot of restraint to stop from displaying frustration at the guard, so I think Myers was being calm, rational and yes, somewhat brave in a sense to walk away and report on this.
But I don't think Danny is wrong to post his opinion on PZ's behaviour. Or at any rate, he is not so wrong he should be banned. His view seems to be at the extreme end of defending civil liberties using only the avenue of defiance when there were other options.
Now, maybe being banned for spelling "trilobite" incorrectly (#451, spelled "trylobite")is something that should be discussed...
Posted by: Damian | March 21, 2008 1:25 AM
From the link that John Pieret provided. This seems to be how they are going to spin it:
Evidently, even the trained monkeys know how to lie through their teeth.
Posted by: Dr. J | March 21, 2008 1:27 AM
"Is this true?
would you take a serious the word of someone who called 'expelled' the "best documentary of 2008"?"
It would certainly be so unlike creationists, I mean Intelligent design proponent to lie or generally be dishonest.
Funniest thing I've read in a long time - I'm really looking forward to some reviews of the "movie" from the attendees.
Posted by: Leigh | March 21, 2008 1:28 AM
I hope to God that PZ, his lovely Trophy Wife, and Professor Dawkins are enjoying a refreshing adult beverage right now, while Skatje has a nice fruit juice and prepares a post detailing the victory.
Days this delicious come but seldom and should be celebrated.
PS Cuttlefish, you have outdone yourself!
Posted by: William Wallace | March 21, 2008 1:29 AM
Considering that identification was required, and considering that Richard Dawkins was admitted, one wonders if PZ Myers did something to get Expelled as an NCSE architected publicity stunt.
Clever!
But the film is still coming out, oh no.
Posted by: Alexandra | March 21, 2008 1:30 AM
Hmm... spend Friday night posting to the blog or hanging out with Dawkins? I know what I'd be doing.Posted by: Stanton | March 21, 2008 1:31 AM
I don't know what I should feel about this.
On the one hand, the colossal hypocrisy of the producers of Expelled now borders on lethally stupid, given as how they have made a big song and dance number out of how Intelligent Design proponents are allegedly unfairly barred from mainstream science, but, have also been caught giving written instructions to their trained flunkeys to bar one of their allegedly disgruntled interviewees from watching a screening.
On the other hand, I'm unsure whether I feel apathetic about their colossal pathetic-ness, or whether I am in so much shock to be bordering on numb.
Posted by: jimbo92107 | March 21, 2008 1:32 AM
Too bad Dawkins didn't do the obvious thing, which would be to tell the officer, "This one is okay, he's with me."
Officer: "And you are..."
"Reverend Dawkins."
Jedi mind tricks work on the weak minded.
Posted by: Jing-reed | March 21, 2008 1:32 AM
Thanks PZ, you just made my day!
Already Friday here in Thailand, and you did indeed make it a 'good Friday' with this wondrous tale. Can hardly wait for Prof. Dawkin's reaction.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 1:32 AM
Gosh, is this more fun than Haggard's Gay Meth Scandal or what??
toss up.
I mean, Haggard was the leader of the largest evangelical community in the US. that whole debacle was pretty sweet.
Expelled is just a lame-ass mockumentary.
still, the irony is just so perfect here, it makes it a toss up in my mind.
I think the mileage that will be gained from this for good science education will be far more valuable than Haggard's hypocrisy ever will be, though.
Posted by: jeh | March 21, 2008 1:34 AM
But the film is still coming out, oh no.
But when? The film is still currently "in the closet?" It should be honest about its Christian orientation.
Posted by: Brian Tristam Williams | March 21, 2008 1:35 AM
Well. That makes me angry. I would have asked them how much it would cost, per chance, if they had to replace all of their windows.
But, you know, maybe it was Richard Dawkins they intended to evict, but had trouble telling left from right or something.
Posted by: Caroline | March 21, 2008 1:35 AM
OMFSM!! I don't really have anything to add to the discussion, but when I scrolled down and read "Richard Dawkins"...Hahahahaha! Simply classic.
Posted by: David Denning | March 21, 2008 1:39 AM
I can't wait to read the story
Of the battle and the glory--
Hooray for the Myers/Dawkins advanced infiltration team. May we all use this fine example to inspire our own infiltration and confrontation of the IDiot-inspired showings.
Posted by: William Wallace | March 21, 2008 1:40 AM
Then, later...
Changing your tune? Glad I could help.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | March 21, 2008 1:40 AM
The original meaning of "sabot", iirc, is a wooden shoe worn by peasants in the general area of northern France and the Netherlands up until the early industrial age.
One method of expressing factory labor dissatisfaction in that era was to toss a shoe into the gears of the biggest machinery accessible: hence the term "sabotage".
Tonight Myers was not just a discarded cartridge shell: the more appropriate metaphor would be the modern saboteur's preferred instrument, the monkey wrench.
Posted by: Deborah | March 21, 2008 1:41 AM
That allegedly unbiased review of the movie, posted on on Looking Closer?
It's got a spoiler alert at the end, with some text that you have to highlight.
Here's the "spoiler" text:
And the reviewer can't see how this contradicts his earlier claims about this movie not being about bashing evolution?
Amazing.
Posted by: The Flying Trilobite | March 21, 2008 1:42 AM
It's weird. I've only been blogging online and relatively active making comments twice that long, and I've never felt more like there was an online festival or celebration than this one. It's too good.
It's like an unforeseen comet streaking by. Fun times everyone, thanks from this atheistic-gothy-paleonerd-oil painter.
Posted by: Danny | March 21, 2008 1:44 AM
"How could that be accurate if the movie's own RSVP page does not mention anything about tickets, and in fact, apparently, the email you get when you RSVP says that tickets are not required? In other words, the claim about not having a ticket is bogus.
I do find it an amusing image that PZ was supposedly "hustling." What, was he trying to pawn off zebrafish on unsuspecting theatergoers to make a quick buck? Was he dressed up in a purple zoot suit with dark sunglasses?"
Well, but... there WAS NO REASON he could not attend. Some fools here act as if I am some kind of freak but in reality - yeah, reality! he should have stood his ground and dealt it.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 21, 2008 1:44 AM
"Considering that identification was required, and considering that Richard Dawkins was admitted, one wonders if PZ Myers did something to get Expelled as an NCSE architected publicity stunt."
Or perhaps, knowing that PZ lived nearby, they circulated a picture among the guards since they had a reasonable expectation that he might show up, while the same was not necessarily true of Richard Dawkins.
William loses again.
Posted by: Dale Husband | March 21, 2008 1:46 AM
That's one of the funniest blogs I've ever read!
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 1:46 AM
not at all, the problem is that you can't read.
I wasn't clear then if these were on duty police officers, and I'm still not. Nobody else is either.
If they were on duty, then the question has to be asked if the city supports its personnel being used in this fashion.
It's a perfectly legitimate question.
Yeah, I know you wouldn't know what "legitimate" means if it bit you on the ass, but try to pretend I'm not actually responding to you.
are you ready to admit you were wrong about PZ needing a ticket to get in yet, given that the producers sent out public requests for this screening, as documented by Kristine?
I know you'll never admit to being the idiot you are, but seriously, unless you want to become as big a joke as the subject of the thread itself, you should really learn when to quit while you're behind.
Posted by: MikeM | March 21, 2008 1:47 AM
Q: WWBSD?
A: See above.
The more I think about this, the more I realize this will be impossible to keep out of the newspaper. As many have pointed out, you were in the movie. Just, wow. They accuse us of censorship? (Yes, I include me in "us" here, because I'm with you all the way.) How about, "You can't come to see the movie we tricked you into being in?". They're not ashamed of this?
I am laughing, and calling them "stupid" is barely a starting point. How about, "Actionable", "Lame", "Unreasonable"? I really want this to be in the news.
What Would Ben Stein Do? We now have an answer. I can't wait to see the reponse when he figured out he then let Dawkins in. That is sweet.
Posted by: MTran | March 21, 2008 1:47 AM
Danny, apparently imbibing of his own woo says, regarding the American Revolution: " Well then, I suppose they shouldn't have broken the law - is that what you are suggesting? Perhaps the 'traitors to the crown' should NOT have stood up for their convictions, or so it seems to you. You really are out of your tree.
Danny, you need to go to a reading comprehension course, followed by a rigorous course in reasoning skills and critical thinking.
I haven't suggested anything that any literate, rational person could interpret as saying that the American colonists "should not have broken the law."
You were the fool who said that the US could not have been formed if the acts of the rebelling American colonists were criminal acts. I pointed out to you that their acts were, in fact, criminal under British law. The colonists knew full well that they would likely be hanged for treason if they failed in their rebellion. They succeeded.
Rebels who lose are traitors. Rebels who win are founding heros.
No one is required to meet your expectations of dumbassed ideological purity through some sort of legal "martyrdom" in the form of precipitating an arrest for a trivial matter.
Besides, martyrdom is a theistic value, so encouraging an atheist to satisfy some religious aspiration is pretty counterproductive.
And... I'm glad you are no longer in the active service, I do not want arrogant fools like yourself wielding weapons.
Posted by: tsig | March 21, 2008 1:48 AM
You should sue.
Posted by: Milo Johnson | March 21, 2008 1:48 AM
Nobody thinks you're a freak, Danny. Now wash your flippers and get some sleep.
Posted by: Autumn | March 21, 2008 1:49 AM
I know that I'm late to the discussion, but the ideas that P-Zed would have any grounds to sue, or that he should have protested his exclusion, are ludicrous and juvenile. The proprietor of any establishment is well within his or her rights to call the police to remove a person that they just don't like. You do not have any right to partake of a public performance simply because you are a member of the public. Many are the times that I have called the police to remove an individual who had commited no crime, but whose presence annoyed me. It is perfectly legal to expel someone from your property for no reason other than "I don't want (or have been told not to want) to have that person here."
That said, the topic at hand is freaking hilarious.
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 21, 2008 1:52 AM
Little Willy, no one is trying to stop the film from being released. By tomorrow night, there will be at least a couple of reviews ripping up this film. Most of us will be laughing. We are laughing now.
When the film comes out, it will have a short run in the theaters and within the month, will be available on DVD to church groups. But here is some good news for you Little Willy, you can package Expelled with your NPR report. Sadly for you, we will still dismiss you. Have fun.
Posted by: Bob O'H | March 21, 2008 1:53 AM
The cat in wondering why I'm laughing so hard.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 1:53 AM
Amazing.
You see it enough times, it just begins to numb you. There are a LOT of complete morons in this country.
"William Wallace" is in fact, representin' in this very thread.
oh, the irony.
It's just too much; I can't even manage to squeeze yet more irony out of his usage of the handle "William Wallace".
time for beer.
Posted by: Joshua Fisher | March 21, 2008 1:54 AM
Next stop: Dawkins and Myers attend a London screening. You can each dress as the other. That would require a shave and some colored contact lenses, PZ. Fortunately, though, no trips to the tanning booth.
Great story. Cried tears--both kinds.
Posted by: Terry Karney | March 21, 2008 1:55 AM
Too damned funny. I was laughing, hooting, and generally confusing the other people in the room.
Posted by: James Sager | March 21, 2008 1:55 AM
Not all Creationists agree to how things came about. In my theory, the only thing that I disagree with science is that birds came on the scene before land creatures.
I believe and I'm backed up scripturally that the days of Creation are not 24 hour periods, but undefined lengths of time that could be hundreds of million or billions of years in length. I feel that Evolution is real and that death was in the world before Adam's sin.
I didn't discuss the issue in full because there isn't space for it here. If you think you have an issue or question with this reconciliation between Creationism and Science, feel free to email me: James_Sager_PA@yahoo.com
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | March 21, 2008 1:55 AM
Considering that identification was required, and considering that Richard Dawkins was admitted, one wonders if PZ Myers did something to get Expelled as an NCSE architected publicity stunt.
Hmmm. PZ Myers does "something" to get himself expelled while accompanying his family and Richard Dawkins
or...
the Expelled gang are clueless wankers.
I know where I'd put my money.
BTW William Wallace, what "something" do you think Dr. Myers did?
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 1:56 AM
it will have a short run in the theaters and within the month, will be available on DVD to church groups.
save those church groups some money; post the inevitable torrent liberally.
seriously, if this flick makes no money, we won't see its like again soon.
Time for the torrentsphere to contribute something positive!
Posted by: jeh | March 21, 2008 1:57 AM
The proprietor of any establishment is well within his or her rights to call the police to remove a person that they just don't like.
Oh, I understand now. If a business owner just does not like some person because of their race, he can just call the police to evict them.
Wow, it's like the last 40 years never happened.
Many are the times that I have called the police to remove an individual who had commited no crime, but whose presence annoyed me.
And then did this for you, Sparky? Would they do this for you if their presence simply made you feel sad?
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 21, 2008 1:59 AM
Stuart Blessman, the student at UM who made that claim at the lookingcloser blog, is a liar.
A shameful liar and a disgrace to the university.
No, I was not bothering anyone. I went forward and got copies of the form we had to sign to get in, brought them back to my group, and the people in front of us asked me if they could have some, too. That was my only interaction with other people in line.
Nobody had a ticket. You reserved a seat online, and they checked your name off their list at the front of the line.
I was not trying to sneak in. I reserved my seats under my own name.
I was called aside by a security guard, who asked if my name was PZ Myers, and who said that the producer had specifically asked that I be removed.
We do have some idiots who get enrolled at this university. I like to think that they're a minority, but I'm rather surprised that someone so ethically challenged is a student here.
Posted by: MJ | March 21, 2008 1:59 AM
Perhaps by expelling PZ, they are creating the premise for their next movie, Expelled 2: Expelled from 'Expelled'. They will interview themselves under the guise of a completely different documentary ploy, blatantly distort and quotemine their own interviews and expel Ben Stein - making way for Expelled 3...
Posted by: andante | March 21, 2008 2:00 AM
Best laugh I've had in ages. I do believe I must have finally reached the end of the internet.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 2:01 AM
Many are the times that I have called the police to remove an individual who had commited no crime, but whose presence annoyed me.
you mean they were loitering? If so, that's legit.
do you have on duty cops hanging around outside your store to prevent the entrance of undesirables?
that's not legit.
Posted by: Danny | March 21, 2008 2:02 AM
"Danny, apparently imbibing of his own woo says, regarding the American Revolution: " Well then, I suppose they shouldn't have broken the law - is that what you are suggesting? Perhaps the 'traitors to the crown' should NOT have stood up for their convictions, or so it seems to you. You really are out of your tree.
Danny, you need to go to a reading comprehension course, followed by a rigorous course in reasoning skills and critical thinking.
I haven't suggested anything that any literate, rational person could interpret as saying that the American colonists "should not have broken the law."
You were the fool who said that the US could not have been formed if the acts of the rebelling American colonists were criminal acts. I pointed out to you that their acts were, in fact, criminal under British law. The colonists knew full well that they would likely be hanged for treason if they failed in their rebellion. They succeeded.
Rebels who lose are traitors. Rebels who win are founding heros.
No one is required to meet your expectations of dumbassed ideological purity through some sort of legal "martyrdom" in the form of precipitating an arrest for a trivial matter.
Besides, martyrdom is a theistic value, so encouraging an atheist to satisfy some religious aspiration is pretty counterproductive.
And... I'm glad you are no longer in the active service, I do not want arrogant fools like yourself wielding weapons."
I understand and appreciate your point of view. I wish all the best to you and ours. Good luck.
Danny
Posted by: Jackson | March 21, 2008 2:03 AM
What a way to waste an evening, reading comments on Pharyngula. This whole event was truly epic.
Posted by: Milo Johnson | March 21, 2008 2:04 AM
...son of a bitch, it worked!
Posted by: Jason Spaceman | March 21, 2008 2:05 AM
Dawkins Crashes 'Expelled' Party
Mark Moring
Noted Darwinist shows up uninvited at private screening of Intelligent Design documentary.
Expelled, a new documentary that argues the case for Intelligent Design from a Judeo-Christian perspective, has been in the headlines lately, prior to its April 18 theatrical release.
The film, hosted and narrated by Ben Stein, has been screened to invitation-only audiences at churches and for various Christian groups. But several critics have worked their way in to some of the screenings, most notably Roger Moore of The Orlando Sentinel, who recently trashed the movie in his blog.
A critic of another kind "crashed" a screening in Minnesota on Thursday night--Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion and arguably the most outspoken critic of Intelligent Design and Creationism. Dawkins himself appears in the documentary--but claims he was duped into believing it was going to be an objective account of Darwinism vs. ID.
Jeffrey Overstreet, a film critic for CT Movies, broke the news on his own blog Thursday night after receiving an e-mail from a college student who was at the screening.
Stuart Blessman, the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities student, told Overstreet in the e-mail that Dawkins' appearance "was quite a surprise" to both the audience and associate producer Mark Mathis, who fielded questions afterward.
Posted by: Drinker | March 21, 2008 2:05 AM
Some schools have an honor code that would Expell!! the dishonorable Mr. Blessman.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 21, 2008 2:07 AM
"Clever"
Wallace has exceeded the self-parody threshold.
No wonder the lights dimmed for moment.
Ok. Back to reality.
PZ unquestionably did the right thing by declining to make a scene. Doing so would have played right into their greasy little atheist-smearing hands. I also believe that taking any sort of legal action would be not only fruitless, but more importantly, a missed opportunity to take the high road.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 2:09 AM
Would they do this for you if their presence simply made you feel sad?
no, then it's time to call Homeland Security.
:p
Posted by: FanO'theBUCKS | March 21, 2008 2:10 AM
Nice work, Doctor.
Posted by: Captian | March 21, 2008 2:10 AM
Maybe you can get on Leno or Letterman with this story (or at least Conan O'Brien).
Posted by: Frak | March 21, 2008 2:11 AM
photos or it didn't happen.
Posted by: Scote | March 21, 2008 2:11 AM
Jeh, what the Expelled producers did was a Hilarious case of clueless and public hypocrisy but it was not illegal in the way you are thinking. Trying to make that point is the wrong one because business are free to discriminate against individuals as long as it is not on the basis of being a member of a "protected" class, such as gender, race, national origin or religion. The producers did not discriminate against PZ based on religion but on the fact that he is an outspoken critic who shines the spotlight of fact-based reason on their alternative reality-based propaganda movie, so it isn't religious discrimination. The movie was a private screening--since, like vampires, Expelled producers are harmed by the light of day.
The correct point about the expulsion is the one PZ is making, which is the parody-proof level of hypocrisy, hubris and Keystone Kops cluelessness exhibited by the Producers in their efforts to save their film from being seen by anyone but an equally clueless audience.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 2:12 AM
...son of a bitch, it worked!
were you using "The Secret"?
Posted by: Milo Johnson | March 21, 2008 2:14 AM
Calgon?
Posted by: Jim Howard | March 21, 2008 2:14 AM
Damn, but I wish I could stay awake for the denouement of this little saga. I guess I'll have to wait until morning. Great job, PZ!
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 2:14 AM
photos or it didn't happen.
http://amused-muse.blogspot.com/2008/03/expelled-from-expelled.html
there ya go; close as you're gonna get, anyway.
Posted by: Alex McQuown | March 21, 2008 2:16 AM
You were the victim of a crime, PZ. To quote the relevant law:
TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 2000a
§ 2000a. Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation
(a) Equal access
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
...
Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this subchapter if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
...
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and ...blah blah you get the point. The officer that told you to leave had no legal means to do so.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 2:17 AM
The producers did not discriminate against PZ based on religion but on the fact that he is an outspoken critic who shines the spotlight of fact-based reason on their alternative reality-based propaganda movie, so it isn't religious discrimination.
you must have missed the tens of thousands of times these folks have called atheism and "darwinism" religions.
so many and so consistently, that one could actually make the argument this WAS religious discrimination, using their own definitions.
Posted by: Koen | March 21, 2008 2:18 AM
The police listening to a loony church sect. Only in America or soon coming to a theatre near you?
Not a laughing matter.
Posted by: Autumn | March 21, 2008 2:19 AM
@jeh and Ichthyic,
I am only stating that as the owner of a business I have the right to refuse service to individuals for little or no reason. I am well within my rights to exclude a customer only because I rolled a die, and his number came up. As long as one is not excluded because of a specific class association articulated in statutes, one is only an individual, and it is well within the rights of a manager to say "I don't like his haircut, please send a cruiser to take him away."
I make no judgement as to the morality of this action, but conflating what I said with Jim Crow laws is a low blow.
And as has been noted in many posts, police officers are very often hired to enforce the whims of particular business owners.
Posted by: Kristine | March 21, 2008 2:20 AM
PZ was causing no disturbance, and neither "Jared" nor Mark Mathis made reference to such. Both said that PZ needed a ticket and had to leave because this was a private screening to which he was not invited. I had no ticket, and I was not invited, unless you call posting a link on a "please fill our theatre, tell your friends, da da" website an invitation. In which case, it's the same "invitation" PZ got.
At any rate, Mark Mathis lied to me, too. He told me that "Crossroads" was a "working title" for the film. Wesley Elsberry has shown that the domain for Expelled was purchased before all or most of the interviews were done.
This is just disgraceful.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 2:20 AM
Calgon?
oh, man, are you telling me you missed some good woo?
http://www.thesecret.tv/
it was all the rage (read: laughter generating) just last year.
PZ posted about it on several occasions.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 2:22 AM
This is just disgraceful.
she said with an evil grin and a shimmy.
:P
Posted by: MandyDax | March 21, 2008 2:22 AM
From that blog post that John Pieret linked to earlier, Stuart puts this at the bottom with a spoiler alert:
Okay, already new that they try this poisoning the well tactic. Never mind that their "atheism leads to eugenics" is the most flawed of all of these syllogisms.Shouts out: <3 to PZ for posting this ASAP and giving me a genuine LOL experience, to Richard for scaring the shit out of Mathis with his mere presence, to Kristine for posting about what went on inside, to Cuttlefish for yet another fantastic topical poem (rhyming Eohippus = brilliant!), and to the people to decided PZ needed removing for breaking my collection of irony detectors.
Posted by: Susannah | March 21, 2008 2:22 AM
Whom the gods will destroy, they first make mad. And how!
I never use this, but what else can be said? - ROFLMBFPAO!
Posted by: Jarett | March 21, 2008 2:22 AM
Epic, PZ. PLEASE post about whatever comes of this, I can't wait to hear Dr. Dawkins' reaction.
Posted by: Milo Johnson | March 21, 2008 2:23 AM
These people are brain-damaged.
Posted by: QED99 | March 21, 2008 2:23 AM
"Photos or it didn't happen.
http://amused-muse.blogspot.com/2008/03/expelled-from-expelled.html
there ya go; close as you're gonna get, anyway."
No, no. That won't do. Where are all the missing transitional photos?
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 2:23 AM
And as has been noted in many posts, police officers are very often hired to enforce the whims of particular business owners.
OFF DUTY
why is it that this is not sinking in?
Posted by: Mac | March 21, 2008 2:24 AM
Unbelievable, PZ. Just incredible. I laughed, I cried, I'm waiting for the full recap tomorrow.
Posted by: propter doc | March 21, 2008 2:25 AM
Funny, but in a disturbing sort of way. What defense is reason against such ignorance?
Posted by: Drinker | March 21, 2008 2:26 AM
If UM Student Stuart Blessman isn't a lie himself then he will probably become a bit more notorious.
The only other place HisFlyness has been seen before is also on lookingcloser and a U2 fan site.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 2:26 AM
"I don't like his haircut, please send a cruiser to take him away."
now try doing that every day, and see what kind of official response you get.
do you think it a good idea to defend the notion that one can abuse tax-paid officials for personal whims?
just curious.
Posted by: jeh | March 21, 2008 2:26 AM
Trying to make that point is the wrong one because business are free to discriminate against individuals as long as it is not on the basis of being a member of a "protected" class, such as gender, race, national origin or religion.
Hmm, you say it's OK as long as it is not on the basis of religion? So therefore, technically, PZ's lack of religion is a legit reason? And if they kicked him out because he was Jewish that would not be OK? Puh-lease.
So imagine they decided to make a movie based on one of Jack Chick's vehemently anti-Catholic tracts. Could they legitimately exclude Catholics from a screening that was publicly announced?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 21, 2008 2:26 AM
PZ unquestionably did the right thing by declining to make a scene. Doing so would have played right into their greasy little atheist-smearing hands. I also believe that taking any sort of legal action would be not only fruitless, but more importantly, a missed opportunity to take the high road.
Something I often see missing in discussions of tactic and strategy--in a number of movement forums--is a failure to understand issues of proportionality. PZ getting his ass arrested would have been counterproductive. It was a private screening in that the theater was rented out and people had to sign up in advance in order to get in. They would seem to be legally within their rights to exclude him (anyone ever see those signs that say "We reserve the right to refuse service...." before?). He wasn't expelled explicitly because of his atheism, (the civil rights issue some might want to raise) but because of his online presence. He would blow their ability to control the message by putting everything out there in a critical, factual review. This just keeps them able to say, "see, he's complaining about a movie he hasn't seen" but they didn't count on Richard Dawkins or PZ's family or some of the other science blogging folks to get in. The ability to control message is slipping away. Getting arrested would have made PZ look foolish. Instead the whole instance demonstrates the Expelled folks' ridiculousness (I still think there need to be *jazz hands* in use when ever one says EXPELLED!...I'm imagining a "Just Jack" situation.)
I see this with certain student--and other--activists as well. Everything requires a protest. Why, they never know, but protest has to happen. Tactics should be proportional to the goal. With Dawkins getting in but PZ left out, while his family and other science bloggers get in(!), really does make them look ridiculous. Getting arrested would have made PZ look ridiculous.
Now, if RD is going to be on Maher tomorrow (probably by remote?) the story becomes even more widespread, and these idiots look even more ridiculous.
Dammit! I've told myself I'm going to withdraw from so much online time, but this just sucked me back in. Gonna be a weaning process, I can tell.
Posted by: OzAtheist | March 21, 2008 2:28 AM
I might not be laughing as hard as you PZ, but I am having a good chortle.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 21, 2008 2:28 AM
Has anyone left a scathing comment here yet? Five-to-one sez they';; never actually appear
Posted by: Reed | March 21, 2008 2:28 AM
#559 The proprietor of any establishment is well within his or her rights to call the police to remove a person that they just don't like.
Not if the reason they "just don't like" them is gender, race, color, religion, or national origin. See for example USC Title 42 sec 200
Now that doesn't necessarily apply to this incident for several reasons (they could have excluded PZ for other reasons than his [lack of] religion, and this was a vaguely "private" screening despite being open to anyone on the internet), but the general statement that you can exclude anyone from a public establishment (as defined in the link above this includes theaters) for any reason is incorrect.
Again, I am NOT saying PZ could or should sue. IMO, that would be silly and a waste of effort even if he did have a legal ground.
The simple fact that the makers of expelled chose to prevent someone who was featured in their movie from viewing a screening is more damaging than any legal action would be.
Posted by: Morgan | March 21, 2008 2:30 AM
I have a theory about why you were expelled and Richard Dawkins wasn't.
Somebody DID recognize Dawkins, and pointed him out to the guards before going on about some other business. But the guard thought they were pointing at you. The guard thought YOU were Dawkins and kept you out of the film.
Then, I imagine, the guard was told that Dawkins had to leave immediately. So he found "Dawkins" (you) and booted you out.
Any number of people may have seen Dawkins and wanted him out--but word spread that he had been dealt with, and by some luck, he made it to his seat without being noticed again. Maybe the reason he wasn't noticed again is BECAUSE the people who had been waiting for him and worrying believed he was gone--so they stopped looking!
Funny story either way.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 2:33 AM
Again, I am NOT saying PZ could or should sue. IMO, that would be silly and a waste of effort even if he did have a legal ground.
just to be clear, I'm not either.
I just want a public issue to be made of the usage of official personnel in this capacity, if indeed ON DUTY cops were used in this case.
It sounds like it was not the case, however, from witness reports. sounds more like mall guards, which is entirely appropriate:
private thugs to protect a "private" venue.
Posted by: Kristine | March 21, 2008 2:33 AM
The first e-mail:
"Dear [I used my real name],
This is a confirmation of your RSVP for the free "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" movie screening. Venue information is below.
Theater: AMC Mall of America 14
4th Level, Center of South Ave.
Bloomington, MN 55425
Date: March 20
Time: 7:00 PM
Number of seats reserved: 2
YOUR NAME WILL BE ON A LIST AT THE DOOR. NO TICKET IS NEEDED.
More information about "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" can be found at *link blah blah*
Sincerely,
Motive Entertainement
If you need to cancel or make an important change to an existing RSVP, please email *snip.* Be sure to reference the screening city, date, and time in your email."
I received a second e-mail reminder again stating that no ticket was required.
Posted by: Anthony | March 21, 2008 2:33 AM
Well, you see Professor PZ Myers has this nice American name and they were obviously confused by the Professor Richard Dawkins with that unintelligible English name.
Posted by: Dr Benway | March 21, 2008 2:34 AM
Someone rented the theater for a private party, just as you or I might do. No tickets were sold for money to the general public.
The people renting the theater can legally exclude anyone they please.
Posted by: jeh | March 21, 2008 2:35 AM
"I don't like his haircut, please send a cruiser to take him away."
Wow, you must live in a different part of American than I do. And if the business owner asks the police to kick the sh*t out of them--for good measure--will they do that too?
Posted by: Amafortas | March 21, 2008 2:35 AM
PZ,
Thank you for this. Westborough Baptist is visiting my University this week. (Or to be more accurate, they've invaded.) your story restores my faith in reason.
Cheers
~A,
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 21, 2008 2:36 AM
"Something I often see missing in discussions of tactic and strategy--in a number of movement forums--is a failure to understand issues of proportionality."
Abso-damnwell-lutely. And does anyone who so cavalierly suggests protest or legal action know what a pain in the ass getting arrested and/or suing would be? For a stupid movie? PZ will get to see this movie eventually (unless Mathis distributes his picture to every theater in Minnesota, and that would just be ever the more god damned hilarious).
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 2:37 AM
Dammit! I've told myself I'm going to withdraw from so much online time,
ahh, that explains why I haven't seen your posts of late.
good man.
psst:
thesis
:p
Posted by: StarMan | March 21, 2008 2:38 AM
This is why most super heroes have a sidekick
Posted by: Bharat | March 21, 2008 2:38 AM
That was unbelievable PZ. Congrats for becoming the number 1 public enemy.
Completely made my day.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 21, 2008 2:40 AM
"Has any previous Pharyngula post hit the 500 mark in comments before? Certainly not in one short evening."
This is probably the fastest I've ever seen, but oh yes, threads have gone over 500 numerous times. Any time Myers invokes Scott Adams, for example. And the time he deliberately baited the global warming deniers, we got over 1300 comments on that one. And the "Ahistorical Garbage" thread might just top that record if we get any more goofballs trickling in.
Posted by: gunasekaran | March 21, 2008 2:42 AM
Hi , This is very nice and superb...
Posted by: Kristine | March 21, 2008 2:43 AM
Someone rented the theater for a private party
A "private party," posted on a public website with a link to click for free admission to these screenings, at which DVDs are distributed with film clips, so that "you can spread the word to the general public"? A "private party," in which the producer exhorts you to rat on your neighbors and mentions that "we are working with the FBI" to identify "the enemies of this film"?
Oh, did I mention that they brought up the FBI?
Posted by: Kseniya | March 21, 2008 2:44 AM
Heh. Yeah.
I miss you, Jeff, but... what Icky said. ;-)
Posted by: Scote | March 21, 2008 2:45 AM
Jeh, this moment is a great one that exposes the Expelled producers for the irrational screaming hypocrites that they are. Enjoy it! I know I am.
But you continue to make the wrong point and one not supported by facts or law. For purposes of being in the audience the producers couldn't care less if PZ is religious or not, they only care if he has credulously swallowed their "freedom to teach the controversy" codswalop. While religious people are far, far more likely to do so than secular people clulessness is not exclusive to creed. This was not a case of religious discrimination and your analogy fails to be analogous. You are overstating your case and, thus, loosing the argument.
You know those signs that say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?" Well, they are **legal** when used in the context of booting PZed. The Epic Fail is the public exposure of they hypocrisy, not the breaking of any law. As to the laws people have cited, those do not apply the same way to "invitation only" private events--and PZed was not discriminated on the basis of being a member of a protected class. While you could argue that the self-selection process of signing up on line functionally made the event public, you still won't be able to prove that PZed's **religion** got him booted rather than his outspoken, science-based criticism of the film. Were he credulously supportive of the film, I have no doubt that he would have been allowed in, atheist or no.
If you are going to argue against irrationality please do so using reason rather than emotion.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 21, 2008 2:45 AM
ahh, that explains why I haven't seen your posts of late.
And even when I did, I stayed within my field of study....not going too far astray any more (my mind wanders easy)
Posted by: gunasekaran | March 21, 2008 2:46 AM
Hi , This is very nice and superb...
Posted by: Calladus | March 21, 2008 2:47 AM
Not that I want to speak in their defense, but I'll go out on a limb an be fair...
Perhaps the guest list got loaded by practical jokers? It was a web sign-up after all. What sort of verification was put into this? Check on a throw-away email address?
I could easily see the guy vetting the list ...
"We've got 21 'Charles Darwins' and 15 'Thomas Huxleys'. And look, 5 'Richard Dawkins'. I removed all I found - I just hope one didn't slip by."
"Oh, look, just one PZ Myers! THIS must be for real, after all, the professor lives nearby! Let's keep a lookout for him!"
tsk
Posted by: Anatomie | March 21, 2008 2:48 AM
Fucking. Priceless.
Posted by: William Wallace | March 21, 2008 2:48 AM
Wow, PZ...ould you spell out specifically the ideological test you would recommend for admission to the U. of M.?
Our own Dr. Michael Dini at UofM-Morris.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 21, 2008 2:49 AM
I'm not dead! Just posting a lot less. Can't spend quite so much time doing this shit, when I should be writing about state regulation of marriage and the integration of gay lifestyles into the relations of production and consumption :)~
This just means you have to show up at the drinking festivities, like this Monday's Skeptics in the Pub with Mike the Mad Biologist (see skepchick.org for details!)
Posted by: Drinker | March 21, 2008 2:49 AM
Liar Stuart Blessman has a blog. http://stu2.blogspot.com/
It's just what you'd expect from an ID believer.
Posted by: Autumn | March 21, 2008 2:51 AM
To jeh, Ichthyic, and Reed,
I am not endorsing the action taken in this case, I am, however, respecting the right of individual business owners to prohibit entry onto their premises of whoever they deem undesirable.
Yes, this means that I support the right of a business owner to not serve me because of my long hair (gone now, but I've been refused things because of it in the past). Government services should absoloutly be available to everyone, but if I own a business and decide to not allow men with sideburns into my store, that is wholly legal. It will likely cut into my bottom line, but it is the right of the owner, renter, or manager, to kick out whomever the hell they want to.
Posted by: scote | March 21, 2008 2:52 AM
"Well, you see Professor PZ Myers has this nice American name and they were obviously confused by the Professor Richard Dawkins with that unintelligible English name."
I'm guessing they let him in because Dawkins looks like a respectable, mild-mannered Episcopalian minister rather than Satan's Evolutionist. They probably had a Be On the Look Out photo of someone with horns and a pointy tail and a bearded guy with tentacles below the waist. Guess they only spotted the later.
Posted by: William Wallace | March 21, 2008 2:54 AM
Wow. I wrote PT-mafia in the sense of an ideological clique. But based on Kristine's reporting, maybe the term PT-mafia represents something even more sinister than I had recognized.
Posted by: luis alexandre | March 21, 2008 2:55 AM
Talk about getting the last laugh...
Posted by: DBC | March 21, 2008 2:56 AM
Damn. Even I'll delurk for this...
Where are all the folks who attacked PZ for talking about the movie he hadn't seen yet? I'd like to hear their reactions.
Posted by: idlemind | March 21, 2008 2:56 AM
Must be way past your bedtime, "William Wallace," given your inability to comprehend straightforward English words. Since when does basic ethics -- like not telling lies in public -- constitute an ideology?
Posted by: Lee Harrison | March 21, 2008 2:57 AM
Willy Wally:
Wow, Willy boy - you are a real arse.
Posted by: Scote | March 21, 2008 2:58 AM
"Wow, PZ...ould you spell out specifically the ideological test you would recommend for admission to the U. of M.?
Our own Dr. Michael Dini at UofM-Morris.
Posted by: William Wallace"
Let's see. How about people who don't knowingly make false and defamatory statements about other UofMers?
Not really and ideological test in the sense you are trying to imply, though, more of an ethical one. You know, the kind that University Codes of Ethics deal with?
Posted by: MJKelleher | March 21, 2008 2:58 AM
I couldn't go off-line until I read and laughed some more.
My guess on why PZ was bounced but not RD is that PZ made the reservation under his own name, and including unnamed "guests". Identifications requested to match against the reservation list. They knew PZ was coming, but RD wasn't anticipated, so he got in under their radar.
Good work!
Posted by: Pmomma | March 21, 2008 2:59 AM
CLASSIC!!!! Not to shoot down your ego, but...how could they possibly recognize YOU and not DAWKINS!?! Was HE not on "the list"? This is just too priceless.
These people are complete and total hypocrites! How can they sit there with a straight face and argue that secular science is censoring, and "expelling", an opposing viewpoint, while at the same time censoring and expelling vocal atheists and scientists?
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 3:00 AM
It will likely cut into my bottom line, but it is the right of the owner, renter, or manager, to kick out whomever the hell they want to.
and it's my right as a taxpayer to say that frivolous usage of police services, if used to obtain your "rights" in this fashion, can and should be frowned upon.
If actual on-duty police officers were used to guard entrance into a fucking FILM, then I call that frivolous usage of a public service, and I want to know how the city that employs such officers feels about it.
clearer?
Posted by: Jim | March 21, 2008 3:00 AM
He said ethically, not ideologically challenged, WW. Another idiot-admit for UM, I see. Get to class much?
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 21, 2008 3:02 AM
Is Mr. Wallace actually suggesting that the existence of a policy on academic integrity, academic honesty, and student conduct is some sort of oppressive requirement? Are Christians really that morally stunted?.
Posted by: Kristine | March 21, 2008 3:02 AM
You want to clarify that statement regaring me, William Wallace?
Posted by: Kseniya | March 21, 2008 3:02 AM
Wallace again exceeds the self-parody threshold! He's going for the record tonight.
Kristine: "...the producer exhorts you to rat on your neighbors..."
Are you serious?
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 3:03 AM
Wow, Willy boy - you are a real arse.
I warned him, but like all creobots, they just can't help but shoot themselves in the head.
It's just making this whole thing all the sweeter, to see the irony that is "expelled" being accurately reflected in the posts of the very people who support it.
It's like when you look at two mirrors, held up to each other, and you see endless reflections....
Posted by: scott | March 21, 2008 3:03 AM
If I were in this situation I would never consider suing the producers of Expelled, but I would think about suing Stuart Blessman for his "a man apparently hustling and bothering several invited attendees, apparently trying to disrupt the viewing or sneak in." As I read his words, they come pretty close to be libelous, if "a man" is legally sufficient to connect his statement to an individual.
Posted by: Damian | March 21, 2008 3:04 AM
Stuart Blessman, the lying, backtracking troll says (on "looking closer"):
The baby Jesus is in floods of tears, the poor little guy.
Posted by: Joseph Hewitt | March 21, 2008 3:04 AM
Too funny. This is an anecdote to keep for the ages.
Posted by: Autumn | March 21, 2008 3:04 AM
Note that I agree wholeheartedly with laws defining discrimination against various classes of folks illegal.
All I am saying is that "undesireable" is subjective, and thus open to exclusion.
Trying to prove that one has been excluded for a particular reason is damn-near impossible.
I am in no way endorsing such behavior, I am merely reminding you that the waitress who keeps the local asshole from coming back to the bar is relying on the generous interpretation of exclusion to keep an undesireable out.
I may be wholly missing what I am trying to say, and if that is the case, I apologise.
I seem to be misconstrued more often than not, but I'm married, so its become old-hat.
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 21, 2008 3:05 AM
An enemies list!?! This just gets better and better. It should not come as any surprise, given Ben Stein's past employment, that their is a list of "enemies of the film". How Nixonian.
Posted by: William Wallace | March 21, 2008 3:06 AM
Could you put this to rest. At worst, this was a moonlighting police officer whose wages were paid by a private party. At best, it was just a security guard.
Posted by: Godstomper | March 21, 2008 3:06 AM
According to this website
(http://lookingcloser.wordpress.com
/2008/03/20/richard-dawkins-crashes-the-party-at-a-screening-of-expelled),
PZ was removed for being disruptive and not having a ticket. It also states none of the producers were there. I'd seriously like to know what happened.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 21, 2008 3:06 AM
Before I head, I just have to mention that I love the sight of William Wallace acting as the sole defender of the ID crowd after this massive Leroy Jenkins moment. He kind of reminds me of the last Japanese soldier, fighting on even though the war is over. Or in this case, even though the huge, irreversible public humiliation of his confreres has already taken place.
Posted by: Stuart Blessman's blog | March 21, 2008 3:06 AM
...
Tell me if this statement is troublesome - "What do atheists and the Grinch have in common?"
This is what we wrote on the whiteboard at the contact table today, including a very well drawn picture of the Grinch. Yesterday we had "Communists and the Grinch." (I think we should go for broke and write "Atheists, the Grinch, and hundreds of millions dead") This seemingly innocent question seems to pack a lot of heat. Grant, a former atheist, came up with it.
"That statement is horrible! It really offends me! I'm gonna go report you to the campus union, you shouldn't be saying such things on public property! Your grammar is incorrect (we had "does" originally). You are turning away people with statements like that; they can't find Christ because of you! You should change it to "Jews and the Grinch", that would make more sense. It's an unfair comparison that presupposes things. You aren't Christian, you aren't showing Christ's love!" Etc etc, just a handful of the things I heard at the table during 45 minutes.
Is that statement really that troublesome? Or do most atheists have such shaky convictions that the littlest thing offends them? We had one guy stop to argue the question (he acknowledged it was a question!), and I asked him if atheism was a religion. To his credit and to my surprise, he answered "yes." It took me back. We then asked if he was an atheist, and he stormed off after telling us it was none of our business. Still, I'm proud of the guy, and I told him so.
.... More at Lying Student Stuart Blessman's Blog http://stu2.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 21, 2008 3:08 AM
Feel free to document this claim any time you like, jackass.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 3:09 AM
@autumn
I am in no way endorsing such behavior
fair enough.
@wally gator:
At worst, this was a moonlighting police officer whose wages were paid by a private party. At best, it was just a security guard.
and you know this... how?
the same way you KNEW PZ had "done something wrong"?
how you can keep going when everyone is laughing at your idiocy is just remarkable.
Posted by: Kristine | March 21, 2008 3:09 AM
Are you serious?
Yes, I am serious. After telling us that "some group" was trying to video the entire film (which I might add is not on 35mm film but is a crappy laptop feed) to post on torrent, he told us to look around at our neighbors to see that no illegal activity was going on.
Nomad also went a day or so ago - read his account at the "Expelled" thread at After the Bar Closes.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | March 21, 2008 3:11 AM
Well, the name of the movie says "no intelligence allowed", so PZ shouldn't have expected to be allowed in.
-jcr
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 3:12 AM
Or do most atheists have such shaky convictions that the littlest thing offends them?
says the person who supposedly watched PZ get physically removed from a screening of the movie...
oh fuck, what's the point.
It's just to funny. My irony meter is beyond busted, and the overflow is starting to hurt.
Posted by: Trent1492 | March 21, 2008 3:13 AM
Stuart Blessman is on the "Looking Closer" blog right now, digging himself deeper into a pit of lies.
http://tiny.cc/FKr8K
Posted by: Nic Nicholson | March 21, 2008 3:13 AM
LOL, PZ Myers denied entry on the basis of (lack of) religion.
Funny, funny, fundies.
Posted by: octopod | March 21, 2008 3:14 AM
#630, what on earth does the quoted post have to do with your reply to it?
PZM: "Boy, I sure think our students are largely a bright and ethical bunch! I suppose there are always a few dim ones, but I haven't met any real scumbags. Go figure."
WW: "Ideological purity test, you say? Tell me more!"
Also, wasn't the Dini thing about him not wanting to write recommendations for students who totally failed to grasp the point of his class? Why on earth did a creationist ask an evolutionary biology prof for letters of recommendation, anyhow? Isn't that kinda like a flat-earther asking a geophysics professor for a recommendation?
Posted by: Lance | March 21, 2008 3:15 AM
I've read but never commented before. This warrants a change. I laughed pretty hard. I shared it with my girlfriend and she laughed too. After reading some of the comments on here about them trying to remove Dawkins, I wonder if it might be funnier if they let him stay. I'd love to see the looks on everyone's faces once the lights come on and they see him standing there. Now THAT could be priceless.
Oh yes, and the, "That's not what I meant!!" could be funny too. Maybe just a, "Wrong!" here and there plus the above idea I had. Sorry, now I'm rambling. So funny I can't think straight.
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 21, 2008 3:16 AM
I hope someone is preserving screencaps or PDF versions or something of the Looking Closer post(s)...
You know IDiots and their memory holes.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 3:16 AM
Yes, I am serious. After telling us that "some group" was trying to video the entire film (which I might add is not on 35mm film but is a crappy laptop feed) to post on torrent, he told us to look around at our neighbors to see that no illegal activity was going on.
it must have been the overwhelming paranoia that attracted Stein to these folks to begin with, just like it attracted him to Nixon.
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 21, 2008 3:16 AM
OK, so let's recap what we know of the Designer:
Likes: Atheist Biologists, Beetles, Hydrogen
Dislikes: Erstwhile Nixon staffers, Discovery Institute, Hypocrisy
Posted by: Bob | March 21, 2008 3:17 AM
Wow, just wow.
I cannot wait to see how they spin this one.
Posted by: Sue Larries | March 21, 2008 3:18 AM
One string of invective, please.
Willy Wallace - you are a humorless, smugly stupid shit and fully deserve to be a coward Xian fuckwit you are, you soul-less shit of a trolling ass.
I pity to the bottom of my heart whatever family is connected to you, in any way,and anyone who has the misfortune to work with or near you shape or form.
Enjoy that parody you call your life, even if it isn't amusing, except in the sickest, saddest way.
Posted by: CS | March 21, 2008 3:18 AM
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2008/03/dawkins_crashes.html
March 20, 2008 11:42PM
Dawkins Crashes 'Expelled' Party
Mark Moring
Noted Darwinist shows up uninvited at private screening of Intelligent Design documentary.
Expelled, a new documentary that argues the case for Intelligent Design from a Judeo-Christian perspective, has been in the headlines lately, prior to its April 18 theatrical release.
The film, hosted and narrated by Ben Stein, has been screened to invitation-only audiences at churches and for various Christian groups. But several critics have worked their way in to some of the screenings, most notably Roger Moore of The Orlando Sentinel, who recently trashed the movie in his blog.
A critic of another kind "crashed" a screening in Minnesota on Thursday night--Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion and arguably the most outspoken critic of Intelligent Design and Creationism. Dawkins himself appears in the documentary--but claims he was duped into believing it was going to be an objective account of Darwinism vs. ID.
Jeffrey Overstreet, a film critic for CT Movies, broke the news on his own blog Thursday night after receiving an e-mail from a college student who was at the screening.
Stuart Blessman, the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities student, told Overstreet in the e-mail that Dawkins' appearance "was quite a surprise" to both the audience and associate producer Mark Mathis, who fielded questions afterward.
Blessman reported that Dawkins asked several questions, and complained that "any statement he made in the film was in fact under the assumption that he was being interviewed . . . for a film that was to take an even-handed look at the Intelligent Design/Evolution controversy."
It's not the first time Dawkins and other Darwinian experts say they were duped by the filmmakers. The Guardian reported last fall that Dawkins said, "At no time was I given the slightest clue that these people were a creationist front," he said. And The New York Times quotes Dawkins and other atheists who appeared in the film under a "deceptive invitation."
Blessman also wrote that "the Q&A then proceeded pretty uneventfully, with several of the questions addressed to Dawkins himself. Mathis and Dawkins also clearly had spoken on numerous occasions and appeared to continue an argument that they had started previously."
Read more about Expelled in earlier editions of Reel News at CT Movies.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 21, 2008 3:20 AM
Well. Time for bed. Kristine, thanks for sharing all this interesting information. This really puts the "qzzyx" in "surreal".
Posted by: blf | March 21, 2008 3:22 AM
Brilliant! Fecking brilliant!
One possibility (of several) I don't recall seeing mentioned about asking Pee Zed to leave and not Dawkins: Dawkins was also on (completely legal) banned list, perhaps even had his picture circulated as well, and the staff simply failed to recognise him.
The alleged Q&A session afterwards doesn't prove "they" knew beforehand that Dawkins was present. Given how fast this aim-at-both-feet, shoot-the-full-clip has spread on the interwoos, a reasonable hypothesis is someone(s?) spotted the story and made a few calls. Just like people tried to contact the media. (B.t.w., did any media types show up?)
And, as I think it was Martin who said (paraphrasing), would the people yapping about suits et al. get a fecking clew!
Posted by: Nullifidian | March 21, 2008 3:24 AM
You should have allowed yourself to be arrested. You were to commit no crime at all. Please don't show courage on the web only to show cowardice in real life. Is this how you stand up for what you believe?
This is the most ignorant, dick-waving bullshit I've seen in an age. I have been arrested before, and it's not a lot of fun, particularly when being warehoused in a toxic environment like Pier 57 in New York City during the 2004 RNC protests. There is absolutely no reason on this earth why PZ should have let himself be arrested over a stupid creationist movie. Leaving himself free to post about their refusal to admit him, with the cherry on top being that Dawkins was allowed in, is the exact right way to handle it.
If I didn't think it was utterly pointless to try this strategy, I would think you're an agent provocateur, because it would play right into the hands of the creationists if they were to be able to report that a Darwinist was so intent on crashing (and, it would be inferred, disrupting) the movie that he had to be hauled off in handcuffs. There is a time and a place for that kind of thing, and this was not it.
Posted by: Nomad | March 21, 2008 3:25 AM
I recently went to one of the screenings as well, perhaps I can add a clarification. In my case we had a hired thug wearing a police uniform present as well. Despite the fact that the cop left his police cruiser parked immediately outside the entrance to the theater, instead of in the parking lot like a normal person might, and also despite the fact that he was wearing his full police uniform, he was described to us as being an off duty officer.
I expect that the officer who showed PZ out was also off duty. I was not aware that they get to use their cruisers and full uniforms and are allowed to park in no parking zones when doing mercenary work, but apparently they do.
The problem I have with this is that PZ was forced out of the entire theater, not simply denied access to the screen that was rented out for Expelled. I assume that they would have had to have the operator of the theater ask the cop to do that, the Expelled people have no right dictating who may or mat not be present in the entire theater. Unless I'm mistaken and they actually did rent out the entire theater building and every screen within.
And I'd expect that the theater operator would prefer not to do that, I'd expect bad it to be bad publicity if they're shown strong arming people out of their business as a result of pressure from religiously motivated individuals.
I think I know how Dawkins got in without setting off alarms in advance, but just in case I'm right and the same concept may be employed again I'll refrain from blowing it (although it's easy enough to figure out). If those involved wish to spill the beans, though, I'd like to know if I'm right.
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 21, 2008 3:25 AM
Holy shit, are the Looking Closer and Christianity Today blogs really using THE EXACT SAME TITLE?
lol...
PS: take a look at the comments policy on Jeffrey Overstreet's site for extra humor.
Posted by: Marcus Pittman | March 21, 2008 3:29 AM
I think it is great...Why would any "Rational" person want to see our "creationist propaganda" anyway...it's funny. You won't let us teach it in school's, so we finally get to Kick you out.
As for Dawkins, who refuses to take part in any debate or think using his own individual thoughts, or answer any tough questions regarding his obvious religion, Were delighted that he finally took the time to challenge his faith.
Nice turn of events and we get some amazing publicity. The "Producer" knows what he is doing...
+1 Creationist.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 3:29 AM
PS: take a look at the comments policy on Jeffrey Overstreet's site for extra humor.
sorry, already on irony overload.
must - drink - beer...
Posted by: Form&Function | March 21, 2008 3:29 AM
LOLDawkins
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 21, 2008 3:30 AM
The problem I have with this is that PZ was forced out of the entire theater, not simply denied access to the screen that was rented out for Expelled
Good point. I'm sure 10,000BC was playing.
Posted by: Zachary B. | March 21, 2008 3:30 AM
My mouth literally just gaped open when I read Richard's name.
Well played P.Z. Well played.
Posted by: Russell Seitz | March 21, 2008 3:31 AM
Positively Illuminating PZ-- so much so that I up and
Illuminated it for the benefit of posterity-- the producer's conduct is so epically stupid that this episode deserves a mosaic in the Cathedral Of Dumb:
http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2008/03/the-bayeaux-tra.html
Posted by: Godstomper | March 21, 2008 3:32 AM
Never mind my last comment. I came across new information claiming that Blessman lied.
"Is that statement really that troublesome? Or do most atheists have such shaky convictions that the littlest thing offends them?"
The problem isn't that they attacked someone's views, but rather that they endorsed a baseless stereotype. Besides, your whole story sounds made up and calling atheism a "religion" is just playing word games. Call atheism whatever you like, but know that when religion is criticized, the critics are referring either to a belief system taken on faith or a belief (or beliefs, more precisely)in supernatural ontological claims.
Regardless of how you define "religion," or any other word for that matter, you still need to address the arguments themselves. If there was evidence for the existence of god(s), that would justify theism. If there was evidence against it, that would justify weak or strong atheism, depending on the strength of the evidence. If evidence was absent either way, then atheism, defined simply as an absence of belief, would be justified. Redefining words cannot change the evidence nor how it is evaluated for any proposition.
My arguments do not unfairly attack religion, but instead treats its claims as you would any other for the sake of logical consistency.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 3:33 AM
Nice turn of events and we get some amazing publicity. The "Producer" knows what he is doing...
yeah, if he running a "twit of the year" contest is what he was after.
here, this is last year's:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSqkdcT25ss
you might want to participate in the next one yourself!
oh wait...
Posted by: momo | March 21, 2008 3:37 AM
perfect!!!
and, did Richard enjoy it?
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 21, 2008 3:37 AM
Ichthyic, that is the film we use for Jerry. I do not thing I have to finish the rest of that statement.
Posted by: Pantufla Milagrosa | March 21, 2008 3:38 AM
I say we all chip in for PZ's $10 ticket to watch the movie when it comes out!
Posted by: T&A | March 21, 2008 3:38 AM
That is hilarious! If this doesn't prove how dimwitted these creationist are, I don't know what will!
Posted by: paul | March 21, 2008 3:39 AM
atheism cured my ADD!!, i just read every comment.
Posted by: Leigh | March 21, 2008 3:40 AM
@Marcus Pittman(#667):
"I think it is great...Why would any "Rational" person want to see our "creationist propaganda" anyway...it's funny. You won't let us teach it in school's, so we finally get to Kick you out."
Dude! What's with the random capitalization, grotesque misspelling, and (ahem) idiosyncratic punctuation? In our "school's", indeed!
We won't let you and your ilk teach biology for the same reason we won't let you teach English. You know nothing, and your ignorance would be contagious.
But what's even worse is what you *think* you know, because it's all wrong. That's not just clueless -- it's dangerous.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 3:42 AM
I do not thing I have to finish the rest of that statement.
heh.
nope.
It just had to be put somewhere in this thread, for posterity's sake.
I mean, what the Expelled folks pulled off would most surely win them that contest, hands down.
Posted by: Tam | March 21, 2008 3:42 AM
I have to admit, even though Dawkins feels much more famous than Myers to me (duh), I don't know what he looks like (at least until I saw the loldawkins above), and I would recognize ol' PZ. Go figure.
Posted by: Madwack | March 21, 2008 3:44 AM
I am amazed about the lightheartedness with which you tell us that for absolutely no reason you are refused entrance to a cinema, enforced by a police officer.
Am I reading this correctly? You have to sign in and show I.D to go and watch a movie? F*** me, and I thought Europe was already bad..
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 21, 2008 3:44 AM
Do the Darwin Awards have some category for stuff like this besides "Honorable Mention"? Like "Special Achievement in Abject, Humiliating Stupidity without Loss of Life or Injury", say? 'Cause they should, at least this once.
Posted by: paul | March 21, 2008 3:46 AM
Damn it, I think I need a new name to post under, I'm not the paul that was cured of ADD by atheism. Funny comment though.
Posted by: Nullifidian | March 21, 2008 3:46 AM
It's like the old adage - 'They came for the Jews/Xians/Zoasters and I did nothing...' They came for the Atheist and he did nothing.
Danny, Danny, Danny, Danny....
That is not just an old adage; it is a poem from Martin Niemöller. It is written in response to a historical incident you might have heard of called the Holocaust. By referencing it to use against Dr. Myers, you are inverting the sense of the poem from a cry of regret of a not-so-innocent bystander to use it against the victim. If they came for the Atheist and he did nothing, then it is appropriate to say, mutatis mutandis, of the Holocaust that they came for the Jews, the Roma/Sinti, the anarchists, the communists, etc. and they did nothing. This is the most disgusting and distasteful way of registering your disagreement with Dr. Myers that I can think of.
So my advice to you would be just go fuck off before you make an even bigger arse of yourself than you have done already.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 3:46 AM
Do the Darwin Awards have some category for stuff like this besides "Honorable Mention"?
you're right, it does belong there, and they do have categories that would fit:
http://www.darwinawards.com/
I highly suggest, if you have the energy, that you get cracking and submit it!
I'm done in.
too much irony for one night.
Posted by: Sharilyn | March 21, 2008 3:47 AM
Re: #610
Instead the whole instance demonstrates the Expelled folks' ridiculousness (I still think there need to be *jazz hands* in use when ever one says EXPELLED!...I'm imagining a "Just Jack" situation.)
OMFSM!!!! LMAO! STOP it! I have been laughing so hard through the last few hours I just got my sides to stop hurting! The Just Jack and Jazz Hands reference was entirely TOO IMMEDIATELY VISUALIZED!! ROFLMAO while reaching again for my Albuterol.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | March 21, 2008 3:48 AM
Posting in an epic thread...
lulz were had by all
Posted by: Reed | March 21, 2008 3:51 AM
@CS #671
That was linked earlier in the comments. I posted a comment there, but unsurprisingly, it has yet to show up.
@Autumn
I agree that you have to be able to throw out undesirables. All I was trying to do is point out that there are limits as to what criteria you can use to decide someone is undesirable. Unless the expelled people had a policy of excluding people based on their religious views, they are well within their rights. Even if that was their policy, they might be OK due to the supposed "invite only" nature of the event.
@madwack
It was a "private" event (read up for details, that's debatable but it wasn't your regular buy a ticket and watch showing), and even regular theaters have the right to refuse service to anyone (as long as it isn't based on race, religion etc.) Same reason a bouncer can throw you out of a bar.
Posted by: Nepal123.com | March 21, 2008 3:52 AM
Well, I am not laughing as hard you are and all these stupid fans that are laughing hard.... just coz YOU had some special guest to watch the movie for you??
And then you are HAPPY ... ??
Lets not talk about ur guest now... or your family... .. .. its not cool that they kicked you out.. of a public theatre??
Did this happen in America or some Hindi movie??? and then this stupid professor is all smiling that he had some dude watch movie with his family??
Co-coincidentally he had this popular guy... watch movie with his family.... and he was out typing a blog... while .. according to the constitution..... there was no reason to kick him out of the hall...
and being an american.... he did not ask to the COPS why.. coz ofcourse .. it was an illegal threat... that he was given... sad...
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 3:55 AM
That was linked earlier in the comments. I posted a comment there, but unsurprisingly, it has yet to show up.
there is a two link max limit if you want to avoid the comment being held for examination.
helps eliminate spam.
you can spread more than two links across multiple posts, however.
Posted by: Soapy Sam | March 21, 2008 3:59 AM
That's so good it almost makes me believe there IS a god!
Posted by: GrondramB | March 21, 2008 3:59 AM
Stuart Blessman:
Well, that's the good news. No science minded person is likely to ever again be interviewed by Ben Stein under the assumption that it will be even handed.
Mrs. Garrison will have more credibility going forward than Stein.
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 21, 2008 4:03 AM
Worst. South. Park. Ever.
Posted by: Pom | March 21, 2008 4:03 AM
I didn't realise you lived in Nazi Germany
Posted by: Quasarsphere | March 21, 2008 4:05 AM
Soapy Sam: "That's so good it almost makes me believe there IS a god!"
Well, I'm starting to think there may well be a Loki!
Posted by: iPhone Hellas | March 21, 2008 4:05 AM
Great Story! ILMAO :-)
Posted by: Milo Johnson | March 21, 2008 4:09 AM
"You won't let us teach it in school's, so we finally get to Kick you out."
---Let's stipulate that you idiot god-botherers are actually much better, nobler, and more honest people than we evil science types, and also that we are determined to not let you teach your creationist silliness in "school's." The problem you face is that YOU are the ones that say that educators should "teach the (manufactured) controversy."
If that is the case, then why don't you sort of, uh, practice what you preach, and let us come into your churches and teach science. After all, it's the only way to teach that controversy since we already stipulated that we won't let you do it in schools. Yet, I have yet to hear of any churches that teach real science classes. Why, pray tell, is that? Could it be because you are actually, you know, hypocrites and liars?
By the way, many, if not most of us, are more than willing to let your nonsense be discussed in religion classes, philosophy classes, in mythology, anthropology and sociology classes, it's just that we are not willing to permit you to parade your superstition as scientific data that is supported by any evidence.
And you obviously don't know very much about what goes on inside of a real school anyway, based upon your abysmal lack of literacy.
Posted by: GrondramB | March 21, 2008 4:09 AM
Worst South Park ever has to go the Virgin Mary episode although most recent Britney Spears episode may well have been the least funny.
Dawkins' response to the episode shows he has real sense of humor and is a good sport.
Posted by: Leigh | March 21, 2008 4:22 AM
@Milo (#715)
And by the way, Marcus, there IS no controversy -- at least among those of us in the reality-based community. We've actually studied the scientific evidence (at least some of it . . . there are so many thousands of peer-reviewed papers that no one could read them all), and we don't embrace willful ignorance.
Posted by: Reed | March 21, 2008 4:26 AM
@Ichthyic
I meant my comment on the Christianity Today blog had not appeared. What I was trying to say is that blog was linked here earlier (back at comment 580), and I attempted to comment on it.
Should my comment be Expelled from there, I'll CC it over on ATBC.
Posted by: Michael X | March 21, 2008 4:30 AM
Aw, Marcus. Really? That kind of reasoning makes me think you arn't even trying. At least put some effort into handwaving.
So, yes, why should we want to watch, and then dissect and demolish a propaganda movie that attempts to disable science and do massive educational damage by purporting that evolutionary theory is false? Boy, I just can't figure out why anyone would want to waste the effort. So, I guess it isn't true that you've shown abundant arrogance propped up by impressive ignorance. Well done.
EPIC FAIL Creationist. You're so wrong, you're not even playing.
Posted by: Reed | March 21, 2008 4:35 AM
Very interesting, my comment has not appeared, but the post at http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2008/03/dawkins_crashes.html
has
mutatedbeen intelligently modified to include links to this post and PZs most recent one.Posted by: Horwood Beer-Master | March 21, 2008 4:35 AM
Yesterday my job came to an end and I became freshly unemployed...
...Today I couldn't give a shit about employment - this is bloody hilarious!!!!!!!!!
Thanks Richard and PZ (and the numbskulls at "Expelled") you've made my day.
Posted by: FloridaAnon | March 21, 2008 4:45 AM
Also posting in an Epic thread.
Shorter PZ Myers (winner of an internet): "I got kicked out for the lulz."
Posted by: Eruvadhril | March 21, 2008 4:50 AM
*laughs and laughs*
Well done, sir.
Posted by: Dave Bell | March 21, 2008 4:52 AM
Probably too late now, but, from my own experience, I suspect you have to spoonfeed the media. However smart and clever the journalists you know personally, you have to sell the story to a system.
Which means you need to throw in lines such as "Professor Richard Dawkins, Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, England". It means you should consider the structure of an AP story, which puts the core in the first paragraph (for several reasons).
Amd, yes, the key point is that you're not being allowed to see the film you were interviewed for. Letting Richard Dawkins in just adds to the win, but it could distort the story. It would be easy to muddy the waters with academic status issues.
Posted by: scote | March 21, 2008 4:53 AM
Funny, my comment hasn't appeared on CT either, even though the post has been updated since my post :-)
However, the article still claims that "Jeffrey Overstreet, a film critic for CT Movies, broke the news on his own blog Thursday night after receiving an e-mail from a college student who was at the screening" Even though Overstreet wasn't informed of the event until **after the screening**. Whereas PZed "insta-blogged" about it during the screening. But then why should facts get in the way of a Christianity Today story...
BTW, I think one of the reasons that blowhard Stuart Blessman tried to claim that PZed was bothering "invited" attendees standing in line was that it didn't occur to Blessman that PZed was chatting with a **group** of friends and family he came with in line. Blessman seems to have assumed that PZed appeared lone-gunman style and that Blessman could get away with claiming that PZed was harassing people near him in line based on the false belief that they were ID True Believers. Wrong. More Epic Fail on the part of the ID crowd.
Posted by: Ramases | March 21, 2008 4:58 AM
It seems science is not the only thing the films' supporters are deluded about.
Amongst the other silly comment by Stuart Blessman is this...
"...the second question was asked by a surprise member of the audience: Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion," and arguably the biggest name in the movie other than Mr. Ben Stein himself."
Does this guy seriously think an idiot like Ben Stein is comparable to an eminent scientist like Richard Dawkins?
Posted by: John Flemming | March 21, 2008 5:14 AM
I can see the humour in the situation, but I also see a serious breach of Human Rights. Pulled from the queue to see a movie? I assume the movie is on 'general release' (ie, you pay your money, you get in)? This in the 'Land of the Free'?
Yeah, right, the same kind of freedom that theocrats want - you're free to do as you're told.
What a disgrace, to the shame of all America.
Posted by: Scote | March 21, 2008 5:17 AM
Um, no. You really should read the OP or the comment thread. The film is still pre-release. Hopefully, it will stay that way :-)
As to "Human Rights," if anything having to watch this drivel is the human rights violation, not the other w